Girlguiding - an update

[AgnesBadenPowell]

Firstly, apologies for being offline for a while. It's been a busy few weeks, I went on holiday and started a new job. But back on it now!

You'll know that an article was published in the Sunday Times in March and a couple of weeks later the open letter went in: the final tally was 927 signatures (some of these collected after publication).

Since then I met the CEO, deputy CEO and chief guide. Prior to that, I was warned in emails to use the internal procedures for complaints and to not make things public (I did, and was ignored). I was also "reminded" of the social media policy and told that the campaign would not change the trans policy.

It's probably not appropriate to share my full notes from that meeting here. But I will say that Girlguiding was defensive and prickly. The fact that I have publicly discussed the trans policy on social media in particular irritated Julie Bentley (CEO). I don't know why; the policy is a public document available on the website.

Girlguiding stressed to me that the legal advice they received confirmed that they HAVE to treat trans members (including those who self identify, not just with a GRC) as the opposite sex) as the gender they identify as.

We did agree that in the absence of a test case, there is no legal precedent. It was left that we would await the updated EHRC guidance expected next month before any review is conducted (if they chose to review it).

We did discuss the inconsistencies that the trans policy brings about, eg GG has strict rules that accompanying male children on leaders must have separate sleeping and washing facilities. Even boys as young as 4. But if that boy identified as a girl, then no such rules apply, despite there being no physical, material difference between the two groups of males. Girlguiding referred back to their legal advice that have to treat trans members as the gender they identify as. This includes males who identify as females providing personal care to girls on residentials, a role which is strictly for female leaders only according to GG's safeguarding policy.

We also discussed gender non confirming girls. There was an agreement that the language in the policy was rather clinical, and it could be interpreted as a strict instruction for a GNC girl to be removed from their unit. It was agreed that the policy language would be reviewed. This is particularly important as most trans issues within GG are, as you might expect, around girls who are transitioning.

One of the key issues for me is that girlguiding now offers single gender but mixed sex accommodation. I accept that the number of trans girls joining guides will be small compared to our overall membership - but it would only take one incident to cause huge harm to the children involved, their families and girlguiding. I suggested that GG might want to make the single gender / mixed sex aspect clearer, perhaps by adapting the standard consent form to advise parents that we don't guarantee single sex accommodation. Yet again, I was accused of wanting "out" individuals. That is not my intention at all.

I've heard nothing from girlguiding since. I will be following up on the action points. We will have a new CEO in June and updated EHRC guidance which will hopefully give all children equal rights to bodily privacy and autonomy, not just the trans kids.

I am really glad that the Charity Commission are looking at it. There will be a process around how a charity can legitimately change its charitable objects (ie the charity’s aims and who they say they exist to benefit).

I’m fairly sure the process isn’t ‘let’s just chuck a policy up on the website and block and ignore everyone who disagrees with it, then point to legal advice which only we have actually seen..’

It’s going to take abuse for this to be taken seriously isn’t it.
There is going to have to be someone raped before anyone cares.
And even then history tells me that no one really cares when women and girls are attacked.

Please understand that I am not saying for one moment that transwomen are rapists. Not for one second. What I am saying is that a rapist could pose as a transwomen.

This is why I think the EA needs updating, the exemptions need to be overhauled in order to ensure that single sex provision is upheld where it is wanted & usually provided, and it needs to be written in order to minimise the risk of legal action, because that is why so few use the exemptions.

Absolutely.

I think everyone needs to be aware that even though the current law includes sex as a protected characteristic and gender reassignment as another and there are exemptions re sex in making accommodations for gender reassignment all of this is highly dependent on what the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender reassignment’ mean.

This is why ‘keeping the sex category’ is pretty meaningless if sex now means ‘self professed gender identity’.

It is becoming ever more clear that actually changing the GRA is not the main issue. The main issue is changing the definition of the word ‘sex’ to include gender identity.

It is entirely possible that this has already happened and that actually sex based rights are already meaningless.

Don't be silly, drspouse, they don't have any male leaders who identify as women, they only have women leaders

See this is where "transwomen are women" leads us. It's why it's important to fight the mantra. Because once transwomen are women (anecdotally and then legally), then there will be a push that single-sex spaces are The Most Important Places On The Planet. We MUST retain single sex spaces at all costs (toilets, sports, GG etc etc).

