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.

Kyanite

The point I am trying to make is that legally they are still male without a GRC. Yes that makes little practical difference. But the more male bodied people who are members of the female sex legally (apart from the exemptions, which are the only difference) the more the idea of sex as biological reality for women is eroded. And sex based protections will be seen less as a female need. It's all related.

We absolutely need to be mindful of language and it's true meaning. For example, the GG website, in the section in equality and diversity, lists all 9 protected characteristics. The list refers to gender, not sex.

I pointed out this error several months ago. I was advised it would be changed but it's still there.

I agree with PP that the Equality Act has already legalised a complete fiction - that an individual can change sex, just on their say so.

In this environment it's not so hard to believe why a sympathetic lawyer might advise that all members must be treated as the sex they identify as.

Girlguiding should be at the forefront of campaigns to protect the legal status of the female sex class. Girlguiding was very involved in the "no more page 3" campaign. Why not this?

My point eresh is that they won’t necessarily even want or need access to sex discrimination. Gender reassignment/identity discrimination will remain important because it only applies to trans people. Sex discrimination may end up being totally meaningless because the sex categories will have mixed characteristics.

How sex discrimination is proven is by reference to the the characteristics of the group in a variety of ways re indirect discrimination. Most discrimination is indirect.

Potentially; While you may still have a sex discrimination claim if someone directly said to you that they were not employing you because you are a woman you would not if the organisation’s policies disadvantaged biological women as trans women are now female legally. An organisation that only employed men who said they were women and never biological women - would that even be sex discrimination? How would we be able to describe it as such?

Obviously this is extreme but we are already on this slippery slope.

Sex discrimination may end up being totally meaningless because the sex categories will have mixed characteristics.

Yes that was part of my point.

An organisation that only employed men who said they were women and never biological women - would that even be sex discrimination? How would we be able to describe it as such?

Exactly.

This is the worrying part;

2015 guidance from the Gov

The Equality Act 2010 says that organisations may treat people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment differently in very particular and limited circumstances.
The key areas in which people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment may be treated differently under the law are:
 Some competitive sport.
 The provision of separate and single sex services.
 Religious marriage services.
 Insurance contracts.
 Communal accommodation.
It is advisable for an organisation always to seek ways to enable full inclusion and only use the exceptions if no other option can be found. Under no circumstances should the allowable exceptions be treated as something an organisation should do.

Unclear guidance introduced in 2015 to clarify how sex is applied which gives the impression that self ID gender ID overrides sex based exemptions now.

It certainly wouldn't be sex discrimination if all those men had a GRC, which I think is pretty likely under the new proposals.

Unclear guidance introduced in 2015 to clarify how sex is applied which gives the impression that self ID gender ID overrides sex based exemptions now.

YY. It's all going against women. I'd imagine familiar trans organisations had a hand in that guidance.

So why purposefully target an organisation that is supposed to be just just for girls? It smacks of trying to prove a point, to validate an untruth, whilst simultaneously not giving one fuck about who you are negatively affecting.

Yes, the so-called 'validation' aim. But this has been the theme through all of it, including using the women's toilets. As many have said previously, we may have been polite in the past, but we (usually) did notice.

But now the entire atmosphere has changed. The TRA are making a very big deal that 'they belong there (women's spaces) and you cannot do anything about it'. That is aggressive infiltration into women's spaces. Or rather, a hostile takeover.

I would say it is this guidance that needs to be challenged TBH. It’s guidance rather than law so it can be.

Organisations will be relying on the guidance to help them interpret the their responsibilities under the law.

Agnes: When I met JB, I questioned the secrecy aspects of the policy and was immediately slapped down. She didn't want me to use the world secret because it implies covering things up.

If one was not doing anything secretive, one would not be offended and laugh it off. But the whole "don't use the word", means hand caught in the cookie jar.

On a practical level, what can we do under the law as it stands now to protect girls? My concern is that there are children who are at immediate risk of harm - not just in GG but in other youth organisation, schools, which take an "inclusive" approach.

Social services, the NSPCC - they've all been targeted by trans lobbyists. Where can we go with these concerns?

