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 a reply from them at the end of last month. I asked what provisions they would make for my daughter who is unable to be intimate spaces for religious reasons and also safety issues.

Here is part of their reply (there are some details in the rest of the email which might be identifying.)

“Girlguiding is an inclusive organisation and is committed to being open and providing equality of opportunity for all girls and young women. We do not make decisions based on presumptions of what people from different cultures may or may not think about any aspect of guiding, the principles it upholds or its policies. Decisions are based on giving any girl who wishes to attend guiding the option to be part of our wonderful charity.

We will always support any young person who wishes to take part in guiding and no one protected characteristic is more important that another. We often work on a case by case basis to ensure a more bespoke approach for any of our young members that require it. If your daughter does become a member of Girlguiding and does have any specific needs or requirements we would encourage you to discuss them with your daughter’s unit leader who will do her best to ensure that her needs are met.”

GGUK could have challenged the need to admit transgirls. They were a single sex organisations. They chose to see themselves as single gender. They just didn't want to challenge it.
Even if met with objections there is so much evidence of the need for girls to have a single-sex space. They would have won.
I don't think their hands were tied I think they tied them. I could be wrong but that is how it appears.

I don't think their hands were tied I think they tied them.

The problem is that GGUK took advice about the admission of transgirls from Gendered Intelligence. GI, like GIRES and Mermaids, have an agenda. They are not impartial and have their own interpretation of the Equality Act. If GGUK had taken advice from impartial lawyers who were experts on equality issues and who took safeguarding into account, they would not be in this position.

I can see the gamble: if an assault takes place, and parents sue, their liability insurer will provide coverage provided GG hasn’t broken any laws.

Aren't there laws that say that sleeping accommodation and toilet and washing facilities should be single sex? I can't find anything that would apply directly to GG, but I found this document about minimum standards for boarding schools.

Where boarders are aged 8 years or over, sleeping accommodation for boys is separate from sleeping accommodation for girls.

Separate toilet facilities are provided for boys and girls unless each toilet facility is provided in a separate room intended for use by one pupil at a time, the door to which is capable of being secured from inside.

Is there something similar for organisations like GG? Is statutory guidance legally binding?

With respect to transwomen leaders surely that is illegal as they are then discriminating against a group of males based on their gender status?

I agree about the fear of lawsuits (and well monied bodies who would be delighted to step up and fund them to advance the agenda.)

The thing is this is the same as all the threads in AIBU/Chat/Relationships that run along the line 'my dh always does what toxic x family member wants no matter how upset I get'. The advice is always 'because you are the easier one to upset, and stick to the social contract in your behaviour'. This all relies on women tutting and muttering and glaring a bit but basically following their female socialisation and putting up, shutting up, trying to mediate and doing all the leg work to compensate.

Women have to stop being the easy one to annoy and upset. More women need to start failing at female socialisation.

It would have been better if they had let it go to court. Most people would have just shaken their head at a single-sex organisation being challenged in this way and I am sure a judge would have too. Guiding parents would have fund raised and lobbied their MPs to keep the organisation single sex and it would have set an important legal precedent. Also the optics on this for the TRAs would not have been good. Throwing so much effort to get men and boys into Guides. Instead it seems that quietly and behind closed doors they simply rolled over and something very precious was lost.

Also a big thanks to agnes and the other guide leaders who stuck their necks out on this and really tried to challenge it.

My understanding is that there is no legal allowance to have a single "gender" organisation ie admit some boys but not others and some girls but not others.

Have they addressed this?

Their insistence on passing all the issues arounnd conflicting "protected characteristics" and safeguarding and so on, onto local leaders who are volunteers, will likely to know chapter and verse on all this stuff, is weak. And passing on a hot potato from the leadership who SHOULD be taking responsibility and have the money for lawyers and so on, to people who are way down the food chain.
It also means there will be no consistency in how this is approached between different groups.
What a fucking mess.

Why are they bothering with their research? They dont' give a fuck about cunty people, just penis people. Go and ask them their experience of sexism in school.

After reading about the people who have been locked in women's prisons on EXACTLY teh same logic as GG are using, I have lost patience with this.

GG is a group that centres men and boys, now.

At leadership level.

The people on the ground are great but once these changes are bedded in it will be 2 seconds until it's "say hello to david, david is your new female guide leader, david is dressed as a bear today as is their preference, you can call david balloo while you're away on your guide weekend".

My understanding is that there is no legal allowance to have a single "gender" organisation ie admit some boys but not others and some girls but not others.

Legally, a male-born child is still male, even if he 'identifies as' a girl, since he is not eligible for a GRC. He has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Therefore if he is allowed to join GG, another boy without the PC of gender reassignment would be discriminated against unfairly if he could not join GG. So GG must now be open to all boys.

I think that's how it works, but I am not a lawyer.

