Girlguides - is it a lost cause?

[iamruth]

Having pulled both of my daughters out based on their switching of gender/sex and what Myself and my husband believe are strong safeguarding concerns as a result as well as the general erosion of girls’ rights as a result I’m wondering if it’s now a lost cause? Is there any chance at all of them being challenged or is that it now?

I am all for sex education - but done under safeguarding guidelines. I don’t want some dominatrix telling my 13 year old about bdsm and hand out condoms.

Given what I have seen of the posters on this board, male borns also seem to be quite positive to anal sex - as they have a prostrate. They just don’t get that it is all risk and no pleasure for women. Women cannot identify into having a prostrate.

I don’t want any male to talk to my daughters about sex. Especially not outside safeguarding guidelines. What is wrong with people.

@Beamur

I think suggesting your daughter goes to Scouts instead to reduce the likelihood of sexual activity is an interesting take. In reality, I imagine that the policy is there because there have been issues regarding contraception and a policy written to frame the law and good practice. It's not advocating for sex on camps and neither would any responsible Leader simply dish them out on request. Not all girls going to Guides/Rangers are sweet innocent things, they're normal teenagers! A friend of mine is a Scout Leader (female) and they frequently have to manage blossoming teen relationships in their units. It's not all woggles and whittling there either!

Difference is Scouts have learnt the hard way that not everyone volunteering as an leader is doing it for the right reasons and have improved safeguarding, GG haven’t had male* leaders up to now so are naive

*when you look at the lists and lists of scout leaders who have committed offences against children it is also male leaders

MNHarpie yep.
Scouts, or rather, the children going to Scouts have historically learnt this the hard way.
My first comment was really about going from a (mostly) single sex organisation to one which admits boys and girls is not going to reduce the chances of your daughter's meeting boys (of their own age).

@Beamur

MNHarpie yep. Scouts, or rather, the children going to Scouts have historically learnt this the hard way. My first comment was really about going from a (mostly) single sex organisation to one which admits boys and girls is not going to reduce the chances of your daughter's meeting boys (of their own age).

I also hope the scouts won’t be putting male scouts who declare they are girls in the same tents as girls, something GG declared they would do

The concerns expressed in this thread about GG naivety have nothing to do with reducing teens dating opportunities

I'm agog at the condom policy. Do GGUK have any concept of duty of care? The minute you put yourself in a position where you are doling out contraception, is there not a corresponding duty to teach the child how to use the thing, what to do if it breaks, the need to request emergency contraception etc? Giving out a condom is not just an isolated event. If I was a disgruntled and litigious parent, and my child received a personal injury or became pregnant as a result of sex, facilitated with a GG condom, and sex that would not have happened without the condom, I would be suing. And I simply cannot get my head around GGUK condoning facilitating statutory rape.

what do you do if the condom breaks?

I know, I know!!! I read the guidelines.

They can take a child under 16 for STD check and the morning after pill. But they will only encourage the child to tell her parents, so the parents may never find out.

I used to work with 14-19 year olds and on my life, if I'd ever had to sign up to a policy that meant I would be giving out condoms to 14 year olds I'd have walked out.

They have lost their collective minds and have been very heavily influenced and just cannot see a way out.

I just hope they use this as an opportunity to roll everything back.

Yup, it's the condoning of statutory rape that I find mind boggling. Presumably GG had a lawyer involved in drawing up this code. Was there a conversation in which the lawyer pointed out issuing condoms to minors is facilitating statutory rape and GG said 'Nah, no probs'?

Scouts also say that a trans boy/girl can choose their sleeping area, and recommend having gender neutral toilets and showers. They do also suggest screens/rotas for privacy.

www.scouts.org.uk/volunteers/inclusion-and-diversity/including-everyone/lgbtplus/transgender-and-gender-identity/supporting-trans-young-people/

[quote averylongtimeago]Scouts also say that a trans boy/girl can choose their sleeping area, and recommend having gender neutral toilets and showers. They do also suggest screens/rotas for privacy.

www.scouts.org.uk/volunteers/inclusion-and-diversity/including-everyone/lgbtplus/transgender-and-gender-identity/supporting-trans-young-people/[/quote]
Oh ffs thought they’d learnt something from all their multiple scandals but clearly not

So are 13 year old boy-children offered condoms if someone wants to assault them, or is that just reserved for the girls? It’s rape, “helping” is NOT providing contraception it’s protecting those girls from underage sex aka rape.

I think it shows again the massive divide between HQ and what actual leaders are doing. I can’t for a minute imagine a leader taking a group of guides away and telling them where the emergency condoms are.

This is because you and the leaders you know are doing an ethical and appropriate job. The problems come when someone without that approach and there’s space and even policies that allow massive safeguarding failings to happen.

A quick look on Girlguiding's website via google and it seems the pages advising about condoms have been taken down.

I must say that I have taken girls on lots of camps and indoor residentials, including huge jamborees with thousands of guides and scouts and have never "doled out" condoms, or felt the need to have them in the first place!
On all camps there are rules in place to keep children safe: including not going into other people's tents, visiting other groups with out asking, wondering off on your own. All the common sense things you would expect.
Can I also say that leaders do not share showers or toilets with girls and certainly do not share tents or bedrooms. The only exception to this would be at a sleepover in a hall or museum, where we would set up a leaders area in a corner.

This whole thing makes me incredibly angry and sad. This whole push to be "inclusive" is destroying a wonderful organisation. Just look at the number of people saying they won't let their daughters join.

I think it is deliberate, women and girls are to be allowed nothing, we are non men, not valued or respected and anything belonging to us is to be taken over or destroyed.

