Expelled from Girlguiding for putting safeguarding first

[KatieAlcock]

Many of you will remember that Helen Watts and another Guider were expelled from Girlguiding last year. This was me - in Sept 2018 I had my membership of Guiding withdrawn for social media breaches (one FB post in a small private group) and refusing to follow Girlguiding policies on transgender members (saying I'd put safeguarding first, ahead of any policies).
I'm a longstanding Guider and Mumsnetter (naice ham, cancel the cheque, show us the diagram) but I'm anonymous for obvious reasons, generally. I'm coming out now to tell you this story.

I appealed and the former Chief Guide who held the appeal concluded that I had not breached social media guidelines (I should jolly well hope not given that 9 people saw my post!) but that I was still refusing to follow GG policy (I gave the same statement - safeguarding comes first).

My story is in the Mail on Sunday today (if this link doesn't work I'll put a clicky link in the next post).

Mail on Sunday link

I am taking GG to court on the grounds that they have discriminated against me because of my gender critical beliefs by investigating my actions when other Guiders who complain about things are not investigated.
I am asking them for a small amount in damages because though I have not lost any income, I have lost reputation and the investigation was stressful, as you can understand.
And I've asked to be reinstated, and for a full apology and statement that I did nothing wrong.

PS... I spent an hour with their professional photographer telling me "don't smile" and they go with the photo from camp with a big grin on my face, taken by my Guide??!

[Post edited by MNHQ]

Yes i stopped reading when it so blatantly confused sex and gender within the first few lines

Blimey, is it Sunday? Oh, so it is. Do they wheel out their very best convincing arguments just for the weekend, fo you think?

Would you consider them a women if they had surgery to remove the penis?

So many of you are undermining perhaps genuine issues and queries by being ignorant to the idea that biological sex is not straightforward.

I know! Almost back to the middle ages with our understanding of human reproduction - and the associated safeguarding issues - we are around here! Shocking, it is. Shocking!

Long past time we all educated ourselves about the spegg.

Butters83 if it can be proved that the group of "women" who were born male commit sex crime to the same rate as men, then please can you tell me how we can justify them being in spaces where women are vulnerable?

The question is - not are TW women, but are TW - as a class - a threat to women in the same way men are?

And if they are, then what reason on earth can you give for putting women's safety at risk?

butters

We all know what a trans woman is - someone born male who identifies as a woman. Whether they are women or not depends on your definition of women, hence why you’re being asked to define it.

For a lot of us, we believe the reason for female oppression is our sex, not our ‘gender’ and therefore do not accept that being a woman is simply about how you identify, but also has an anatomical element which trans women do not possess.

I actually am not as hardline as many on these boards in terms of accepting trans women into feminism but it is absolutely clear to me that globally women suffer despicably because of their sex, because of their anatomy - and I can’t bear people saying it is exclusionary it transphobic to want to centre feminism on it.

(Could someone gently explain to Butters that even if they think Girl A has a vagina and Girl B has a penis is a reasonable statement to make, the safeguarding issue of consensual or non consensual sex possibly resulting in a minor pregnancy is exactly the same?)

*and transphobic

We're talking about GGs on this thread, yes? Why would having a penis removed be relevant for so called 'trans girls' in Guides? I mean, surely no one is suggesting children have their genitalia removed? Are they?😯

I don’t believe trans women commit sexual crimes at the same rate as men.
I do think there is an issue of men exploiting loopholes and claiming to be trans when they aren’t who have already committed crime.

LangCleg I tried upthread but Butters is yet to reply:

Even consensual sex is a much greater risk to teenage girls, as it is the girls who may end up pregnant. But also, it's not ideal for the boys and transgirls either to have fathered a child as a teen. This is one of the very good reasons we keep those with bodies that can impregnate apart from those with bodies that can be impregnated. This isn't a comment on identity. This is recognising biological reality. Letting those children sleep in the same rooms is bonkers, and is putting girls' heath at risk.

Everyone commits their first crime once...

I don’t believe trans women commit sexual crimes at the same rate as men.
I do think there is an issue of men exploiting loopholes and claiming to be trans when they aren’t who have already committed crime

So you believe in true trans? But you accept that the group "transwomen" as a whole, includes many male sex criminals claiming to be trans?

If so, how on earth can children be safeguarded?

If you have a system for telling which people are and are not predators by looking, please do tell, as no one on earth has managed to suss that one yet.

Then we need a definition that excludes these chancers exploiting it dont we?

So what includes women, transwoman that excludes men even when they say the "I'm a woman" thing.

We're talking about GGs on this thread, yes? Why would having a penis removed be relevant for so called 'trans girls' in Guides? I mean, surely no one is suggesting children have their genitalia removed? Are they?

Because there are two issues here - guides who are transgirls being treated as girls. And also leaders who are transwomen being treated as women for safeguarding purposes (eg being allowed to do things that otherwise only women are allowed to do, such as intimate care for girls).

"Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality."

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

Because we are talking about CHILDREN not some 55 year old dude who is pretending to be trans.
You can never tell who is a sexual predator or not. But this exact same argument was used against gay men and women before when they were perceived as a threat.

I do think there is an issue of men exploiting loopholes and claiming to be trans when they aren’t

And this is precisely the reason why women are nervous about self ID.
Do you get it now? Especially around children, such as in GG.

There is just as much risk as a women GG leader being a predator as there is a trans woman - by implying a trans woman can’t be a leader JUST IN CASE is essentially implying you think all trans women are predators.

It’s not the same thing at all butters because gay people as a class don’t pose a risk to straight people as a class.

Whereas male people as a class do pose a risk to female people as a class.

Is there a script Butters is reading from?

Because we are talking about CHILDREN not some 55 year old dude who is pretending to be trans.

Are you not aware that children (vast majority, male born) sexually assault other children? The figures of sex crimes by minors on minors are large.

And yes, we are ALSO talking about some 55 year old dude pretending to be trans as this is also about guide leaders.

You can never tell who is a sexual predator or not. But this exact same argument was used against gay men and women before when they were perceived as a threat

Pretending to be gay or lesbian never got anyone access to kids to abuse. Pretending to be the opposite sex, DOES give male predators access to girls. So comparing the two situations is totally irrelevant.

"It said that 60 of the 125 transgender inmates it counted in England and Wales were serving time for a sexual offence.
This is roughly half - but it's not the full picture.

Remember - those 125 transgender inmates only include people who have had a prison case conference. It won't include transgender people who haven't identified themselves to the prison service or who already have a gender recognition certificate.

Of the 60 serving time for sexual offences:
27 were convicted of rape (plus a further five of attempted rape)
13 were convicted of possessing, distributing or making indecent images of children
13 were convicted of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault
Nine were convicted of causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity
Seven were convicted of sexual activity with a child
Seven were convicted of indecent assault or gross indecency"

Do they sound like female offences? They don't to me.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42221629

by implying a trans woman can’t be a leader JUST IN CASE is essentially implying you think all trans women are predators

That’s contradictory. The fact it’s “just in case” necessarily means that not all trans women are predators. Honestly it’s such a bad argument. No one thinks all men are predators but we still segregate by sex.

The crux of the issue is whether trans women retain male pattern offending or not.