Stonewall partnered Girl Guide activity on non binary identity - am I wrong to feel uneasy?

[LadyBunty]

Hello FWR. I am a Guide leader. Under a recently overhauled regime, we are required to follow a programme of prescribed activities that will allow our girls to gain badges.

We were given our latest pack of activities last week, and this includes an activity titled Binary Breakdown partnered by Stonewall . (I will type it all out below for ease of reference). My feeling when reading it is that it is all kinds of wrong, but I have to admit, I am feeling pretty jaded about Stonewall's influence in everything, and GGUK's conduct over the past few years. So perhaps I am being unfair, and I wondered what some of you might think? Parent, non binary, safeguarding etc based opinions all welcome, thank you.

BINARY BREAKDOWN

AIM OF ACTIVITY

What do the colour pink, heavy metal music, baking and engineering have in common? A person who likes them all! Become empowered to challenge anyone who tells you otherwise.

WHAT YOU'LL GET OUT OF IT

Challenge gender stereotypes; reflect on what makes you who you are.

NOTE TO LEADER

This activity involves talking about personal opinions on gender. remind Guides to be respectful of each other and speak up if there's a topic they don't feel comfortable discussing. If your Guides have any questions, you can find lots of information to support them in our Let's Talk resource, or take a look online at our partner on this activity, Stonewall.

BEFORE YOU START

Draw an outline of a person on two large sheets of paper. Label one boy and the other girl.

WHAT TO DO

1. Get into 2 teams and sit on one side of your space. One team will be team boy, the other team girl. Your leader will put down a sheet of paper on the opposite side of the space for each team and give you some sticky notes and pens.

2. When your leader says "Go!", write or draw things that represent that gender on the sticky notes. You could include sports, school subjects, emotions, music, clothes, colours or toys, for example. Once you've written one, move as quickly as you can and stick it on your person. Which person will cover their person first? You've got three minutes!

3. Times's up! Take turns reading your ideas. Assuming someone has certain characteristics just because of their gender is known as gender stereotyping . Can you think of any examples of gender stereotypes?

4. How much of a person gets missed when they're confined to a gender stereotype? In your teams, pick out any of the sticky notes which you personally relate to.

Team girl - are there things about you that these stereotypes don't capture?

Team boy - do you relate to anything that people stereotypically associate with a different gender?

Gender stereotypes are binary: this means they make us think that people only identify as male or female, and you have to look, act and dress in certain ways. But we shouldn't have to! Some people don't identify as either male or female. People who identify as non-binary might feel like they're somewhere in between or they're neither.

In a world structured around binary definitions, what do you think could be difficult for people who identify as non-binary?

5. Now get into smaller groups and look through magazines and catalogues. Are there any non gendered options? Circle them. How do you think someone who identifies as non-binary might feel choosing their clothes, toys or even toothbrushes if most things are gendered?

6. It's time to break the mould! Choose one thing that you all believe shouldn't be gendered and make your voice heard. You could write a letter to the manufacturer, make a blog or start a hashtag campaign to spread your voice far and wide.

OK, so in no particular order, this has made me feel uneasy because:

1. STONEWALL. I feel that they are a political lobbying group with a very strong anti women, anti "cis" (sorry to use that word) agenda. As such, they should not be partnering with GGUK, unless other political groups get their chance as well. (For the record, GGUK does partner with other entities, e.g., Royal Air Force, but in that case, they will focus on something like women in engineering, so politically neutral).

1. CONFLATION OF SEX AND GENDER: talking about gender, but failing to set out the difference between biological sex as a binary, and gender that is a spectrum. You can identify as anything you like, but your biological sex remains the same. I feel like this exercise is taking advantage of the euphemistic/polite use of "gender" - when what you mean is sex - in order to muddy the waters. It also assumes "non-binary" is some sort of official categorisation of human beings, requiring a human rights intervention; rather than an expression of personality and personal interests that liberal, Western society is already happy to embrace. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on that, but not being " super feminine" or "super masculine" would seem to apply to the vast majority of humans, surely we are nearly all somewhere in between?)

1. EXPERTISE AND PARENTAL BOUNDARIES: So what happens if the discussion spills into sexual relations and sexuality, periods, child-bearing? I am not trained to give quasi sex ed, nor have my parents given me consent to do so.

1. PLANTING SEEDS OF DOUBT ABOUT WHAT SOCIETY THINKS OF YOU AND VICTIM MENTALITY: I have an ethnically diverse group of Guides who do all sorts of other activities and sports and have varied interests. None has ever expressed any doubt that they can't do anything or are not good at certain subjects because they are girls. I just find the activity backwards and divisive. It doesn't feel empowering, it feels like victimhood. If your gender (which really, is just your personality, surely) says you love dresses and flower arranging, does that make you "wrong" because you are a "stereotype"? Conversely, if you like playing rugby and prefer short hair, why does that make you less of a girl? Does being the former preclude you from taking science subjects, and the latter make you unsuitable for home economics? Isn't this activity planting the seed that you don't belong, you are not one thing or another, and then tries to prove this by trawling through advertising material to prove society is against you? Surely the positive message to the supposedly gender non conforming is that, "lucky you" you are not confined, you can have both the Barbie themed toothbrush and the Saracens face flannel, and feel perfectly happy about having it all. And look, there are a gazillion products and activities that are not confined to "gender stereotypes", so don't feel down! I mean, fgs, it's not that hard to find "neutral" stuff in the Western world, is it?

