Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Girlguiding expels leaders who question trans policy

770 replies

AgnesBadenPowell · 23/09/2018 01:04

Well, I guess I knew this was coming. Dissent will not be tolerated. Forget the safety concerns, the privacy and dignity issues, the managing out of gender non-confirming girls. What's really serious is one leader referring to another leader "a nightmare" in a private conversation.

Girl Guide leaders expelled for questioning trans policy

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/34139ed0-bea5-11e8-8d21-451ec1df6b83

Two Guide leaders who had raised safeguarding concerns about the organisation’s transgender policy have been expelled and had their units closed down.

Dozens of children face disappointment because there is no one else to run the units. The expelled leaders say they will take legal action against Girlguiding if their removals are upheld.

Helen Watts, one of 12 leaders who signed a letter to The Sunday Times in April asking for a review of the policy, was told on Friday that her membership was being terminated after more than 15 years with the Guides.

At least one other signatory, based in the northwest of England, was expelled. Documents seen by The Sunday Times suggest disciplinary investigations have been launched against at least five Guide leaders.

[Edited by MNHQ to remove copyright materiel]

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
GirlScout72 · 25/09/2018 16:05

To clarify re EHRC

They have pulled GG up on lack of clarity on their website in how membership criteria are being expressed (I know it's confusing, the whole things a wibbly wobbly world of contradiction).

FPFW's original letter to EHRC is pretty much summarised by their original report fairplayforwomen.com/guide-leaders-call-for-halt/

That was checked by three barristers and five safeguarding experts, all concuring with FP's view. However, that's no guarantee that lawyers at the other end will take the same view, the only way you'd get a ruling one way or the other is through the courts.

EHRC then replied, that letter is not yet in the public domain as work is still on going, however EHRC said GG's website was confusing and they needed to change it re membership criteria - to make it clear they admit girls (sex) and some males (gender reassignement, ie transgirls). Transwomen with a GRC have ALWAYS been able to apply as leaders.

Then a parent also wrote to the EHRC - not sure how much of that correspondence is here.

The two letters are different in tone, and emphasis, and from a first glance, possibly interpretation but both now need going over with a fine tooth comb.

And I know, I know, the thread could run for years with all the permutations of what this all means, but until this whole process has run, it's best not to speculate too much about what the EHRC said or didn't say.

You can see what Dr Nic said about the whole GG affair here: twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1043739310325936129

There is no case law in this area, we're in the realm of legal opinion, which basically means one lawyer says this, another bats it back with that. EHRC as you know are a public body charged with INTERPRETING equality law, and helping organisations implement it, so they and their legal experts take a view on what they think the courts would be likely to do, or how they would likely perceive a situation, or what they think the EA permits etc, so the EHRC gives an opinion ...

I haven't read this whole thread, so apologies if I've repeated someone else's replies, busy day so this is a bit of a hit and run post, but the bit from the EHRC that Dr Nic tweeted about is GG's website - that it lacks clarity re membership criteria.

EndOfDiscOne · 25/09/2018 16:07

Catquest - the attitude that it shows to safeguarding concerns and potential whistleblowers is exactly why I'm going to be getting my daughters out of the organisation. It's not so much the TRA infiltration that I'm immediately concerned with (although that worries me in terms of future events and the incredibly poor screening for who they're taking advice on board for appals me), but it's the attitude of "these people are raising concerns about how our policies are going to be potentially putting children in our care at risk... do we listen to their concerns and follow a sensible process of examining them... or do we just go on a purge of them from the organisation and hope it all shuts up?" After all the very high profile safeguarding failures - pretty much every organisation is running training with the whole "if you're concerned about anything SPEAK UP" message being drummed in loud and clear (obviously varying according to processes and policies in the organisation in question). Meanwhile GGUK is following the "you think this might be putting the safety of our girls at risk... GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE" process instead. THAT worries me greatly.

It's that, coupled with the fact that GGUK have essentially removed the ability of parents and carers to make INFORMED consent regarding letting girls go on residentials etc and are openly taking the policy line of "just lie to them - they're all bigoted eejits and we know better" which again concerns me.

Yeah Scouting has had problems as well but they don't seem to have this whole "DO NOT QUESTION" and "PARENTS ARE IDIOTS" attitude running through the higher echelons at the moment that GGUK has developed in their desperate attempt to look all fluffy and inclusive and collect logos to shove on their letterheads.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 25/09/2018 16:14

they needed to change it re membership criteria - to make it clear they admit girls (sex) and some males (gender reassignement, ie transgirls)

Surely this would be discrimination based on sex?

Coyoacan · 25/09/2018 16:16

Very eloquently put EndOfDiscOne and totally on the ball.