Offred

Yes I agree. But that would mean getting them to respect the rights of women and girls. I think the safeguarding angle has to be the way to go.

How about MP Jess Philips?

Basically women and girls are fucked.

Literally and figuratively.

Yes we do lose sex discrimination against us with this.

I was expecting Jess Phillips to be vocal on this...she certainly is on everything else! But no, not a peep that I have noticed.

We can write to our MPs about this guidance, it is creating "bad law"...I don't know if that will get us anywhere but I am sure a lot have no idea what it says!

GG does include sex in protected characteristics on website so at least they have changed that:

"Who is covered by the Equality Act?
The Equality Act protects people from being discriminated against based on their:

age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation.
These are known as protected characteristics."

Underneath is a confusing thing:
"Does this mean that Girlguiding will let boys join in future?
No. Providing a girl-only space is key to what Girlguiding offers. Since this girl-only space is a way of achieving our aims of enabling girls and young women to develop their potential, it would not be seen as discrimination."

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Um, I hate to say it but I can think of one good reason why boys identifying as girls might want to join guides. I don't think they should but they too are being exploited by the TRAs. If they have grown up female they are likely to want to join with their friends who are also joining.

I think at that age it isn't always about the validation but about friendships. Their desire to keep the friendships intact is being used for a TRA agenda, but the children themselves may be innocent. As I say, I don't agree with this being enough of a reason to overrule the EA and GG's own remit but I do understand it. I also think that GG does not introduce new members in batches so it's unlikely they would join at the same time as their friends, but if they are being told how great it is, and if the girls they have grown up with believe the child to be a boy, I can understand it would be hard. Joining a Scout group where you know no one is hard. Joining anything when you know no one is. I can't blame anyone for wanting to avoid that.

The point in trying to make is that most of these trans kids, at least ones who have been trans for a long time, are likely to be innocents in this. Doesn't mean the policies should change or that the risks GG are currently taking should be ignored, just that these kids are being used too. For the TRAs it is about validation and changing same sex places. For most of the kids it's about being kids.

I was expecting Jess Phillips to be vocal on this...she certainly is on everything else! But no, not a peep that I have noticed.

She is not entirely supportive of the gender critical viewpoint, and when she has spoken out at times and for example suggested the Woman's Place list of aims were reasonable she got lots of shit from transactivists and allies. The Labour wokebro contingent don't like her anyway.

Thanks, OP. And thank you for your fight. Whilst I have no direct skin in the game as far as GGs go, this is a fight for the bigger picture. (well, for the tra's it is, so therefore it is for us).

This article baffles me www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10043486/Meet-Julie-Bentley-Girl-Guides-never-seemed-so-cool.html

Everything in there is so connected to feminism and joined up and what I stand for. And then this policy happens. Where has the centering of girls gone? It just shows that without a firm foundation acknowledging the why of the oppression of women, the resulting feminism is built on sand.

Sardine

I think they're talking about sex discrimination, i.e. that they can legally be a single sex organisation under the EA. Even though they aren't.

@SardineReturns thanks for that. It wasn't the last time I looked. That is something, at least!

Eresh >> yes . highly illogical. They won't let boys in unless they say they are a girl on that day of the week in which case fine.

Agnes - something at least.

There was somewhere else ages ago that had replaced the word sex with gender when listing protected chaarcteristic, I think it was one of the councils. I find this really worrying as it's a cut n paste job so people are actively deleting sex and writing gender instead, and misquoting the law, for ??? , gender reassignment is on there in its own right. To remove sex? Just... ?? really

I think what Sardine and I are getting at is that GG erroneously listed the PC of gender rather than sex on their page discussing the Equality Act.

What I don't understand is how GG can use the section about Associations in the EA to lawfully be a single sex organisation and then go on to discriminate against members of that sex class, who also have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

By definition, a trans girl has to be male. All Male children are lawfully excluded from GG. So how can it be argued that males with the PC of gender reassignment can be allowed to join, but other males can't?

Would this ever be argued with another PC eg excluding males unless the male has the PC of disability or sexual orientation?