1. DEPT EDUCATION GUIDANCE: I've only just become aware of this latest development. Surely this activity falls within the category of suggestion that your gender might change depending on your interests? Am I reading too much into this? I don't think the activity really holds together: It starts off with the suggestion that what you like doing is not confined to whether you are male or female; and then goes on to suggest that liking stuff from both sides is how non binary people feel - so surely that's suggesting to Guides that they too might be non-binary?

1. HANDMAIDENING OF GIRLS: To pursue a political agenda spearheaded by Stonewall. This is not about empowering girls, it is about making them responsible for the feelings of people who don't feel like girls.

Sorry for the very long post, and my lack of erudition. Like I said at the beginning, this just does not sit right with me, and I'd really like to know if you think I am overthinking it or being prejudiced because it involves Stonewall?

Thank you for reading!

Basically, you can't fight what you can't identify, so identification will always come first. That in itself can be eye opening for some kids (and adults).

Curious I agree, but I think the problem with the material is that it seems to suggest giving the girls examples and ideas, so risks suggesting things that they'd never thought of as being gendered. On some level, they will absorb this.

Much better to just ask if they can give any examples, and keep framing it as 'of course, we know this isn't true, girls and boys can do anything, etc'.

The stonewall material doesn't seem to question the idea of stereotypes. They are presented as natural.

the problem with the material is that it seems to suggest giving the girls examples and ideas, so risks suggesting things that they'd never thought of as being gendered. On some level, they will absorb this. Totally agree. Which why I said only that it starts off well. I might change some of the words but the activity is fine!

And I don't see the risk in identfying things as being gendered. The point is that every single part of life can be gendered and almost all of it does not need to be.

That would be the second session: sex based activities, leading to something like sexual health if a general class, sporting abilities and participation in my specific classroom.

Having identified seemingly harmless things like drinking water (in a General Studies type lesson) I have encouraged a lot of interesting, often heated, debates on topics that are distant enough to take the personal experience, emotions out of it, allowing some really free, wide ranging discussions.

You should probably start by challenging the stereotype. So put up pictures of women working in STEM, doing elite sport, driving race cars. 'How does she look? What words would we use? 'Strong, brave, clever, yes! Do you think we use these words enough about women? Why not? Is it because organisations that pupport to be feminist are actually misogynist tossers?'

You should probably start by challenging the stereotype. What stereotype?

The rest of your post goes on to identify a specific set of stereotypes to be challenged. You HAD to identify them to challenge them!

I'm not a teacher but wondered if it would be useful or harmful to ask girls whether they have ever been told girls can't do X or should do Y. Then they could consider a few stereotypes critically without being asked to make a fucking list of them.

This is on my mind a lot because despite much thought in parenting, 3 year old DD insists girls can't play football. DS as a two year old laughed in my face at the idea women could be farmers

What a load of rubbish. Why oh why is the Girl Guiding organisation just accepting this?

That’s so worrying. Girls should be proud to be girls, not worrying that their preferences for colours or music is a bad thing. Brainwashing or what.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

You should probably start by challenging the stereotype. What stereotype?

The rest of your post goes on to identify a specific set of stereotypes to be challenged. You HAD to identify them to challenge them!

You can challenge stereotypes by challenging them not by reinforcing them is my point. The idea that these girls won't know what stereotypes they will be faced with is really odd Of course girls aged 10 and up in our culture know what they are up against! They live it.

There are lots of problems with this as a lesson starter - not least that it just won't work!

You need to be on the same side as them in challenging the strereotype, not set them up to look as though they are supporting it. It's fundamentally dishonest. My dd would leave this lesson spitting feathers about that.

Auto the thing is leaders are challenging this - there are a number on this thread, including the OP.
It is being imposed from the top down, no discussion of anything remotely "trans" is allowed. Leaders have been sacked for questioning the agenda.
If I were to go on any of the Facebook guide leader pages right now (and there are many with thousands of members) and question this, the post would either not be allowed by the admins or taken down very quickly.
A couple of years ago when GGUK changed their policy to include trans girls, it led to lots of leaders being banned or muted in the groups and some being sacked.

I do understand that if you are teaching sexism, feminism, etc, you need to identify the sexism in the first place. But why does the guides have to do this?

Why can't they just exist as an organisation which exemplifies it, rather than have to explain the ins and outs.

Part of an hour or so once a week can't really do the subject justice in terms of being informative. It's a big issue.

My Guides were very happy to have a space to call out sexism. I don't think they'd had much chance to do it before. But this activity entrenches it.

If there are enough willing, would it be possible to set up a duplicate organisation but without this policy?