Nothing on Telly
If the changes are 'bedded in',the movement will die,its inevitable.
I'm a retired Guider and parents are very much involved, particularly at Brownie and Rainbow level,they will immediately see the risk .
Leaders are volunteers with next to no experience of trans or safeguarding issues.a friend who has been a leader for over 50 years recently attended 'third level' safeguarding training by GG.Her enquiry about how leaders might cope with some of the issues that will inevitably arise from men and boys joining as women/girls was met with 'it'll all be fine'.
Parents will not allow their girls to join, why would they?

So, when the inevitable happens and there is "an incident" who will be legally liable?
Will GGHQ pick up the flack or will it be the poor local leader whose risk assessment will be picked to bits?
I know which my money's on.

I for one would walk away from my group rather than take that risk, after 25 years as a leader.

Her enquiry about how leaders might cope with some of the issues that will inevitably arise from men and boys joining as women/girls was met with 'it'll all be fine'.

Is that supposed to be 'training'? Is she now 'qualified' to make judgements about males joining as leaders and guides on a 'case by case' basis?

OldCrone >>
Yes that's my understanding as well.

So I guess GGUK now means Gender Guiding.....what a fucking mess

The Trustees of charities are legally responsible, they can’t palm that off on to volunteers.

But I bet they will try to. We all have to do "safe space" traininghaha and write risk assessments.
But if you can't call a teen with a penis male, how do you asses the risk?

Aren't there laws that say that sleeping accommodation and toilet and washing facilities should be single sex? I can't find anything that would apply directly to GG, but I found <a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/416186/20150319_nms_bs_standards.pdf" target="_blank">this document about minimum standards for boarding schoolss**.
*
Where boarders are aged 8 years or over, sleeping accommodation for boys is separate from sleeping accommodation for girls.*
*
Separate toilet facilities are provided for boys and girls unless each toilet facility is provided in a separate room intended for use by one pupil at a time, the door to which is capable of being secured from inside.*

Is there something similar for organisations like GG? Is statutory guidance legally binding?*

The trouble with that is the use of the words "boys" and "girls". When that document was composed, nobody had any doubts what those words meant. Now we are expected to believe that girls can have penises and boys can have vaginas. The words "boys" and "girls" are now verging on meaningless.

GGUK are, AFAIAA, following exactly those guidelines: anyone describing themselves as "boy" is provided separate facilities to anyone describing themselves as "girl".

Remember, also, that this applies even more extremely to the Guides themselves: transboys are to be encouraged to leave entirely.

Hello everyone. Long term lurker here. Sorry I'm so late to join the party.

In their reply to Sprouty, GG states the following: "as a girl-only organisation Girlguiding simply does not have the legal rights to exclude young trans people from Girlguiding, and nor would we wish to." This is untrue. EHRC Guidance for Service Users Vol 1entitled "Your rights to equality as a member, associate member or guest of an association, club or society" states the following: "an association (except for a political party) may, if it chooses, restrict its membership to people who share a protected characteristic." The guidance goes on to give several examples i.e. a female only club (sex not gender); a club for transgender people only; and a club for gay men only. Girlguiding has chosen to include male-bodied trans people in the membership; they should not lie to justify that decision.

They also state "in the criteria for applying exceptions is that decisions must not in any way be made on the basis of discrimination." This is disingenuous. The exceptions cannot be applied as a default situation simply because a person is trans. That would be unlawful discrimination. However, the exceptions are by their very nature discriminatory, because they are exceptions to the law not to discriminate. They can be applied in very limited circumstances as a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. Proportionate means the least discriminatory means of achieving the legitimate aim, which includes the safety, privacy and dignity for girls and woman. When considering the least discriminatory approach they must consider the impact on everyone. Girlguiding's statement implies that they cannot legally exclude a male bodied trans person from a female space as this would be discriminatory. This is ridiculous. Why do they think these exceptions (in primary legislation) exist in the first place?

Girlguiding then state "in a small number of cases we've had of this nature, we've offered appropriate support to help create a suitable environment for all girls to enjoy the guidance experience." What on earth does this mean? Was it the least discriminatory approach? These weasel words do nothing to allay concerns about the published policy which continues to ignore safeguards and is driving members away. Their latest response provides further evidence that Girlguiding has either been seriously misled or they are wilfully misinterpreting the law.

If they were not breaking the law prior to 2017 why would they be now? They made a decision, by their own admission a 'small number' of transgirls (at the moment, watch this space) and probably outnumbered by those unhappy for their own daughters. Am I talking sense here?

Personally I think that Guiding leadership, in particular Julia Bentley, the former CEO, and her cronies have used GGUK to further their own agenda.

Guiding should not be political and could absolutely have rejected the tra agenda but the leadership choose not to.

Interestingly, in 2011, Guiding robustly defended being a female in the original sense of the world only organisation
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356075/Teenage-boy-wanted-join-Girl-Guides-accuses-organisation-sexual-discrimination-turned-away.html