Another Girlguiding update

[AgnesBadenPowell]

I've been a bit quiet lately. I'm under investigation, which I can't discuss in any detail, although my membership is now at risk. In the meantime, I'm still a leader and Girlguiding has not changed its stance on trans issues. The following is a bit of a stream of consciousness but I'm feeling quite troubled by it and need to let it out! I'd also be interested in what parents of rainbows think.

I took my rainbows on a sleepover this weekend. It was great! It also really bought home to me the risks posed by the trans policy. I feel quite upset and tearful about it.

We had 20 rainbows in a church hall. Three women leaders, including me, also slept in the main hall - at one end, out of the way, with our own sleeping mats and bags etc - but in the same room. The other women leaders slept in an adjoining room (more of a lobby really).

The adults used the gents toilets and the girls used the ladies and disabled facilities. Despite this some girls weren’t too bothered and just changed in the hall! One nosy rainbow followed me into the gents - luckily I was only brushing my teeth and not changing - and of course I shooed her out.

How would a set up like this (which is pretty common) work with a trans child or adult? We could look for new venues with more rooms/options but Girlguiding’s stance is that the trans child and adult should use the facilities of their chosen gender. And if parents aren’t aware of the single gender/mixed sex policy, they aren’t in a position to complain or take their children out.

On a personal note, the two other leaders in the hall are women that I don’t know very well. One of them I’ve only met once before, she’s a brownie leader who came to help so we met our ratios. My sleeping mat was right next to hers as there wasn’t much space. It was fine but I could not have done this with a self identified (ie male at birth) transwoman. I don’t know any woman who would feel safe sleeping right next to a male bodied person they had only met once before. And I should never, ever be expected to do so. For all the make up, dresses, female names, most transwomen do not have bottom surgery and retain their male genitalia. I would never be expected to share sleeping accommodation with a man I don’t know (or even ones I do - I’m not sharing a room with my male colleague on a business trip next week) so why would it be acceptable in Girlguiding, provided the male said he feels female?

It really hit home that it’s only fair and reasonable to expect people of the same sex to share spaces like this. I really don’t want to make trans people feel bad or left out - but my dignity, my girls dignity and privacy, is every bit as important as theirs.

I had heard, elsewhere, that the CEO of the girl guides, Julie Bentley, and the leader of the NUS, Simon Blake, were good friends.

Simon Blake is also a trustee of Stonewall. (Who are pro the entire trans ideology from start to finish.)

Here is a photo of Simon and Julie in 2012 at something called the sexual health awards.

Has Simon provided Julie with one-sided information?

A thought for GGHQ. When the experienced and trusted leaders start to leave or are banned who will replace them. Biological women or a different sort of woman?

Julia Bentley is leaving www.girlguiding.org.uk/what-we-do/our-stories-and-news/news/farewell-to-chief-executive-julie-bentley/

And being replaced by her deputy Ruth Marvel, whose twitter account says she is passionate about social change.

But look where she's going......if she's willing to throw females to the wolves via guides, is she fit to be involved with children anywhere else? The seeds of doubt have been sown....

It's always a depressing start to the day to be reminded of organisations like the GG that have such dangerous safeguarding procedures.

However, it makes me determined to finish my letters various MPs today.

OK I haven't read all the thread and I understand concerns but I wondered how do groups which are mixed like Scouts manage?

I'm just wondering as when mine went on a sleep over in the local church hall in Beavers and then later on camp in scouts they had mixed male and female leaders and they gave the girls individual tents so that they had privacy.

Now they are one of two girls in Cadets, the rest being boys with all male leaders and will go on camp shortly so I presume something similar will happen.

For the GG leadership monitoring this thread: my niece and her two little friends wanted to join Rainbows.

I showed my sister this thread, and she in turn shared with the other two parents. They has all believed that Guiding was a single sex organisation which promoted, and centred, girls.

The girls won't be joining Rainbows while there are such gaping holes around safeguarding young women and girls.

