Girl Guiding can’t explain why girls and boys should sleep separately

[LemonJello]

This is a record of correspondence I have had with Girl Guiding.

I’ll do my emails in italics and their replies in bold.

I just had a question about one of your policies.

You say here ^www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/running-your-unit/events-and-going-away/going-on-residentials/^

“If male volunteers or male children are present, there must be separate sleeping and bathroom facilities for them.”

Can you tell me why? What is the reasoning behind this policy?

In response to your enquiry, our guidance is in place to maintain our girl only space. Please be advised that this isn’t a policy but is best practice guidance that we have in place.

When girls are at a residential, the time with other girls is extended to their sleeping arrangements so that they can continue to have the fun, girl only experience that Girlguiding offers.

So can I ask, if guide leaders bring their boy children on a residential, are these boys forbidden to take part in the actuvities as well, in order to maintain this girl only space?

In order for us to answer your queries as effectively as possible and ensure that we don’t provide you with any inaccurate information please can you provide us with the full details of the situation you are querying?

Sure. I would like to know if the only reason for separating boys and girls sleeping accommodation is to preserve “the fun, girl only experience” or if there are any other reasons behind this.

I’d also like to kmow, if the aim is to preserve the fun, girl only experience, whether boys are permitted to take part in any activities, or if its just the sleeping accommodation that needs to be fun and girl only. If so, why?

Please be advised that the primary reason for having separate accommodation for boys on trips and residentials is because the boys concerned would not be members of Girlguiding.

We appreciate that there are a number of different reasons why a volunteer would need to take their child on a residential even though they are not a part of Girlguiding and we would expect any such situation to be discussed locally with the local commissioner well in advance of any residential taking place.

The parent of the non-member would also be responsible for them on the trip and would not be counted in the adult child ratios.

Children that are not part of Girlguiding are also able to take part in activities if this has been agreed in advance with the leadership team and the commissioner. However this must be managed appropriately. In such situations the parent of the visiting child would be responsible for supervising their child at all times.

I’m sorry I still dont quite understand.

On your website it says:

“If male volunteers or male children are present, there must be separate sleeping and bathroom facilities for them.”

If the reason for separate sleeping accommodation is because they are not members of girl guiding, why single out male children here? Would this policy not also apply to female children of guide leaders?

So to recap, so far you have said that the reason for separate sleeping accommodation is to protect the fun, girl only environment, but also because boys are not members of girl guiding.

If you allow male children to take part in activities, but one of the reasons they are not to share sleeping accommodation is to protect the fun, girl only environment, why is this environment only important when children are undressing or sleeping?
Are you happy to state finally that the only reasons Girl Guiding have for separating male and female children in sleeping accommodation are to protect the fun, girl only environment and because boys wouldnt be members of Girll Guiding? Or is there anything more ypu can add to help explain this policy?

I also see that you include male children in your risk assesmemt for residentials.

The reasons you have given to me so far dont present any risk, so could you expand on why you specifically include males on your risk assessments?

I appreciate that this can be a confusing area and I’m sorry that I haven’t been able to answer all of your questions regarding this situation.

I would encourage you to speak to your daughter’s unit leader or local commissioner about your outstanding concerns as local guiding will be able to provide you with detailed information about our usual processes for non members attending residentials.

Thank you for contacting Girlguiding and I hope that your remaining questions can be fully answered locally.

The End.

Knicknack I have to go now.

However, in response to your post.

It wasn't just the parents though.

It was doctors, paediatricians, teachers, social workers, religious leaders (in the case of Victoria).

There is currently no law in the United Kingdom about children of different genders sharing a bedroom

That isn't strictly true. There are rules under housing legislation in relation to over-crowding where the age and sex of persons who share sleeping accommodation are pertinent.

They do not impose criminal liability on the families but in certain circumstances breaching those rules can result in criminal liability on the landlord (certainly in Scotland- I think there is an English equivalent)

If GG had said "look, we took advice from Gendered Intelligence and they told us this was what we had to do to be in compliance with the law, and assured us that there would be no problems, and we believed them, but now we see that maybe that was a bad call and it's time to reassess" then they'd have been flooded with support.

And respect. I respect someone who makes a good-faith mistake and corrects it when it's pointed out. This is not what GG are doing.

YY to PPs saying that the unit leaders will carry the can legally when something happens. Here's how it will happen:

1. A male child, admitted as a transgirl, will sexually molest or rape a girl. Her parents will complain. Whether the male child experiences gender dysphoria or has a feminine sense of self is irrelevant here.
2. The male child will promptly be denounced as insincere, a "fake" transgirl by TRAs.
3. The unit leader will be blamed by GGUK HQ for not spotting the "fake" transgirl because some TRAs claim that you can tell the difference between a real transwoman/transgirl and a fake one and will offer to train you how to tell the difference. The trained professionals of the Prison Service got this wrong when deciding where to remand Karen White, so I have doubts the size of a continent as to the ability of anyone to tell the difference between a man or boy trying their luck and a transwoman or transgirl.
4. GGUKHQ will use the argument that leaders can spot "fake" transgirls to wash their hands of all responsibility, leaving the unit leader to carry the can even though said leader followed the policy diktats to the letter.

