Letting an 8 year old go on a Brownies trip in this climate?

[RebelGirl034]

My DD wants to go on a weekend trip with Brownies soon. I know that their trans policy has been updated, I've read it and what it means in practice is that a man who identifies as a woman could, theoretically speaking, be amongst the adults on the trip and even be helping the girls in the shower or whatever. I mean, it sounds crazy but the policy allows it and the parents wouldn't even be told. Same if there was a male child who identified as a girl, he would share girls' accommodation etc. The chances for any of this happening in my DD's particular group on this particular trip are remote, but then, chances for harm to children are usually remote (thankfully) but we still don't leave it to chance. What would you do? Would you let your DD go and think probably none of this will happen? I'm not saying such a person would be deliberately out to harm them, I'm concerned about the principle of the matter and also emotional impact on DD who would be very confused and possibly frightened. I'd welcome thoughts and suggestions. Many thanks.

Oh my use of asterisks went tits up. Ignore the bold in the 2nd paragraph.

you'll need to get a scouting CRB (may be a guiding one, as they are separate organisations). Brownies, Guides, Scouts and Cubs, etc. desperately need more volunteers, so you would be made most welcome.

Exactly part of the problem. Organisation desperate for volunteers. Organisation not allowed to do background checks in previous name if that person has changed gender and doesn't wish to give previous name. CAN NO-ONE SEE THE FUCKING MASSIVE WELCOME FLAG BEING ROLLED OUT TO POTENTIAL ABUSERS??

I find the whole 'get a grip' responses bizarre. Kids are abused on trips, why should the OP not be concerned about this when the GG policy has changed to let males be on overnight trips? This change has not been risk assessed (I asked GG), and so this change has not been made to increase the safety or wellbeing of the girls, but to pander to a narrative that means women now have to let men into spaces that were previously only for females. A male who is insistent on their 'right' to be viewed as a female, and who wants to be overnight with young girls, putting them in a position of discomfort by their presence, would be raising alarm bells for me.
Larger brownie trips have leaders from other packs that are unknown to the OP and her daughter, and she knows that the guidance from GG means she explicitly won't be told if a male is going to be there.

I decided to withdraw my daughter from brownies after conversions and email exchanges from GG head office. It became clear that the safety and comfort of girls is absolutely not the top priority here, and I'm not supporting an organisation with such distorted values.

is it just her pack or will they be with other Brownie packs?

I spoke to our Brown Owl about this (who had no idea about any of it until it was in the papers) and she confirmed that if there were males who identified as women or girls she was not at liberty to let any of the parents know that they would be camping with males. At that point our packs camps were always with other Brownie packs.

Once that situation changes and it's just their pack I weould be more inclined to let DD go, as I can see with my own eyes that there are no boys-who-identify-as-girls in her packs (or men either). As it is she hasn't wanted to go on an overnight trip yet.

For those who are saying it's not a problem - one of the recent trips involved another Brown Owl and her husband attending too. Parents were given full information about where her husband would be sleeping and washing etc, and the level of interaction he would have (he was there because of a specific skill). Tell me - why should parents get that level of information about this man, but not about other men?

Putting a section of society on a pedestal where they cannot be subject to the same rules and laws that govern the rest of society is never a good idea. Maybe some posters who are doing this could explain why they think it's fine?

Have a conversation with the local leaders and take it from there.

We really mustn’t be at all complacent about child safeguarding, especially when it involves overnight trips. This is why people are concerned about the GG’s attitude, they seem more concerned about being inclusive than child protection.

Just have a look at this map. My brother’s scout troop is on here - their leader was a young bloke in his 20s, the boys thought he was great, parents all liked him, no concerns etc. From what I’ve gathered he targeted certain boys and the rest of them had no idea that anything was going on. Oh and he had no known previous history so wouldn’t have had any trouble getting a CRB/DBS - this is why proper safeguarding is so important.

www.boltburdonkemp.co.uk/child-abuse/scouts-abuse-map/

Good grief.. that map.

SmallHaddockAndChips

I’d never seen that map before. That is utterly horrific. The sheer volume. Those poor children.