GirlScout72 · 25/09/2018 16:24

It'sAllGoingToBeFine - yes that's what FPFW argued as you will see in the original report, that it's discriminatory to boys who don't have the characteristic of gender reassignment. Barristers FP worked with also agreed. That doesn't mean barristers at the other end also agreed, as we're now in legal opinion territory.

However, there are, if you think about it, some organisations which are two characteristic - ironically LBGT orgs themselves - LBG = sexual orientation and T = gender reassignment.

So the EHRC takes a view or formulates an opinion on what view they feel the courts would be LIKELY to take, and how rigid an interpretation they would be likely to apply to EA.

As I said, there are TWO EHRC replies, the second does confirm GG could CHOOSE to invoke the single sex exemptions, however, the question is (which is the realm we are in) is it legal for them to not do so but limit to only two characteristics?

To be honest, it makes my head hurt! But that's where we are. I'm sure FPFW will update once they've got into the nitty gritty of it all.

Catquest1 · 25/09/2018 16:26

Absolutely. Thats really where GG have failed. The message to keep quiet is such a terrible one for every single child in any situation - let alone far that message extends within their organisation (bullying, cohesion)

Catquest1 · 25/09/2018 16:29

Its the "hiding" aspect i really dont like. The whole "keeping secrets". It goes against ebery afeguarding message out there. There is such a fine line between protecting privacy and collusion.

EndOfDiscOne · 25/09/2018 18:15

Am on phone buried under sleeping child but very lengthy gguk mass email to all members just landed in inbox if someone has it to paste.

Redkeyboard · 25/09/2018 18:20

Its the "hiding" aspect i really dont like. The whole "keeping secrets". It goes against ebery afeguarding message out there. There is such a fine line between protecting privacy and collusion.*

It's utterly wrong.

Who would a girl feel able to talk to if something happened and her parents are not supposed to be told?

EndOfDiscOne · 25/09/2018 18:21

Gist of email:
Awe poor trans kids.
Big bad naughty leaders
We've taken advice (sources unspecified)
If you argue you're a nasty bigot undertone.

GirlguidingSafeguarding · 25/09/2018 18:35

and

it really hurts us when you all say mean things to us

hiveofmumsandvillainy · 25/09/2018 18:40

Just received the email. Patronising, belittling, pile of tripe that utterly minimises the issues Angry

AppleKatie · 25/09/2018 18:41

That email makes me sadder Sad how far into the sand are their heads?

hiveofmumsandvillainy · 25/09/2018 18:42

In the last few days you may have seen that Girlguiding’s Equality and Diversity policy has been criticised in the media, with accusations that our inclusion of trans members puts girls at risk. It does not.

The safety, wellbeing and happiness of our members is at the heart of everything we do in Girlguiding and has been for over 100 years.

We are therefore writing to all our members and parents of our young members to set the record straight. Keeping girls, young women and our adult volunteers safe is our number one priority. We’re really proud of our robust safeguarding procedures which apply to everyone and underpin everything volunteers and girls do in guiding. We are deeply saddened that anyone would suggest that we would knowingly put our young members at risk.

As an organisation we pride ourselves on caring for every individual. Simply being transgender does not make someone more of a safeguarding risk than any other person.

Every individual and group is different, so we train and support our volunteers to assess every situation - balancing the needs of all our members, both girls and adults, so everyone can enjoy their guiding experience in a way they feel comfortable with. Our universal policies ensure that all volunteers are required to safeguard and assess risk for all activities on a case by case basis to comply with those policies and procedures.

We’ve been responding directly to practical questions from volunteers and parents about how we can balance the needs of all our members, and we are always happy to offer bespoke support to any leader or parent, including on transgender inclusion.

It is important to us that we listen to girls and young women, 86% of whom have told us, through the Girls’ Attitudes Survey, that they do not think people should be discriminated against because they are transgender.

Girlguiding’s policies, procedures and Volunteer Code of Conduct ensure that all our volunteers understand their roles and responsibilities to treat others with respect, keep everyone safe, and deliver great experiences for girls and young women.

We therefore take breaches of our policies, procedures and Volunteer Code of Conduct very seriously.

Following a number of complaints about two individuals, an independent investigation concluded that both had breached our Volunteer Code of Conduct and our Social Media policy because they did not, and indicated that they were not willing to, follow Girlguiding’s Equality and Diversity policy and actively encouraged others to do the same. We are always willing to listen to feedback about our policies, and remain open to reviewing them wherever necessary.

We will always investigate any breaches of our Volunteer Code of Conduct and related policies. While withdrawal of membership is a last resort for us, our policies are designed to protect our girls and young women. Refusing to comply with our policies is unacceptable. Unfortunately, the circumstances meant that we had no choice but to withdraw these individuals’ membership. This decision was not based on their personal views, but on the way they conducted themselves.

