Girlguiding Issue coming up Good Morning Britain

[WarmWishes]

About to be discussed 7.40am. Suzzanah Reeves & Piers Morgan

This is why people are hesitant to voice their opinion, for fear of being labelled the above.

It's basically become meaningless. Everything is "transphobic". They use it to everyone about every comment that isn't 100% in favour of males trampling over women's rights. Don't take it personally.

this guy

they exist, make no mistake
they will go to great lengths to abuse children
saying your name is fiona and joining the local guides is not a great length tbh

Caroline farrow and the co hosts at Good Morning did well to get the following across:

Trans girls still have a male body

They may or may not be on puberty blockers which chemically castrate children

Parents would not be informed about important safeguarding so GG is not a safe organisation for girls.

The policy would allow Girls and boys with a fully functioning male body in the same tents together. The Guide leader could be male and you would no informed of this.

Some good points mentioned by Caroline

1. If you have a school trip then you segregate the sexes because one sex can impregnate another.

1. It does not necessarily have to be rape and abuse involved but children are separated by sex to reduce likilhood on impregnating and sexual abuse and to ensure safety of children and safeguarding.

1. The Policy was buried on the GG website

1. Piers brings up a male rapist in a female prison environment and suddenly susie green want to move away from that - it is nothing to do with GG, self identification is nothing to do with GG.

1. Surely self identification is entirely relevant here - especially if we are talking about boy or young male adults who identify as a girl and want to move into girl only spaces then what we are talking about is self identification????

1. Susie Green to Piers:

"Essentially because you have a penis we should be worried what you are going to do with it.”

At this point I am thinking that is it susie, you have got it now - a man or boy with a penis can rape a child, a penis can impregnate a female - you got it there Susie that is why a rapist in a female prison is important it doesn’t matter that it is only one case Susie and your attempt to minimise it by saying that was only one case or words to that effect were disgusting.

According to Susie “Trans girls are girls” - Susie believes trans girls can already go in girl spaces - is this true? As susie green spouted off already in TV can trans girls (males and boys) go into sex segregated spaces on school trips and parents not be informed ? Surely that is a safeguarding issue.

I thought it was an ok exchange as it will be evident to any caring parent that the trans agenda does not care and in fact is dangerous to the well being and safeguarding of children.

I certainly think GG will see a membership dip as no sane parent could really take he risk of their child being within an organisation that does not support and safeguard children.

ihaventgottime happy to. They’ve said I’ll get something within 5 days (though I doubt it’ll be substantive).

The biggest concern aside from the potential for abuse is teenage kids of either sex just being teenage kids. Many young transgirls have girlfriends not boyfriends (see LM).

The idea that experimentation wouldn't happen just because of identity is ridiculous and the inevitable 'but lesbian camp activity' is not a gotcha argument because there is no risk of pregnancy and that is one of the main purposes of segregation.

Same with boarding schools or any other overnight spaces involving minors.

I've been saying that for ages Ova - quite aside from the risk of sexual assault, the much bigger risk comes from a transgirl impregnating their "lesbian" girlfriend during consensual teenage-hormone fuelled fumbling around.

Is there any confirmation of the EHRC's position other than Caroline tweet?

I have contacted girl guides to ask them to confirm whether they are now a mixed sex organisation.

Good grief my head hurts with this. Yes, I'm concerned about perverts using loopholes.

But why do these utter, utter fools ignore the universally acknowledged fact that adolescents are hugely sexually charged and likely to indulge that given the opportunity? Frankly I'm astonished that there hasn't been a lot of cases of pregnancy in various trans youth groups with this level of naiveté. Still, I suppose those poor kids have already been plyed with meds to squash their development.

Yes Fermats.

It needs to be pointed out to those yelling transphobic that it's the girls not the transgirls carrying all the risk here.

Listening to some people you would think it was the other way around.

This is why people are hesitant to voice their opinion, for fear of being labelled the above.

Honestly, the words have long since lost any meaning, they might as well call you an oompaloompa.

No, we really don't need to get bogged down in a whole lot of wondering about the wonderful complexities of trauma and as much other setting off hares as possible; basic common sense in safeguarding based on a steady stream of serious case reviews locating loopholes has done just fine.

We don't put male bodied and female bodied people together to change, shower, dress, toilet, sleep or receive any form of intimate care.

Child to child assaults are a fact, girls as young as five have been raped in their primary schools by other children, and the psychology of the individual cases is irrelevant. It's why we don't increase the risk by putting girls in vulnerable positions out of sight and supervision of adults. Like being undressed or asleep. These safeguarding rules are based on sex, not on gender. Someone's gender preferences does not change their sex.

