Girl guiding

[nevernotstruggling]

I've just had an email about the new inclusivity and diversify and blah plan. Is it different?

[persistentwoman]

That statement's like a hostage letter!
If their policy is based on Stonewall advice (similar to the Essex University policies that have resulted in two public apologies) then according to the Independent review of the Essex debacle, Stonewall's advice is incorrect.

[ethelredonagoodday]

They've also posted this:

We would remind everyone commenting on here of our community guidelines bit.ly/3bAGYfs and to be respectful of each other. Anyone who does not follow these guidelines will have their comment hidden and could be blocked from our Facebook channel. We would also remind you of our digital safeguarding policy and volunteer code of conduct for volunteers bit.ly/3eXQfQJ . If you are a volunteer and are in breach of either of these you may be contacted by our safeguarding or compliance teams.

If you would like to contact us and discuss any feedback or concerns, please email [email protected], (whether you’re a volunteer or member of the public).

[AppleKatie]

That FB statement is really ill judged. It’s sparked a lot of local debate here and my WhatsApp is alive with women who hold the same view as me.

Which is in itself encouraging although i am aware of the danger of the echo chamber.

[Theeyeballsinthesky]

Well it’s clearly not rooted in the equality act, it’s rooted in the stonewall interpretation of the equality act. If they were truly following the equality act they’d still be a single sex organisation

[ethelredonagoodday]

There's a lot of pushback on the page, but equally quite a bit of support. 🤯

[TheElementsSong]

As a reality-based parent with two DDs who would be at a good age to join GGs and who love outdoorsy activities, over the past few years I have been watching these events with disbelief. I salute all of the volunteers who have put in so much time and effort for the children. But my DDs will never join GGs.

[MarciaDidia]

@Theeyeballsinthesky

Well it’s clearly not rooted in the equality act, it’s rooted in the stonewall interpretation of the equality act. If they were truly following the equality act they’d still be a single sex organisation

From the Essex University Report:



[MarciaDidia]

Photo didn't load.

[ChattyLion]

Maybe if Girl Guiding are confident that their ‘inclusive’ policy of welcoming in boys to their organisation, and the Equality Act, and GG’s legal charitable aims to benefit ‘girls and women’ are all in alignment, then they could ask the EHRC and charity commission just to take a look at it and then confirm that this is indeed the case?

[Beamur]

@ethelredonagoodday

They've also posted this:

We would remind everyone commenting on here of our community guidelines bit.ly/3bAGYfs and to be respectful of each other. Anyone who does not follow these guidelines will have their comment hidden and could be blocked from our Facebook channel. We would also remind you of our digital safeguarding policy and volunteer code of conduct for volunteers bit.ly/3eXQfQJ . If you are a volunteer and are in breach of either of these you may be contacted by our safeguarding or compliance teams.

If you would like to contact us and discuss any feedback or concerns, please email [email protected], (whether you’re a volunteer or member of the public).

I think this is pretty threatening.
No debate I guess. With a side order of telling off.

[OvaHere]

Simply being transgender does not make someone more of a safeguarding risk than any other person. We proudly remain trans inclusive."

Being male does though. That is the crux of the issue especially in a situation where female children sleep in tents and use shared washing facilities.

They are being deliberately evasive and dishonest with parents, most who will not realise this 'single sex' girls organisation they are entrusting their daughters to is actually mixed sex by stealth.

[Howzaboutye]

I wonder which major insurance House insures GG? Are they aware I wonder, that it's now mixed sex etc etc. Because they will be having to pay out claims, it is surely inevitable. And that makes me so angry. This is idiotic. And another one to add to the 'ah sure but that would never happen'. But it will.

[NoSquirrels]

I love it all and am committed to my girls and team to the extent that I can’t bring myself to walk away over the theoretical. But when/if it gets real that will be the end- and with me I’m certain would be at least 2/3rds of the women in my district.

