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!

@Sittin

Shocking activity. I’m a leader and I think this might be the end for me ☹️. It also seems to assume that there are no non-binary people doing the activity, which is not very inclusive. It others people who don’t fit stereotypes rather than saying that stereotypes are stupid. 😡

Don’t go down without a fight. A previous poster posted this and I think it would be a good way of fighting back.

The DofE have said no.

"Materials which suggest that nonconformity to gender stereotypes be seen as synonymous with having a different gender identity (in this case non binary) should not be used and you should not work with external agencies and organisations that produce such material."

Point out that by teaching this, you would be going against DofE guidelines and would be worried that you’re opening yourself up for legal action, if a parent complains.

Oh yes! Do use the DofE guidance.

Send it to other guide leaders and anyone else you can think of.

Best of luck fighting back on this one!

@Evasmissingletter

I wonder if the scouts are doing a binary identity badge or is it just the GG?

I bet a million pounds...

so women only roles are also open to men who say they're women - hope that's clear

WHERE IS THE SAFEGUARDING??

Datun leaders have been kicked out for asking that very question

Deliciously that was my point.

The girls who do the activity will understand at the end of it that all of them probably are non binary.

Then according to GG own rules will immediately have to leave

Silly sods. Does no one engage their brains any more?

Oh sorry.

Didn't realise they'd changed their minds on booting out female children who like the colour blue.

Much progressive.

My first comment was deleted..?

Because I said vagina=female, penis=male? That was I think the most "controversial" part anyway..?

Or was it the part where I said basing sex on clothes and colour preference etc, was as daft as basing it on music preference or food preference?

As well as what everyone else has said - and I do hope you succeed in getting GG to withdraw this unit OP! - I also really hate the "divide into Team Boy and Team Girl" starting-point.

What is the point of that? Nominally at least all the guides are girls.

Why not get ALL the girls to think together about both sets of stereotypes, and dismantling / challenging both sets?

If you (effectively) start off by telling half the group to "pretend to be boys", you will, subliminally, be putting in place a dynamic that tells the girls in "Team Boy" to be louder, to participate more, and the girls in "Team Girl" to be more passive, more "kind". (See Cordelia Fine's "Delusions of Gender" for a gazillion examples). Why on earth would you start a session with that rubbish?

Isn't there a court case in the offing?

The rest of my original comment edited and re-posted to fit talk guide lines (I hope).

I don't see how clothes or colour preferences etc have anything more to do with biological sex, than the food or music etc we like does..? Surely it doesn't make sense when you really think about it?

Where do we draw the line? Are children who don't conform to stereotypes going to start being re-gendered? As in, you can't be a girl because you don't like pink or glitter etc, unlike that "proper" girl .

I feel like the world's gone a bit nuts..?

@highame

Isn't there a court case in the offing?

Indeed there is

And the importance of these court cases keep stacking up don't they?

Good luck Katie.

@flowery

So they’re saying that if one doesn’t conform to gender stereotypes this is fine but it means you’re non binary? Rather than just a girl or boy who doesn’t conform to stereotypes.

Quite.

But its not about the stereotypes mind you

And what is interesting is that Stonewall have been pushing these gender stereotypes for the entire time. The government guidance came out last week, a little too late for Stonewall to change their materials.

They've been raking over this crap for years. It's very useful that the government have said please do not use people who do that.

There is no reverse ferret that can make people believe the evidence of their own eyes, from like last week.

First it makes the girls reinforce stereotypes which they know or should know are limiting and damaging.

Then it tells the girls that if they don't identify with the stereotypes, they may not be girls.

Jesus, they never stop banging on the same old broken drum! Having a range of interests doesn’t make people non-binary, just as liking pink doesn’t make them female and football doesn’t make them male.

Is there a link to this activity online anywhere? Or could you photograph the materials and post? It's an important example of the nonsense Stonewall has been promoting and why they should not be in schools.

It's not available online. Leaders only can buy these and they are hard copy only.

I haven't got much to add to the points that have already been made but this activity is a perfect example of why Stonewall need to be kept well away from children.

Scouts have an LGBT+ awareness badge
No idea if there's also an official Scout badge, but this one linked to is unofficial and not made by the Scout Association, as far as I can see. It looks like the site sells badges and has activities to do to go alongside them, but isn't part of the Scout Association.

That activity is really shocking but sadly unsurprising.

Do fight back using the new DfE guidance - they have all but officially banned stonewall indoctrination training in schools. Girl Guides need to step away from this.

Also, I really had never considered that music is gendered. Is it? I like metal - I assume from the rest of their drivel that that is boy-music and I am therefore non binary? Who knew? Glad no-one told me that as a young teen....

That's awful. In the old rainbow roundabouts there were activities about challenging stereotypes but it was done in a "girls can do anything" sort of way not a "if you don't agree with the stereotypes we've got a special identity over here for you!" way. I guess those resources were written in a different time. I'm guessing this is a guide UMA, glad I don't do guides now!

"You're a girl, who can do anything at all, like anything at all, stereotypes are other people's problem."
And growing up in the 80s and 90s, that's pretty much what I was told. Some older relatives and even teachers had 'old-fashioned' ideas (or modern now I suppose) but even they expected me and my female peers to get an education and pursue maths, engineering, science, that wasn't unusual in any way, girl does science didn't warrant a mention.
Why has it all gone so wrong?