The Catholic church and Jimmy Saville are two massive reasons why making it easy for sex offenders to identify into positions of trust is a problem and gender identity cannot be allowed to be a white card out of those checks, balances and standard regulations. The right to safety and the law of safeguarding comes before the individual's right to identity. When there are mixed sex organisations where trans workers would be easily able to participate without issue, the question has to be asked, will every male bodied person wish to be a leader of an exclusively girl organisation for reasons prioritising the girls' interests?

But bottom line here: no means no, not no if you can refute every argument I can throw and prove beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt. Standard safeguarding says no. End of. No exemptions.

Girls have the right to be in girl only spaces away from male bodied people, irrespective of how male bodied people feel about that, and to say no to showering, changing and sleeping with male bodied people. So do their parents. End of. No exemptions.

Getitnow my daughter's best friend is a trans boy. He does activities together with the boys but for his comfort and that of the others he gets changed and on trips sleeps separately.

Just as my daughter when she was the only girl in her scouts pack had to sleep in a tent on her own and change there.

My daughter has always done 'boy heavy' activities, often as the only girl. As such I have no issue with her sharing activities with the opposite sex. BUT while I have no belief that trans children are devient as someone who's bi teen has been involved heavily in a relationship with a girl this year which I have no doubt would have gone further if they had slept over anywhere I would be concerned about teens being teens and experimenting.

@Knicknackpaddyflak thank you thank you thank you for putting that down in words so eloquently, unfortunately it wasn't something I could do to the people on twitter who were name calling.

It's so frustrating to feel like I have to bring my daughter up in a world where she has to smile and comply so as to not hurt a man's feelings.

I'm fairly new to the trans debate, it wasn't until watching the fab YouTube video of Parker Posey that a fellow mumsnetter posted that I realised I had to get more informed and more angry that this is happening!

Hi, I already put this on another thread but just want to add it here too. GirlGuiding's own acknowledgment of the importance of all-girl spaces . From just a couple of weeks ago too. Feel free to retweet!

twitter.com/Girlguiding/status/1039144455801069568

And that should read Posie Parker

Girl guiding say they were not advised by Fae or Challenor. 🤔

Sorry you can't see their reply re. Challenor but the answer was no.

'Pips' Bunce was on the panel discussing Girl Guides at The Speaker's House.
It would be interesting to know whether Girl Guides will acknowledge this.
Bunce is I think listed as being a Stonewall 'champion' or similar.

Thanks Chocolala. I've tweeted them but don't expect a response, and I'm not a volunteer nor do I have any concerns about my daughter's Brownie troop (the volunteers are complete stars there) so I think I'll just practice watchful waiting from now on!

Aimee Challenor was on that panel as well weren't they?

Is also on Stonewall trans inclusion group (or whatever it's called).

You can't tak advcie really from an "org" >> all orgs are formed of people that you go and talk to. You take advice from people who represent an org, really.

I think they are drawing disctinctions around consulting / talking to generally and so on and are beign a bit disingenuous. Say what you like about Jane (and there is lots to say) but they seem very upfront and in the open and I can't say I'd just assume they were lying TBH.

Pips / Phil was on the panel in "I'm a little teapot" mode.

People are following up about Bunce et al. because it's hard to know if GG are being disingenuous or truthful. E.g., they might not acknowledge taking advice from individuals per se, but is it plausible that they took advice from those individuals in their capacity as champions for Stonewall etc.?

twitter.com/Girlguiding/status/1044585771909316608

There is a photo of the panel though is that not aimee?

• stonewall if they consulted them odds on aimee was involved, espeically with their expertise and interest with their dad as a scout leader & involved in other child orgs.

They probably are not counting the panel as "consulting" but that's a bit hmmm IMO.

Aimee has tweeted that they will be wearing their guides badge this week.

Fact is the answers were

Trangirls must always be accommodated in whichever way they feel more comfy
Cunty girls must do as they're told or they're bigots (off the the gulag)
Parents and girls must not be warned in advance is their daughter is going to be confronted with unexpected dick on the guiding weekend away

So all in all, clearly whoever they were talking to had a massive agenda.

Is there something weird about the wording of their reply in that response about Fae and Challenor or am I seeing something that isn't there?

Why wait so long to refute it and when they do, choose words that sound robotic?

Certainly looks like AC, as discussed in this thread about the panel tho' GG are claiming that a member of GG attended this discussion about GG at the Speakers House in a personal capacity:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3250175-Girl-Guides-Panel-discussion-at-Speakers-house-woman-male-woman-male-male-male

Yes - the wording is all very odd...