This is the nub of it. Whilst it’s theoretical then it’s fine to ‘be kind’. But if you are, as an organisation, seriously suggesting that most parents of most pre-teen and teenage girls fancy sending them away on a mixed sex camp where the sex of the people in the accommodation is not at all clear or segregated, and safeguarding is therefore compromised, then I think as an organisation you’re deluded. And when push comes to shove for the volunteer leaders who have to uphold these policies and look the concerned parents in the eye and tell them they’re wrong and bigoted to raise concerns, they’ll not support the organisation selling the females they got in it to support down the river.

Their response that they surveyed the child membership and felt that sufficient to justify an ‘inclusive’ policy that creates more divisions than it solves is just so bloody woeful.

Girls. It’s for females. It’s a single sex organisation. Be upfront about being mixed sex, like the Scouts, if that’s what’s required in 2021. But they won’t because the bloody well know that the only thing holding them as different is being ‘for girls’. And that apparently means whatever you want it to mean.

[RueDeWakening]

@PassGo

Who gets to decide on this? Who put them in that position and can they be voted out or somehow replaced? Were any Guide Leaders or parents consulted at all? Is it possible to take the decision makers to court?

I took part in the consultation last year. There were groups of Leaders asked to participate, based on which underrepresented group we identified into. I have various chronic health conditions which qualify me as disabled (even though I don't identify as such...). I think parents and older girls were also asked to take part, but wouldn't swear to it.

The focus groups were facilitated by an external agency which Girlguiding had presumably paid a fair bit to provide input to the diversity policy.

My focus group was purely focused on barriers to inclusion for people with a disability, we were not able to comment on LGBTQ+ issues at all (even though I tried!).

[HeadIsFucked]

You have to wonder if the recent confirmation that stonewall is peddling the law they want, rather than the law that exists, is causing panic behind the scenes, especially at the likes of Guides HQ..I hope it is, and some swift checking, and then backpeddalling ensues.

I find it hugely pisstaking that they put out that 'there has been people feel excluded because of X reason (lets take disability as an example here, mainly as as someone with a ND child, I can see the minefield this would be for us, so can see it from that side of it, and how my child could run into issues with selfID stuff being implemented) and we are sorry, everyone should feel included!!!' etc page has been put onto a...self ID cheerleading document. Given I am almost positive that at least some (and potentially most) of those who made complaints about disability discrimination..will have done so BECAUSE of the 'mixed sex by stealth' thing. It becomes massively difficult, for a child with a disability to be cared/catered for, when we are talking about a mixed sex environment. Ontop of this, the mixed sex environment by stealth (and god forbid anyone mention the elephant in the room in such a situation) thing is likely to be even more difficult for a ND child to navigate. So many potential issues I can see from that angle. I find it hard to believe the incidences were all happily nothing at all to do with their new policy. And they then use these complaints..as a way to...cheer on more mixed sex by steath nonsense?! Its like they are laughing, at the members now tbh. Its not a good look. And IF its all been as they have been assured by stonewall that it woud be illegal to do anything else, I think we might maybe see sme swift changes made soon. Hopefully anyway. If they have any sese, and have kept up with recent developments.

[HeadIsFucked]

@OvaHere

Simply being transgender does not make someone more of a safeguarding risk than any other person. We proudly remain trans inclusive."

Being male does though. That is the crux of the issue especially in a situation where female children sleep in tents and use shared washing facilities.

They are being deliberately evasive and dishonest with parents, most who will not realise this 'single sex' girls organisation they are entrusting their daughters to is actually mixed sex by stealth.

Well yeah quite.

Being trans of course does not make someone more of a safeguarding risk. Which is why girls, when they declare themselves trans or non binary or whatever identity, do not become more high risk. 'Transboys' are not higher risk than other female people, that would be quite absurd and yes, highy transphobic to suggest.

But thats not whats going on. They know it. We know it. The fudging is ridiculous. And its hugely offensive to me, this 'transpeople are the same risk as anyone else!!!; stuff, when noone questions that. Its not about trans status. Never has been. Never will be.

[Cailleach1]

Does being male make someone more of a safeguarding risk? Aren't something like 95%+ sexual crimes committed by males.

Also, single sex is single sex.