As AgnesBadenPowell says: "In the post Savile, Rotherham, Kids Company, Oxfam, Save the Children, Mesmac etc world, I find it incredulous that the priority seems to be reputation management and ideology, rather than addressing the safeguarding and child protection concerns."

awfulness GG claims to be a single sex organisation. Scouts is mixed. You send your kids there knowing its mixed sex. If you had cultural, religious or just personal reasons to avoid sending your daughter to mixed sex scouts, and instead chose the Girl Guides based on it being female only........would you be happy to be told they were camping with male bodied trans women and trans girls? Or wotrse, NOT being told, and only finding out afterwards, when your daughter tells you? They're not telling parents in advance and are therefore removing choice.

Also Scouts provide single sex sleeping arrangements and the arrangements are open and transparent (from my understanding, not involved myself) whereas Guides no longer provides single sex sleeping arrangements and will not tell parents about sleeping arrangements.

Scouts have similar issues with transparency and safeguarding issues with their trans policies afaik

As far as I know, she's been told that the guidelines MUST be followed. That means she would be breaking their guidelines if she informed parents that a child or leader is trans. She's not allowed to inform them, because that's not fair to the trans child or leader. It makes them stand out, and makes them vulnerable.

This is what the GRA says about disclosure:

22 Prohibition on disclosure of information
(1)It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person.
(2)“Protected information” means information which relates to a person who has made an application under section 1(1)

Section 1(1) is application for a GRC, so it would not apply to anyone who had neither obtained, nor applied for, a GRC. It therefore would not apply to a child (under 18).

(4)But it is not an offence under this section to disclose protected information relating to a person if—
(a)the information does not enable that person to be identified

So the parents could be informed that a transgender child or adult would be present, without naming that person. This would be OK even if the adult had a GRC, as long as they were not identified.

That's my understanding, but I am not a lawyer.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

Old Crone that would only apply to leaders with a GRC.

So not children as they can't get one.

And a very small number of intact adult males, all of whom would have had to go through diagnosis etc to get GRC.

Wanderabout

My point was that disclosure is legal if:

• The person is under 18 (therefore no GRC), or
• Over 18 but has no GRC and has not applied for one, or
• The person is not identified (whether or not they have a GRC).

So the 'no disclosure' stance of the GG seems to have no legal basis, and telling parents that a transgender person will be present (without naming them) is legal. This would protect the children involved without 'outing' the transgender person.

Exactly OldCrone - giving parents full relevant information prior to residential trips does not result in any confidential disclosure if handled correctly, and it allows parents to make informed decisions about and on behalf of their child.

GG appear to have sufficiently tied themselves up in enough knots to apparently believe that trans ID = exemption from risk assessment or safeguarding procedures. Or have been tied up in knots by people with a specific agenda that effectively removes risk assessment & safeguarding - who could possibly have an interest in removing safeguarding & risk assessments when it comes to overnight sleepovers involving female children? 😒

I'll pass that info on to my friend OldCrone, thank you. I still think, from what she's told me, that GG would come down heavily on anyone who doesn't toe their line (as demonstrated by the OP), but if their line isn't the legal one then at least the law is on the side of those who can, and do, raise concerns. That's the real stinker - it seems that merely raising a concern and asking some questions, actually just asking GG themselves for clarification, is enough to get you into hot water.

Ah sorry Old Crone I misunderstood. Yes agree with all your points.

That's something I've been asking for - a clear but generic statement on every consent form to the effect that GG is single gender, not single sex and we don't necessarily offer single sec accommodation. If it's on every form as standard, there could never be any insinuation that leaders are referring to specific children. And, you know, because it's an accurate reflection of the GG policy.

If girls safety and privacy isn't enough to prompt a pause and review, I wonder if the prospect of false allegations would. By keeping secrets,it doesn't take a huge leap to be in a situation where a transgirl or transwoman leader is falsely accused of impropriety, which could have recasting consequences for all involved.

