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!

This is complete fuckery. I am a Brownie volunteer and my daughter is a Brownie. I will not be standing for this, I will make sure our unit does not cover this stupid badge and I will be writing to guides to point out this is in direct contravention of the DfE guidance.

Oh my goodness! This is so sinister! Girl Guides are brainwashing girls to believe that most of them aren’t really girls?! I suppose it helps pave the way for more boys? Girls and women must not be allowed to gather together to do their own thing.

I am actually relieved now that my youngest just decided to leave Guides this term. I had been a bit disappointed.

Having said that I thought the new badge book was a bit off. Badges for Vlogging and Mocktails and it seems a bit social media and identity focused with the whole “brand me” thing.

My local Guiders are great though, they have been around for a long time, they were Guiders to the mums of the current lot of Brownies and Guides.

If you hold on just a short while, OP, I think you'll find this activity will be quietly pulled and you won't have to bother. I'd be inclined to adapt my own version, though, and help my guides come to the conclusion that gendering objects is generally pretty silly and we should all listen to, wear, read and clean our teeth with whatever pleases us or is thoughtfully provided. Short shrift in my house for anyone who objected to the colour of towels, bedlinen or plastic toothbrushes! I think I would have told them to turn off the light or close their eyes and do it without looking!

Actually, can you even see the colour of your toothbrush in use if you're wielding it correctly?

This is why I resigned from Girlguiding. I'm not qualified to run this kind of session, even if I agreed with it.
And neither are most of the pretty ancient and stuck in their ways Leaders in my District.

It starts well and quickly goes into dodgy ground. I would imagine most of the girls in DD's unit would conclude they were non binary at the end of that. And they're not, they're girls who enjoy a wide range of non stereotyped activities.
Tbh I think a lot of younger teenage girls are beginning to see through the NB label for the nonsense it is.
I think Leaders are being put in a difficult position to do this activity. Many of them won't have a clue what it's about either.

This is where Guides goes wrong, they aren't supposed to be a preachy extension of school. We wrongly assumed that Guides nowadays was on the same level in terms of activities as Scouts. It's nothing like. No wonder our local Scouts group is oversubscribed for boys and girls (with excellent safeguarding in place) whilst the Guides in comparison limps along.

Oh my god, this is why so many girls identify as non binary. So after going through all these stereotypes they are then told that if they don’t fit them they have the option to identify as non binary?! No that’s got it completely the wrong way round! You don’t reject your sex to fit in with stereotypes - it’s the stereotypes that are wrong. The kids should be being told that the stereotypes are all shit and they can do whatever they like. At the end of the activity all of the stereotypes should be muddled all over the boy and girl figures.

NewlyGranny
I hope you're right. This just doesn't fit the new DfE guidelines at all. Even if GG aren't bound by those, it would be ludicrous for them not to fall in line with best guidance. I think Stonewall have been a very toxic partner for GG. I'm looking forward to this being pulled out of the programme.

This is what happens when ideological groups are paid to write education materials for children. Their ideology is prioritised rather than the needs of children. This is a great example of how insidious and toxic these messages are for girls. What are the Guides thinking?
And thank you to the OP and posters on this thread for explaining so clearly what this insidious message represents for girls.

I intend to do this UMA but to change it to be GC. That way the girls get the minutes but also an adult in their life that tells them it's fine to like different things and that your interests don't make you any more or less of a girl. There is a ranger one too but I haven't opened that one yet

I think a lot of younger teenage girls are beginning to see through the NB label for the nonsense it is. Sadly, I don't see this as the case yet.

This activity is a shocker, and tone deaf for the age group. I know my own ex-guide would have felt very uncomfortable with it. Allocating activities and interests that are viewed as 'for boys' would have made her anxiety about 'fitting in' even worse. Even with the following position discussion, she would have been uncomfortable because it would have felt 'outing'. Regardless how caring and very knowledgable leader.

Perhaps approaching it as an actual discussion on exploding stereotypes would be a better approach.

So, no. No to an activity which can lead a non-conforming pre-teen or young teen to thinking that maybe they are non-binary. As I always ask in these cases, who actually benefits from it in the end?

Just don’t teach the girls that junk.

@MoltenLasagne

So this activity encourages girls to enforce gender stereotypes and then says if they don't like them they can be non binary?

So directly contradicting DfE advice on not suggesting that your gender can change if you don't fit into 1950s stereotypes.

It is insane. As you say, it defines 'non binary' as anyone who doesn't tick every single cliched stereotype about their biological sex. It is also manipulative and insidious because there is zero option beyond rigid conformity except to identify as 'non binary,' a manufactured word which is inextricably linked to the trans ideology. Anyone with any individuality is deliberately pushed towards non binary because of the promotion of regressive stereotypes. Barking mad.

What a ridiculous, pretentious pile of shite all that is.

Why don’t they just say that you can wear what you want be what you want whatever your sex is

Lobby groups won't get paid £££ to go around teaching that, will they?

I forgot to add. It also feels like an activity that is aimed at very young children in some ways.

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?

This reads like it was designed for a group that consists of girls and boys, in the context of this exercise it makes no sense.

I did read that the "ideology" was moving away from "born in the wrong body" towards "queer" and "non-binary".

I would have thought that with the general population that this appears even more batshit than the concept that you have an inner essence that is the opposite gender to your body and requires a sex change. Especially as it also requires body modification.

I keep thinking of the amazing GG leader my DDs had. She has made a lifetime commitment to GG and girls. She even persuaded me that GG would be better for my girls than Scouts. Everything she said does not work with the new rules. She is still soldiering on and doing a wonderful job, but is in need of helpers. She is being badly let down by all this.

Sex is binary.

Everything else is likes/dislikes, we used to call that personality, now it's pathologized.

Thanks Christ I grew up in the 80s and I'm starting to think ladette culture wasn't such a bad thing

Lobby groups won't get paid £££ to go around teaching that, will they?

Yes and it's a tragic waste of money. But Stonewall had to find something to keep the money rolling in.

You are absolutely right OP and you write brilliantly. Please forward your thoughts to the relevant bodies. Points 4 and 5 are particularly important!
I got so angry at the 'game' of making children write down a load of stereotypes about boys and girls and then telling them they are wrong to stereotype!! I can imagine a lot of bright chidren rolling their eyes at the uselessness of the exercise!

I think I'd deliver the session and deliberately misunderstand it to be honest. It's a good starting off point for exposing gender stereotypes for the oppressive bullshit that they are, it just needs tweaking.

Do you have to do this badge? I thought there were loads to choose from.

If I had to do this activity as a leader I'd get the girls to cover the boy/girl drawing with the post-it notes then move one of the boy stereotypes to the girl: is she still a girl? Yes. Move another one... still a girl. Etc etc.

Yes this is totally reinforcing stereotypes and is now against DofE guidelines

Pull it. Ask stonewall when they might have any updated material to reflect last weeks update....

Imagine all the money being pumped into these lobby groups instead being spent on improving mental health services for children. The wait times are ridiculous for things like cahms.

It's awful OP.

You have strong grounds for rejecting this on the basis of the government's new guidance released last week. See:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4032584-Updated-relationships-sex-and-health-curriculum-guidance

Good luck.