If I were a unit leader right now, I would walk out for my own protection. I know many of you stay because you want to keep providing a Guiding experience for the girls, but you need to think of yourselves as well. When the HQ that sets the rules expels leaders who ask questions and publicise the already-published rules, and stonewalls parents who ask questions and passes the buck for impossible questions to you (eg OP), that HQ is not supporting you now and they will not support you when a incident occurs. You can't be expected to volunteer under that risk.

Thanks for your kind words placemats

Really interesting and dismaying to get an insight as to how it will affect leaders. It’s just awful how they have passed the buck to the volunteers. They are volunteers for fucksake! GGHQ are spineless moral cowards.

SMC guides

I'd be interested in what they would say if you introduced at 12/13 year old trans girl who identifies as a lesbian.

Lemonjello I’ve kept up with your threads on this and you’re an absolute star for politely persisting and insisting they answer your questions. Thank you for that, the time, effort and general head fuckery which I imagine comes from dealing with such utterly craven shitehawks must be incredibly wearing.

YY to the poster who said Just because you’re upset doesn’t mean anyone has done anything wrong this is such a great comment. It really is a beautiful response to the whole shitty entitled movement.

I wish I'd heard "just because you're upset doesn't mean anyone has done anything wrong" a few years ago when I was being pissed around by a personality disordered individual. It's so true. But if you are trying to be kind you end up completely dancing to their tune and feeling guilty all the time for upsetting them anyway. Ha! Thinking about it that person probably also identifies as non-binary or some such... or at least they would if it helped them manipulate. Speculation but I would not be surprised.

Back to GG... I don't even think a transgirl has to be faking it or have malicious intent to be a safeguarding threat. Pre-teens and teens do what pre-teens and teens do, experiment with little thought to risk basically, and just having a functioning penis presents a risk, especially if they all have some odd ideas about Lady Penises and their lacking virility. Even if both parties (transgirl and natal girl) are "consenting" the risk is still to the girl and the GG leader is culpable for their safeguarding error for allowing them the space to do it.

If I was a GG volunteer I would carry on if I could for the girls sakes up until the point where I was asked to supervise an overnight trip with mixed sex accommodation then I would quit on the basis that the safeguarding risk was too great a responsibility for a volunteer.

I was about to say what @WomaninBoots just said - that part of the reason we have separate sex accomodation post-puberty is because teenage hormones run rampant, and while we know they're likely to have sex at some point, we don't necessarily want to giftwrap them a golden opportunity.

The first Girl Guide to get pregnant after camp could have been having entirely consensual sex with her trans "girlfriend".

LemonJello excellent work on these questions. I wonder what they would say if you asked them for the justification for not permitting boys to become members of GG as permitted by the EA.

Noting for my gra consultation response - hope no one minds if I use some of your very powerful words and if not do you want to be credited?

Maintaining a “fun environment” could not be a justification under the EA for discriminating against boys regarding membership of GG.

Yes Flora - I think this is an important point. GG is allowed to only accept girls as a reasonable accommodation to a protected class - is it reasonable to maintain a 'fun environment'? Is that enough of a reason? Given that privacy and dignity of women apparently isn't enough for us to be allowed to maintain single sex spaces which are protected by law, I would be surprised if 'fun environment' is a good enough reason to protect a 'single gender' space, which has no such legal protection.

The equalities act allows single sex private clubs. Otherwise, all the golf clubs, cricket clubs, private members' clubs wouldn't be able to continue.

The Equality Act permits associations (which would include the GG) to restrict membership to persons “who share a protected characteristic”. The protected characteristics include sex and gender reassignment.

The Gender Recognition Act requires male persons with a gender recognition certificate to be treated as members of the female sex but those without a GRC are not considered members of the female sex for legal purposes.

Gender reassignment means a person who “is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex”.

The GG allows members who have the following characteristics:

• Category A: female children who do not identify as male; and

• Category B: male children who identify as female but it does not require those members to satisfy the definition of “gender reassignment” under the EA.

The GG position is problematic because:

1. The text of the EA seems to refer persons who share a single protected characteristic. The GG accepts members who share the protected characteristic of female sex but not all members with that protected characteristic AND it accepts members who share the protected characteristic of male sex some of whom might also meet the protected characteristic of gender reassignment but some of whom do not. This means that GG accepts people from more than one protected characteristic but also male children who do not meet the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” while excluding some girls who may or may not meet the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment.

1. The text may be interpreted as allowing associations to restrict membership to persons who share more than one protected characteristic. This might be, for example, a group of Catholic women (two protected characteristics) or disabled, married, black, Muslim, disabled, lesbian pensioners undergoing gender reassignment (all 8 protected characteristics). Those situations would be consistent with the objectives of the Equality Act where the protected characteristics are shared by all members. If a group restricts membership to people who have either of two protected characteristics (e.g. Catholic or over 50), Catholics under 50 and non-Catholics over 50 would not be permitted to be members and therefore are discriminated against. This does not seem consistent with the text of the EA nor its objectives.

GG are permitting membership for the following protected characteristics:

SEX:

• children of the female sex but discriminating against children of the female sex who identify as boys (some of whom will meet the definition of “gender reassignment”)
• some children of the male sex who do not meet the definition of the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment”

GENDER REASSIGNMENT

• all children of the male sex who do meet the definition of “gender reassignment” but no children of the female sex who meet the definition of “gender reassignment”

In my view, this is contrary to the Equality Act as GG’s membership cannot be said to share a protected characteristic.