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!

When wondering what life would be like for a nonbinary person, do they distinguish between nonbinary females who will be discriminated against and be at the receiving end of misogyny because they are female, and nonbinary males.

According to Google, you can be a non-binary female and present as hyper feminine.

Which, presumably, is the same for males.

Atter. Fucking. Nonsense.

EvenSupposing
But it does start well. Given how prevalent and powerful stereotypes are, it is worth exploring the female stereotype. If we don't acknowledge that a huge amount of energy is put into promoting them and we don't acknowledge they exist then we're doing the girls a disservice - especially when some branches of feminism seem to think that if you call it empowerment then unquestioningly doing what the patriarchy likes is somehow liberating.

It goes wrong, in my opinion, when instead of saying 'and these stereotypes are damaging bollocks', they offer a little superficial way to identify out of being female.

It starts very well.

I’d do it as per script until they drop the non-binary bullshit bomb, then stop and do something else.

Teenage girls should be listening to the Slits like I was

genius.com/The-slits-typical-girls-lyrics

No it doesn't start well. It could with some tweaks. But you are asking them to list stereotypes - which we know is damaging for girls. And, as pps have pointed out the whole lesson is based on a switch where they do what you ask them to and then (aha!!) you tell them what bigots they are for doing so. But they aren't going to play. Some girls, somewhere - and my dd would be one - are going to go 'no! Those are regressive stereotypes and I'm not playing!' and where does that leave your lesson plan? It's all fundementally dishonest and that never works in a classroom because kids are not stupid.

It goes wrong right here:

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!

Things that 'represent that gender'. If you substituted that with 'stereotypes of that gender' I'd still possibly want to know why it's a better activity than say, rock climbing, but it would at least include them in the set-up.

Yes really not sure about this

It's assuming that all the girls are going to be sexist in order to attribute the stereotypes to the right sex. That's why it goes wrong to start with.

Guides should be inhabiting a non-sexist environment. It wouldn't be necessary to tell them that stereotypes are sexist, they could just give them an environment where it doesn't occur to anyone.

Yes!

It reminds me of those revisionist fairy tales which are all 'Christabel wasn't like the other princesses. They all spent their days wearing stupid big pink dresses and hanging about in towers playing harps but she liked hang gliding and wearing overalls.' When actually there are kick ass fairy tale heroines in traditional folk tales all over the world where no-one assumes that girls and girl stuff is shit as a basic premise before going on to 'subvert' the form.

I think Stonewall probably have an in house Teach First graduate or NQT writing this bollocks for them - it smacks of inexperience.

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

This is awful. It's directly saying to girls that if you don't identify with the stereotypes of womanhood then you must be non binary.

Even supposing

Just catching up and couldn't agree more

It does not start well

Stereotype threat etc

Even the act of getting children to sit down and think right this is for girls this is for boys is reinforcement.

Going to catch up now

@Datun

It's assuming that all the girls are going to be sexist in order to attribute the stereotypes to the right sex. That's why it goes wrong to start with.

Guides should be inhabiting a non-sexist environment. It wouldn't be necessary to tell them that stereotypes are sexist, they could just give them an environment where it doesn't occur to anyone.

Yes. This is it exactly.

I really wonder if it has occurred to them that some or even many of the girls might not really believe any or many of those stereotypes, or that even if they think there are some differences in what boys and girls like overall, that these are not binding? Some may not be terribly aware of them.

And there is always the danger, which I think is more significant than people sometimes appreciate, that in the rejection of these stereotypes they end up actually denigrating femininity as less worthy. Even if that's not in the program it can very easily come out from the leaders or girls.

What I think is really notable to me is that in trying to make the girls have a sense of themselves as strong and competent and having lots of interests, they have focused on all this navel gazing shit, instead of allowing them to develop skills capacities and talents and areas of expertise and independence - the real things that really make people feel competent and strong.

The other thing is they are actively going to learn more sexist stereotypes.

The list includes music...

'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'

Emotions?

It's a pretty weird list.

I had no idea music was gendered tbh. I mean so much that it's on this list. I mean sure some bands appeal more to girls (bay city rollers ) but in general music is for everyone.

School subjects? Ok wow.