We must retain them - and include transwomen in them. That's where we are going.

Basically women and girls are fucked.

What is the situation regarding a girl who identifies as a boy?.

She gets managed out Vicky. If she doesn’t “identify as a girl” whatever that means, she obviously shouldn’t be in GG. The leader is supposed to find a way to get rid.

Can she join the Boy Scouts?.

Offred, I posted on the previous page from the guidance notes...gender reassignment is a protected characteristic and the Act refers to reassigning the person’s sex.

In the Uk Scouting has been open to girls and boys for at a guess 25 years can't remember exactly.
So yes, they could join Scouts.

Until Jan 2017 Girlguiding was a single sex organisation for females, run by females. At that point the definition was changed from "sex" to gender - if you feel like a girl, you can join.

Yy I know. IMO the horse may well have already gone in 2004 with the GRA when it introduced the legal fiction of ‘sex change’.

What is happening re girl guides is simply an extension of that. The point where sex is considered to have changed due to gender identity is now becoming when someone says it has.

If self ID comes in it may simply be codifying what is already happening in practice.

Transwomen are men who wish to live their life as women. It doesn't matter how many times they repeat it they are still the same biological sex.

GG may be ahead of the legal approach or it may actually be making the changes because this is how sex is actually now defined.

‘Transwomen are women’ may not be a political aim but an actual legal reality already.

Sex doesn't change, you cannot actually change sex. You can be recognised in law mostly as though you are the opposite sex, but you still remain physically the same sex.

It is becoming ever more clear that actually changing the GRA is not the main issue. The main issue is changing the definition of the word ‘sex’ to include gender identity.

The thing is that if a male has a GRC they have the protected sex characteristic of female, no longer male. Which undermines the idea of male/female sex and related protections. So the GRA is important as the proposed changes codify self ID into law and self ID would massively increase the number of male people with female sex.

legal female sex

Yy eresh.

A GRC would be neither here nor there though in a self ID world. If you can change sex for all practical purposes; accessing services, in employment, in stats, on documents etc etc just by saying you have then there really are very few instances where you may want a GRC.

The legal fiction of sex change in the original GRA has opened the flood gates already.

Offred if you had a magic wand what would you do to protect the rights of women and girls at this point.

It is becoming ever more clear that actually changing the GRA is not the main issue. The main issue is changing the definition of the word ‘sex’ to include gender identity.

And if anyone hasn't seen the convoluted bollocks put together to justify the nonsensical, unjustifiable and dangerous change please read this exercise in self serving wordplay used to gaslight our leaders.

socresonline.org.uk/12/1/whittle.html

Bottle glass, glass bottle (Toomy Cooper for the young people).

They already don't need a GRC -

“A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.”3

 The Act protects people of all ages, regardless of whether they are children or adults.
 The characteristic applies to anyone who has proposed, started or completed a process to change his or her sex.4
 A person does not need to be under medical supervision to qualify for protection.
 Someone assigned female at birth who makes the transition to live as a man and a person assigned male at birth who makes the transition to live as a woman both share the characteristic of gender reassignment.

Yy that’s what I mean kyanite.

@AgnesBadenPowell thanks for all the incredible effort you're putting into this issue, and for the time you're taking to keep us informed here too.

You know what is getting up my nose most, right this second? The sheer, rank hypocrisy and deceitfulness that Girl Guiding is exhibiting here. They could have considered the current climate; felt that having to accept boys was becoming inevitable; consulted their members and so on on that basis, and become a mixed sex organisation (and therefore inclusive of all children no matter how they identify).

But no. They know that Guiding's single sex status is a huge part of its appeal to girls and to parents alike. They know single sex organisations are important for girls, But the current leadership want to suck up to men too, and they've decided that that is more important.

So they've decided to cheat and lie to all the women and girls that put so much into the organisation.

A GRC would be neither here nor there though in a self ID world. If you can change sex for all practical purposes; accessing services, in employment, in stats, on documents etc etc just by saying you have then there really are very few instances where you may want a GRC.

I think that most will get one though as then they are legally female and can claim sex discrimination for being a woman rather than male as they are without a GRC.