A boy in dd’s Guides Unit

[Hoosi]

DD went for her first session at a Guides unit yesterday. She has been asking to go for weeks, she never went to Brownies but four of her school friends are in this group.

She was telling me about it afterwards and said ‘this other dude…’. I didn’t know what she meant (a man walking his dog in the park? Another child nearby? Gender neutral way of referring to one of the girls in the group? A male volunteer expert helping out for the session?) but it turns out she was referring to one of the other children in the group who she thought was a boy. I said guides was supposed to be girls only and she got confused and thought maybe it was a girl 🙄🙄🙄

So, do I assume this is a trans male child? Do I ask the leader to clarify? I don’t particularly care about the boy being there, I wasn’t after a female only activity for her, it was just because her friends were members. But I don’t like the confusion, and I can see concerns arising in the future if residential trips become possible again.

What would you do?

[quote CloudsandTeacups]@Reachersloveinterest I have read the full thread. I am baffled by the assumption that adequate safeguarding policies are not in place. This is beyond comprehension. Actually what needs to happen is that you need to educate yourself before making outlandish claims.[/quote]
I'm a guide leader. So was Katie Alcock until very recently. So are a number of other posters on this thread. I am baffled that you have read the thread, yet still think you know more than we do. You are sharing your beliefs based on assumptions. We are sharing truth, based on facts, training and experience.

Just a quick return to this statement:
Actually up to 20% of child sex offenders in the UK are actually women. And this is a trend which has accelerated in recent years if data is to be believed.

What else has happened recently to affect these statistics? It wouldn't be police forces recording identities by the offender's stated choice of gender would it? Why yes, yes it would.

There's a trend accelerating in recent years of males identifying as women as well. This has impacted the crime stats. When woman are raping with their female penis.

Why can't trans boys go to a Scouts - where both girls and boys can attend?

I have read the full thread. I am baffled by the assumption that adequate safeguarding policies are not in place. This is beyond comprehension.

I think you've nailed the problem there.

You don't seem to understand why safeguarding is in place. It is not to brand every man a pervert. It is to safeguard against the ones that are, to keep children safe, and also to keep the adults in question safe from false accusations
Spot on. Safeguarding is about keeping everyone safe, including adults.

People who get offended by safeguarding or are bothered that safeguarding measures would be in place are exactly the reason why we have safeguarding. Imagine being the sort of adult who was annoyed or offended that they had to follow some rules that are designed to keep people safe. Imagine what sort of adult would want to make access to children and vulnerable people easier because their feelings were hurt by following safeguarding rules.It's a big red flag.

[quote CloudsandTeacups]@Reachersloveinterest I have read the full thread. I am baffled by the assumption that adequate safeguarding policies are not in place. This is beyond comprehension. Actually what needs to happen is that you need to educate yourself before making outlandish claims.[/quote]

The basis of safeguarding is that you do not assume.

You work on the ongoing basis that your 'adequate safeguarding policies' are inevitably porous. & you look at worst case scenarios.

As in, 'this horrible situation has now happened - how did you anticipate the possibility & plan to avoid it? With regard to how things might have changed since you last complacently announced that you had a "robust safeguarding policy"?'

The issue here is that GG have disqualified themselves from carrying out this sort of essential audit.

Why can't trans boys go to a Scouts - where both girls and boys can attend?

They could. But transboys aren't really the issue here, GG was barring them, but asfaik they are now allowed to stay. Transboys are biologically female, so there should be no issue.

Transboys were "managed out" but are now officially welcome. Transmen, including those with no medical transition and no GRC, cannot be leaders. So they are excluding some legal and biological women on the basis of their gender reassignment status.

So, some posters are saying that safeguarding is beyond their comprehension. Maybe safeguarding is beyond their comprehension and indeed that is the best gloss one could put on it, I suppose. They also state other people need to edumacate themselves in order to become less concerned (become 'progressive'?) about the safeguarding of children.

Hmm. No thanks.

Woah, skimming this thread.

Girls of Guides age can get pregnant.

I watched a "gyne responds to" thing on fb about how a young transman and transwoman accidentally had a baby (footling breech on the toilet) because they had no idea it could happen.

"Jumping to conclusions" and "are you sure" and (essentially) "don't be silly, big flap" doesn't help this mother establish if it's possible her daughter might be sharing sleeping accommodation with a trans identified male.

If you've "done a bunch of safeguarding" you'll know you just have to consider the worst possible scenario and work out exactly how it can be prevented.