We have been asked to provide further details on these specific disciplinary cases but it would be inappropriate to comment further as the individuals in question have a right to appeal.

We’ve tried to avoid being drawn into the highly politicised, emotive and often aggressive debate around transgender inclusion. Girlguiding is not a transgender campaign group, we are a young people’s organisation. Our focus has been, and will remain, providing our young members with opportunities to learn, grow and discover in a fun, safe, inclusive and legally compliant way.

We have developed our policy in line with legal advice and, in the case of our guidance around transgender members, organisations with experience of supporting transgender children and young people. Contrary to claims made on social media we do not make policy based on comments from individuals or pressure groups.

We know that this is a new and complex area of law and we will continue to review our policies against the latest advice and guidance. Under the General Data Protection Regulation 2018 the sharing of personal data of children is afforded greater protection, so we take great care to uphold confidentiality. Any information about an individual’s transgender history is treated in line with the Data Protection Act 2018/General Data Protection Regulation 2018 (GDPR) and Girlguiding’s Data Protection policy.

It hasn’t been easy to hear criticism of our organisation and of the wider Girlguiding family especially when much of it is inaccurate, aggressive and counter to the values we hold dear.

We are incredibly proud of our volunteers and the young people in our movement who sensitively and positively support diversity of all kinds, including our transgender members, as part of their groups. We would like to thank each and every one of our 109,000 volunteers who, week in and week out, offer a safe space for girls and young women to have fun, learn new skills, explore their own identity and beliefs, and to be proud of who they are.

Amidst all the noise we try to remain focused on the children and young people that we support. We call ourselves a movement because we change with the times, whilst staying focused on our core values and purpose, and we will continue to do just that.

Amanda Medler

Chief Guide

Ruth Marvel

Acting Chief Executive

RiverTam · 25/09/2018 18:51

You utter utter fuckers. Jesus fuck, I am so angry about that email.

What can we do? I don’t want Dd to stop Brownies and as yet she doesn’t want to do any residentials but I am so fucking angry about this.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 25/09/2018 18:52

I like the way it doesn't address the real issue. No-one wants GG to discriminate against transgender children as they seem to be suggesting. In fact as far as I am aware people would rather they stopped discriminating against girls who believe they are transgender.

What they should be doing is continuing to discriminate against males which is what they have always done, and what they are entitled to do legally.

Who did that email go out to? I'm assuming that (unfortunately) parents aren't members?

hiveofmumsandvillainy · 25/09/2018 19:03

I received it as a parent.

It does not address the issue of the risk of MALE bodies in female spaces at all. I am so fucking angry. The patronising fucking tone Angry

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 25/09/2018 19:07

I received it as a parent

So is it reasonable to assume that all parents have been sent this?

I'd imagine that that email will encourage at least a few people completely unaware of the issues to start googling.

I fear that this mass email may not have been a sensible tactic on the part of GG.

RiverTam · 25/09/2018 19:07

It went out to the parents of all members.

I am beyond distressed about this. I can write another ranting email to them but will that achieve anything? They are ignoring the law! What can one do with an organisation that doesn’t care about that?!

hiveofmumsandvillainy · 25/09/2018 19:09

Yes, I think it must have been sent to all parents.

nicenewdusters · 25/09/2018 19:14

simply being transgender does not make someone more of a safeguarding risk than any other person

No it doesn't. But a male with a penis is more of a safeguarding risk to a young girl than another girl. And this is not saying that simply being in a space with a male is unsafe for a female. It's that there is more of a risk to her than being just with females.

Men just don't want to hear this, but facts are facts. Saville's whole life was a vehicle to abuse. As others have said on here, people direct whole areas of their lives to working in children's organisations to enable them to abuse. This doesn't mean I think all men will behave this way, but we know some do. So SAFE guarding. Which of those two words don't the GG get? Such cheap lazy thinking to shout anti trans.

OrchidInTheSun · 25/09/2018 19:21

Simply being transgender does not of course make a male bodied person more of a risk. Equally, it doesn't make them less of a risk which is the point that GG have overlooked.

GirlScout72 · 25/09/2018 19:23

It's not just about RISK, it's about privacy and dignity which the EA also allows for.

Ereshkigal · 25/09/2018 19:23

Girlguiding is not a transgender campaign group, we are a young people’s organisation.

Then stop letting aggressive male TRAs dictate your policies.

IdahoJones · 25/09/2018 19:23

You could the that to being a teacher does not make someone more of a safeguarding risk than any other person

But yet we sensibly still have safeguarding rules and risk assessments around their presence in certain situations

Swipe left for the next trending thread