That's something I've been asking for - a clear but generic statement on every consent form to the effect that GG is single gender, not single sex and we don't necessarily offer single sec accommodation. If it's on every form as standard, there could never be any insinuation that leaders are referring to specific children. And, you know, because it's an accurate reflection of the GG policy.

This would be so simple. There is NO reason not to do that. It would need to be crystal clear about what normal safeguarding practice would be ignored, including all the specific things an intact adult male might be able to do as a self-id female leader. No hiding behind the post-op myth.

I think we all know the reason that GG are steadfastly refusing to either publicise their now mixed sex policy, and disregard safeguarding and/or risk assessments - their membership would nose dive. It hasn't yet because so few parents are aware. No parent would knowingly place their child in a situation which breaches their dignity, privacy or safety purely because an adult human male identifying as a woman wants their biological sex disregarded as irrelevant when it comes to standard safeguarding for those children. Anyone with any interest in doing so, IMO, is questionable and shouldn't be anywhere near those children.

Trans identified adults and children are not inherently suspicious or a danger. They're just like the rest of the population who are subject to the standard rules & processes on safeguarding and risk assessments - those who insist on secrecy, lying by omission to other parents/leaders/children, and who would insist their are above safeguarding or risk assessments are absolutely both suspicious and a potential danger.

It's absurd that GG are being wilfully ignorant on this.

telling parents that a transgender person will be present (without naming them) is legal.
This is how I will be operating.

I think what would happen in my group is either a parent or one of the girls would simply ask a direct question. If we had a transgirl or trans Leader someone would either ask them, or one of the other Leaders directly - I just cannot see how it would go unnoticed or unremarked on. Groups draw from the local area, none of the girls in my group are strangers to each other - they have overlapping friendship groups, schools, activities and so on. It might be different in big cities, but small towns/villages - people know each other and talk to each other.
I doubt GG training would equip you for being specifically asked if someone was trans in a way you could answer without accidentally giving it away!

There is a perception that all children in a unit already know each other. That's true to an extent but not in all cases - in my unit at one point we had girls from 6 schools (inner city, mix of state and private). Girlguiding was the only way some of them knew each other. Anecdotally, girls are increasingly travelling bigger distances to get to a meeting as there just aren't enough adult volunteers to lead.

Girlguiding also puts on a number of district, county and regional events - camps, overseas trips, big gig, wellies and wristbands. Hundreds and hundreds of children could be present, sharing sleeping, washing and dressing facilities with other girls they don't know.

What would a parent think if their daughter came home from a trip to Our Cabaña or Our Chalet and told you there was a transgirl sharing her facilities and dormitory, and no one was advised in advance that this was a possibility, or given the chance to request a private room?

It will happen - Our Cabaña and Our Chalet both operate a policy of self ID and they won't advise any other guests staying there either.

Even if the children do all know each other, it doesn't mean that they will be informing their parents about stuff (things that the parents would think important, I mean). Perhaps because the children don't see those things as important in the same way as their parents would, but also (if my memory of being that age is typical) because the whole point is that somewhere like Guides is the beginning of an independent space IYSWIM, it's somewhere that from the child's point of view isn't particularly one's parents' business.

Agnes, I do think that your point about "I wonder if the prospect of false allegations would" should surely be worth pressing GG on. My experience of safeguarding is from a school (governor) perspective but in that situation it's very much the case that it's recognised that robust, transparent and rigorous safeguarding policies and processes protect adults in that way. And that it's a vital benefit of those processes and procedures.

I was a Brownie and Guide as a child but that was a while ago now and I have no involvement, or involved children, these days. It seems wrong to put all this onto you (and the other posters here) that are still part of Guiding but I don't think GG take any notice at all of general members of the public on this (my email asking / questioning this got a couple of standard responses and end of).

Not that they're taking any notice of you either, but you know what I mean ...

By "asking / questioning this" I mean, the new policy in general, not specific questions about safeguarding / false allegations.

Leaders have asked, have emailed and have spoken to hq.
We get stock answers- if you persist and go public, you get investigated for bringing Guiding in to disrepute.