Some of these kids will have been brought up very carefully to feel that everything is for everyone... And even if they know blue/pink and that, they now get to learn that emotions are gendered! And music too!

And aren't they a bit old for toys?

Yeah whole thing is a heap of shit. No it doesn't start well. It's shit from the off.

@EvenSupposing

No it doesn't start well. It could with some tweaks. But you are asking them to list stereotypes - which we know is damaging for girls. And, as pps have pointed out the whole lesson is based on a switch where they do what you ask them to and then (aha!!) you tell them what bigots they are for doing so. But they aren't going to play. Some girls, somewhere - and my dd would be one - are going to go 'no! Those are regressive stereotypes and I'm not playing!' and where does that leave your lesson plan? It's all fundementally dishonest and that never works in a classroom because kids are not stupid.

Exactly. Well said. This will be an argument ten seconds in, when one smart arse says 'girls/boys can x too' in response to every suggestion. And they'd be right.

I think Stonewall probably have an in house Teach First graduate or NQT writing this bollocks for them - it smacks of inexperience.

I don’t know. When a business is built on the idea that anyone who doesn’t happily embrace all the stereotypes linked to their sex must be trans, this sounds like the obvious outcome to me.

Yes. I was that smart arse. And now my dd carries on the family tradition of smart arsery

We're probably Northern women or something (we're not).

@EvenSupposing

No it doesn't start well. It could with some tweaks. But you are asking them to list stereotypes - which we know is damaging for girls. And, as pps have pointed out the whole lesson is based on a switch where they do what you ask them to and then (aha!!) you tell them what bigots they are for doing so. But they aren't going to play. Some girls, somewhere - and my dd would be one - are going to go 'no! Those are regressive stereotypes and I'm not playing!' and where does that leave your lesson plan? It's all fundementally dishonest and that never works in a classroom because kids are not stupid.

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

@EmpressJKRowlingSpartacus

I think Stonewall probably have an in house Teach First graduate or NQT writing this bollocks for them - it smacks of inexperience.

I don’t know. When a business is built on the idea that anyone who doesn’t happily embrace all the stereotypes linked to their sex must be trans, this sounds like the obvious outcome to me.

Well yeah. But I just meant the bit where the person designing the lesson has unwittingly set themselves up for ten minutes of saying 'yes yes... Well I know they are just stereotypes yes but some people...Well I know that's not what I asked but it was what I thought you'd...Well no of course I don't think only girls can play with dolls...Yes! Of course boys can play with...Well yes some people think girls shouldn't get angry for example... Yes Cressida I can see that you are angry now...' etc etc. Rather than the ethical vacuum of the lesson objective which is obviously a Stonewall issue.

Poor pedagogy annoys me. If you're going to indoctrinate children into your morally redundant world view at least do it properly!

Evensupposing Your description of the lessons progress fills me with joy 😂

Yes. They start from the premise that the only thing wrong with gender stereotypes is that they are binary. And that this is bad for NB people.

Rather than saying that gender stereotypes are a regressive crock of shit that are bad for everyone.

I don't know why people are saying 'it starts well'? It starts by asking girls to list stereotypes of what boys and girls like/wear/play with. It starts incredibly badly, well before it descends into insanity

If you were going to do a lesson an smashing gnder stereotypng you'd start the same way. Identify all the things you can think of that are stereotypes based on what little boys and little girls are made of.

Once all the sugar and spices have been identified it SHOULD go on to ask why that is wrong and then how to counter it. But it doesn't, it heads of for Gender City.

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).

I did something similar to the first page (that I created) with my mixed Brownie/Guide group except we stuck job titles on boys/girls/both. Some of my younger Brownies didn't think boys could be dancers etc but the older girls explained.
We then videoed the girls talking about why they didn't like stereotyping and the videos went on the Newsbeat website. They were great.

I mean Newsround!
They are still there.
www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/24018773

I have about 20 years worth of notes, videos etc of the same, in sport, with 16+ year olds.

It's a bit mixed, some of the same old stuff comes up every year, but in general there is less certainty about the differences in social acceptance over the years. Then I go and ruin it by teaching the physiological differences and you can see the more stereotypically male students get het up as that seemingly proves women can't.... rugby and boxing usually!