That map

Let's not forget David Challoner was some kind of scout leader.

No way would I let her go DD, sorry OP, it's not fair and I do feel sad that this is my response but there's no way of being 100% sure and I wouldn't risk it. Safeguarding is not what it was.

I say this as a mother of a 3 year old boy and I would say no to him also, at your DD's age.

That map is for convictions - there will be a lot more than that.

Such lovely sympathetic responses you've got OP.

I for one, would also, and with very good reason, be concerned given the current climate of spectacular incompetence with regard to safeguarding.

I would make a point of bringing your concerns to the leader of the group, and would perhaps also offer to volunteer.

If you continue to have concerns go with your gut, placing your child in the care of others who abuse it should be every parents worst nightmare.

Thanks to everyone who replied. I did make it pretty clear that I'm NOT saying trans person = an abuser (for goodness sake - of course I'm not saying that), but that it's a principle thing (as most of you have recognised) around safeguarding, boundaries etc. If being concerned about safeguarding principles makes me paranoid, then I'll happily accept that label. Those of you who think I'm just being insane and ridiculous, I'd love to live on your planet where the world is so trustworthy that none of this has to be considered by the parents at all.
Some of you made very helpful comments around trust in local leadership. The thing is that, I honestly can't read our Brown Owl at all. When I originally asked her for a copy of the trans policy, about a year ago, she was quite hostile and asked me why did I want to know this (but she did send me the links and I did read the policy). I recently emailed her to ask if she knew whether GG would be updating their policy, as Scouts have done a bit of a U-turn and there is some information on GG website about the two organisations now working in partnership. She replied with a pretty curt 'I don't know'. I'd consider going as a volunteer but what do I do with my 6 yr old DS.
Thanks again for replying, I don't feel I've quite been able to make a decision yet. I totally see how it sucks for my daughter if she's not able to go and I don't want her to be the odd one out, it's a tricky choice. I'll try to carefully discuss with some local mums, perhaps.

saraclara’s comments are dangerously complacent.

I wouldn’t feel confident with that leader. Why is she being so defensive about it?

yes, sounds like the leader is a problem. Ours was genuinely aware there was nothing she could do and that wasn't great, but that once the pack could camp alone that would hopefully solve the problem for the mo.

OP - she won't be the only one not going. Like I said, DD hasn't wanted to go, she's not the only one and she hasn't felt left out.

If I was going to let her go, then only after explicitly raising my worries with my local leaders (all of them, or at least all that will be on the trip). I would probably stress that predators are drawn to organisations that publicly distance themselves or punish safeguarding whistleblowers, where safeguarding policies are changed from top down and frontline staff/volunteer concerns are ignored, where secrets are kept from parents and information sharing is curtailed, where risk assessments are ineffective because major risks are being ignored (ie here the one that all males as a group pose to all females) and that does not prioritise the safety, privacy and comfort of children over the feelings of adults.

All of the above applies to GG. But there continue to be leaders who prioritise the safety of the girls.

That map is horrifying. The boys’ parents would have sent them to meetings and camps without thinking twice, because they trusted the leaders.

OP if I could leave my other child with family, I would go along as a volunteer.

How is this paranoia; when GG have clearly stated in their own guidelines that any male can self identify as a woman and will be treated as such for leadership purposes?

It’s no longer an organisation for girls, when anyone and his dog can decide to be a girl.
I think it’s scandalous.

"The thing is that, I honestly can't read our Brown Owl at all. When I originally asked her for a copy of the trans policy, about a year ago, she was quite hostile and asked me why did I want to know this (but she did send me the links and I did read the policy). I recently emailed her to ask if she knew whether GG would be updating their policy, as Scouts have done a bit of a U-turn and there is some information on GG website about the two organisations now working in partnership. She replied with a pretty curt 'I don't know'. "

Well, given that this is the Brown Owl's attitude; my opinion has changed from "on balance, no" to "no fucking way".

Scouts rather than guides here but guessing safeguarding in both very similar

Nope. It is not the same as scouts.

That is the huge flashing neon elephant in the tent that GGUK are studiously ignoring.

Oh that map of children sexually abused by scout leaders is horrific