[Whinge]

@ethelredonagoodday

They've also posted this:

We would remind everyone commenting on here of our community guidelines bit.ly/3bAGYfs and to be respectful of each other. Anyone who does not follow these guidelines will have their comment hidden and could be blocked from our Facebook channel. We would also remind you of our digital safeguarding policy and volunteer code of conduct for volunteers bit.ly/3eXQfQJ . If you are a volunteer and are in breach of either of these you may be contacted by our safeguarding or compliance teams.

If you would like to contact us and discuss any feedback or concerns, please email [email protected], (whether you’re a volunteer or member of the public).

I'm a leader and this has really pissed me off. Policing comments and threatening those who are genuinely concerned. The implication that volunteers need to shut up or else they'll be kicked out of the organisation is is disgusting bullying behaviour.

I agree with the poster who said there's a huge disconnect from those at the top of GGUK compared to those of us who run / help at units. I just want to help give girls the safe and fun environment that I benefitted from as young girl. I didn't sign up to deal with trans issues, and won't be forced to go against logical safeguarding advice just because GGUK top bods tell me to do so.

[Beamur]

The timing of the Essex University decision can't have influenced this policy as the legwork behind it has been going on for months.
I think it might make for uncomfortable reading for many organisations who have been persuaded by Stonewall that this was the law.
As an aside I hear both Guides and Scouts have, unsurprisingly, lost a lot of volunteers due to the effects of Covid one ay or another.

[HeadIsFucked]

Oh I didn't mean the policy was influeced by the Essex Uni thing. I meant, bad timing for them to double down on it, assuming their policy is based on Stonewall law, right when Stonewall law is basically declared bollocks and actually, the oppsite of the law, by a discrimination barrister. Thats gotta sting, and hopefully might make the higher ups have a head wobble moment. They are actively breaking the law. Its been known for a while by many here f course, but its completely confirmed, and in writing, as plainly as it could be stated without outright saying 'stonewall are talking shite and with the most generous explanation possible, do not understand the laws they are advising on. More likely, they understand the law, but disagree with it, so are misrepresenting it on purpose to the thousand+ organisations they influence'

[Beamur]

Gotcha. And yes. Very hard to argue that a specialist discrimination barrister has got the law wrong!

[Aroundtheworldin80moves]

I can't help that feel it will be a hard policy to back track from.

I feel sorry for any gender questioning Guides who have been asked to leave as they don't identify as girls. Guides used to be about breaking stereotypes, not reinforcing them.

[SavingsQuestions]

They're going at it on facebook too. Its a full on proud policy.

The threat to guiders if they comment on these posts is chilling 😔. There are some young women who are championing the twaw line and saying this is the future. Its just horrible to watch unfold powerless.

Its shocking. So different to the guiders on the ground but its an organisation I won't have anything to do with now.

[persistentwoman]

@ethelredonagoodday

They've also posted this:

We would remind everyone commenting on here of our community guidelines bit.ly/3bAGYfs and to be respectful of each other. Anyone who does not follow these guidelines will have their comment hidden and could be blocked from our Facebook channel. We would also remind you of our digital safeguarding policy and volunteer code of conduct for volunteers bit.ly/3eXQfQJ . If you are a volunteer and are in breach of either of these you may be contacted by our safeguarding or compliance teams.

If you would like to contact us and discuss any feedback or concerns, please email [email protected], (whether you’re a volunteer or member of the public).

The only way that the Guides can implement this policy is via intimidation like this.
Few parents would accept being told that a man would be supervising their daughters sleeping, washing etc on a camp. So the Guides must make it impossible for others to point out that a man self identifying as a woman is supervising their daughters when undressing / vulnerable.
Because if this was openly acknowledged, then all their work on making Guides inclusive for girls from many faith communities will come to halt.
Deception is at the heart of the issue.

[averylongtimeago]

The comments on their Facebook post are being monitored. Known critical leaders and ex leaders are blocked, comments which don't toe the line are being removed.

There is no way Guide leaders who disagree with this policy can speak out- if we do we run the risk of being sacked from Guiding and, if you work in the wrong sectors such as the civil service, being sacked from your job as well.