The inclusion agenda is being bulldozed through both organisations it seems. Without sufficient refection on where it could conflict or go wrong.

Perhaps Units should collectively refuse to hand over subs until there is a satisfactory resolution of issues. Lack of funds could help force the issue?

@Shedmistress

I used to work with 14-19 year olds and on my life, if I'd ever had to sign up to a policy that meant I would be giving out condoms to 14 year olds I'd have walked out.

They have lost their collective minds and have been very heavily influenced and just cannot see a way out.

I just hope they use this as an opportunity to roll everything back.

I’ve worked in residential social work where it was very well known that our teens were sexually active.

We supported them to their gp for the pill and to sexual health clinics for contraception/std testing.

All of which required very strict risk assessment done by a mdt meeting and evidence of work done to educate them about safer sex, consent and so on.

Never would it be considered acceptable for any member of staff to hand these out, even the most senior members of the social work team. Always it had to directly come from a hcp. And that was true for the 16/17 year old teens we were responsible for also.

But of course some children are sexualised early. They need help, support and protection.

Some people think that the solution is to sexualise all children early and give them all condoms ans sex toys. This drives me insane.

It is an abhorrent lack of care Doubletoil.

@averylongtimeago

A quick look on Girlguiding's website via google and it seems the pages advising about condoms have been taken down.

I must say that I have taken girls on lots of camps and indoor residentials, including huge jamborees with thousands of guides and scouts and have never "doled out" condoms, or felt the need to have them in the first place!
On all camps there are rules in place to keep children safe: including not going into other people's tents, visiting other groups with out asking, wondering off on your own. All the common sense things you would expect.
Can I also say that leaders do not share showers or toilets with girls and certainly do not share tents or bedrooms. The only exception to this would be at a sleepover in a hall or museum, where we would set up a leaders area in a corner.

This whole thing makes me incredibly angry and sad. This whole push to be "inclusive" is destroying a wonderful organisation. Just look at the number of people saying they won't let their daughters join.

I think it is deliberate, women and girls are to be allowed nothing, we are non men, not valued or respected and anything belonging to us is to be taken over or destroyed.

I wish this site had a like button for posts like this

I’m another one who’s horrified and disgusted by the whole thing.

I’d already decided not to enrol my daughter at Rainbows given my safeguarding concerns and now this absolute shitshow has come out.

Firing women for raising genuine concerns and instead hiring men who get their kicks from dressing up as women, BDSM and guns and happily showcase this across social media. NO.

What is going on. They’ve all lost their minds at HQ.

I went to rainbows, brownies and guides as a youngster and loved them all. I’m so angry that my daughter now will lose out on these experiences because GG thinks it’s better to prioritise men than focus on the girls their organisation was created for.

It’s a DISGRACE

@Beamur

The inclusion agenda is being bulldozed through both organisations it seems. Without sufficient refection on where it could conflict or go wrong.

You're left wondering

a) is this because it's being shoved through by people with highly personal agendas and no training or knowledge whatsoever that qualifies them to advise on children or safeguarding?

b) is this because those people have repeatedly been told (Whittle on this very board) but are utterly determined on their own agenda regardless to the cost of females of all ages?

c) is this because those who are capable and qualified have either shut up, knuckled under and been too afraid to stand up for the needs of children in their care over the desires and needs of middle aged adults to make use of the situation to their own benefit, and seen what has happened to those who resist and whistleblow?

I would suspect the reflection has happened. And that it's been done anyway. And I would be deleted and banned if I spoke my mind here about what this looks like.

I’ve worked in residential social work where it was very well known that our teens were sexually active.

We supported them to their gp for the pill and to sexual health clinics for contraception/std testing.

All of which required very strict risk assessment done by a mdt meeting and evidence of work done to educate them about safer sex, consent and so on.

Never would it be considered acceptable for any member of staff to hand these out, even the most senior members of the social work team. Always it had to directly come from a hcp. And that was true for the 16/17 year old teens we were responsible for also.

You worked.
I expect you were trained.
Guiders are volunteers and most definitely not trained in handling the sort of situation you describe, and not should they be.

Agree @MrsFin that was my point. We had a great deal of training, mdt meetings about this and on going risk assessments JUST to support teens to access gp or sexual health clinics to have hcp provide contraception.

We would never have been allowed to hand it out ourselves under any circumstance, even the most senior social work staff, even with the 16/17 year old pupils.

Any adult handing out contraception is leaving themselves open to accusations of abuse, is teaching children adults who do this are safe when they aren’t outside of HCP very select remit regarding prescribing or providing contraception.

@RedCarpetRebellion

Agree *@MrsFin* that was my point. We had a great deal of training, mdt meetings about this and on going risk assessments JUST to support teens to access gp or sexual health clinics to have hcp provide contraception.

We would never have been allowed to hand it out ourselves under any circumstance, even the most senior social work staff, even with the 16/17 year old pupils.

Any adult handing out contraception is leaving themselves open to accusations of abuse, is teaching children adults who do this are safe when they aren’t outside of HCP very select remit regarding prescribing or providing contraception.

Agreed. The same applies to teachers. We're not 'competent' to advise on contraception choice, terminations or any other medical issue. What we do is signpost teenagers to appropriate health care resources. And get involved with complex decisions about confidentiality. It takes time and a good understanding of boundaries. The actions of gg in encouraging their volunteers to engage in having discussions and giving advice about sex, sexuality and contraception to children is professionally dangerous.

So what do we think, are GG just going to wait until the mainstream media move onto another story?