So an activity which used to challenge gender stereotypes has been changed to reinforce the?

My daughters left brownies in favour of cubs. They were fed up with crafts and cake decorating and wanted to do fun activities like bonfires, climbing, dismantling and building stuff, bike rides, night time hikes, etc. This sort of activity (minus the gender-bollocks bit which hadn’t reached their pack) is exactly what turned them away from guiding

This is so depressing. My kids were all born in the 90s and went through scouting and guiding in what seems like a different era. Yes guides did more crafty stuff but they also did the bonfires, canoing, outward bound etc. Scouts also did caring stuff in the community and not just sporty activities.

It does reinforce just how much we have regressed on gender stereotyping over the past 15 years or so.

Do modern scouting groups do all this stuff or just guides?

If scouts do it's not been my experience. Both my sons have done beavers, cubs, and scouts. Youngest is still a cub. A lot of outdoor activities, practical skills like first aid etc. Yes the programme is socially aware tackling issues such as the environment and disability but again more about what we can do rather than lots of talking. It's much more like the Guiding I experienced in the 80s ( we did a bit more crafty stuff etc I agree). It's moved on a lot and is a lot less formal (though there are still elements).
What excited me as a young teenager was being able, through Guides, to do things I wouldn't have had the chance to do otherwise like camping, canoeing, chopping up bits of wood as well as a bit of crafty stuff. The girls I've worked with just want to have fun with friends if they get the odd badge great but getting them to do these kinds of activities usually ends in chaos and boredom. I wouldn't feel comfortable that I'm qualified to deal with this issues as a volunteer Guider- I suspect that many of us would avoid this uma either because of our personal beliefs or because we just wouldn't be confident leading it.

@Auto

If there are enough willing, would it be possible to set up a duplicate organisation but without this policy?

In theory yes, there are parallel breakaway Scout organisations. In practice it would be hard to get it off the ground, would be hounded by GG for breach of something or other, and would probably stay tiny and financially unsound due to people not really knowing what it was.

What excited me as a young teenager was being able, through Guides, to do things I wouldn't have had the chance to do otherwise like camping, canoeing, chopping up bits of wood as well as a bit of crafty stuff

Me too when I was a guide. So 70s/80s/90s/early '00s seemed to be more about encouraging girls to try new challenges and activities as far as I can tell. At some point in the last decade that changed presumably. How depressing, especially for girls from communities which don't allow mixing who can't opt for scouts and may no longer be able to joing guides.

I had a look at the badges that Guides could do - it was so disappointing. There were very few adventurous badges where they learned new practical skills, canoeing, walking etc but lots of more passive and naval gazing activities like the one discussed and ‘activism’. I think doing physical and practical activities can build children’s comfidence, are satisfying and show girls that their bodies are strong and allow them to do so many things.

I feel I have to defend Guiding here

Much as I don't like current policies on gender issues, the links to Stonewall and the like and will (and do!) speak out against them, Guides ( Rangers, Brownies and Rainbows) do not spend all their time doing craft or "girly" stuff.
Our Guide and Ranger group do absolutely everything the Scouts do - all the outdoor stuff, camping, fire lighting, climbing trees, canoeing and the like. My grandsons (both Beavers) do just as much craft as the local Brownies btw.

So: don't like all the new bollocks in the program? Please write (or email and tweet or comment on GGUK Facebook) and tell them!

Guides should be a place where girls are challenged to do lots of things and see themselves as capable and independent. This means challenging stereotypes not asking which one of them you 'identify' with! This activity implies that energetic, determined young women aren't really women because they reject a limiting stereotype - to do what they want, be who they want, they must be 'non binary'. Awful.

averylongtimeago. When I did guides it was like that. Thats why I was so keen for my girls to join.

We live in an area where it does seem scouts do a lot more than the girls, and at a younger age (beavers do family camp, cubs camp... brownies do pack holiday.)

But aside from that the guide programme is shocking. The materials for classes. Cake decorating, all the wore stuff, there isnt a single badge my daughter wanted to do whereas she'd worked her way thru a ton of the old brownie ones.

But yeah. I think they're destroying it from the inside.mm

Did anyone make any progress with this? DD's Guides are to do this next week and I think I'll withdraw her from the session. In two minds as to whether to tell the leaders why.

@Purpletomato yes do tell the leaders why and email GGUK too

I think it’s a good activity. There isn’t an emphasis on non-binary - it’s about stereotypes. In the heat of a Guide meeting, that one bit will get lost. It may get briefly mentioned by a leader to cover that issue but the girl guiding groups I know will take a pretty feminist view of this. Leaders will hopefully know the girls in their group. I can also imagine a conversation where some girls challenge non-binary.

This is so disappointing to read. Such a dodgy exercise with a ridiculous jump from sex based stereotypes to the assumption that females need to follow female based stereotypes or class themselves as non binary. Weird exercise which doesn’t help children break sex based stereotypes and instead enforces them. Crazy!

The first half of the session is a good start and it’s easy to think that it’s going in the right direction of challenging sexist stereotypes but then the second is bloody awful.