Given Guides have stated they won't be sharing information about trans status of guide members, I'd want to establish the facts.

And yes it's unpleasant if the individual is a girl with a deep voice, I teach a very deep voiced girl, but more unpleasant to be dealing with accidental pregnancy or worse.

This is why a left Guiding after almost 20 years of being a Leader.
I didn't want to have to ever be in the position of having someone with a penis at one of my residentials and to be forbidden from telling parents, calling it out on risk assessments, putting in safeguarding measures etc.

There will be an "incident" at some point, and the shit really will hit the fan. I didn't want it to happen on my watch.

@Reachersloveinterest* I have read the full thread. I am baffled by the assumption that adequate safeguarding policies are not in place. This is beyond comprehension. Actually what needs to happen is that you need to educate yourself before making outlandish claims

Suspect it's you that needs educating. Have you even looked at the guiding policies recently? Adequate safeguards are not in place. If you had an even basic knowledge of safeguarding you would spot this right away.

Hypothetically.

Say I'm a Brownie leader planning a Pack Holiday.

My DBS checked, GGUK approved husband is the unit helper, and we have a 7 year old DS who has to come with us because there's nobody else to care for him.

My assistant Leader is a self-ID trans woman. They have been DBS checked, but in their new name, not their 'dead name'.

There are 18 Brownies attending, one is a 7-year old trans girl.

I have to provide separate sleeping accommodation, showering and toilet facilities for DH and DS, away from the Brownies and other adults. I have to list them as males on the permission to plan form, have their attendance approved by my district commissioner, and all the Brownie's parents are aware that they will be present and choose to send or not send their Brownie on pack holiday accordingly. I write my risk assessment to allow for a female first aider to be present and for No leader to ever be alone with a Brownie.
Quite rightly, they are considered as a risk because they are male, and safeguarding processes kick in.

Meanwhile, the Brownie's parents are not aware that one of the Leaders is a self-ID transwoman, and one of the Brownies is a trans girl. They share sleeping accommodation and showers and toilet facilities with the other Brownies, and a Leader's bedroom with me, despite the fact that my own husband is not allowed to do so.
They are marked as female on the permission to plan forms, and treated as female for safeguarding and risk assessment purposes.

Can anyone explain why, in this hypothetical situation, the Brownie's trans girl and trans woman Leader are considered less of a risk than the leader's husband and son?

It's not just that there are no adequate safeguarding policies and procedures. In this type of situation adequate safeguarding is specifically forbidden.

Reacher is absolutely correct.
And that self ID'd trans woman could be helping your daughter get dressed, shower or go to the toilet.
Some of the younger girls need this level of attention at a residential.

Realistically, if I am put in this situation as a Guide leader of 20 years, I will have to resign.

[quote Etorih]^**@Reachersloveinterest* I have read the full thread. I am baffled by the assumption that adequate safeguarding policies are not in place. This is beyond comprehension. Actually what needs to happen is that you need to educate yourself before making outlandish claims^

Suspect it's you that needs educating. Have you even looked at the guiding policies recently? Adequate safeguards are not in place. If you had an even basic knowledge of safeguarding you would spot this right away.[/quote]
I am quite sure that this information is coming as a massive shock to many people. Who are understandably sceptical, because it is so unbelievable. As are male rapists sharing cells with vulnerable women as part of their sentence.

However, I have to say, in this case, the wanky term 'educate yourself' rather give the ideological game away, doesn't it!

Its SOME men! A small number of men. Do we blame all members of a faith for terrorist acts?

So, to be clear. You believe that all spaces should be mixed sex, and that we should do away with things like PVG/DBS checks etc?

I am quite sure that this information is coming as a massive shock to many people

Of course. Although it shouldn't come as a shock to Reacher, as their posting history indicates they actual run a guiding group.
It will be a shock to people who would have no reason to be aware of this.
So either Reacher hasn't looked at the guiding policies despite the fact she runs a guiding group.
Or there's something else going on...

@Etorih

I am quite sure that this information is coming as a massive shock to many people

Of course. Although it shouldn't come as a shock to Reacher, as their posting history indicates they actual run a guiding group.
It will be a shock to people who would have no reason to be aware of this.
So either Reacher hasn't looked at the guiding policies despite the fact she runs a guiding group.
Or there's something else going on...

Pardon?

Of course I have read the policies. What else do you think is going on? I am, I suppose, lucky that I haven't (yet) been put in a situation similar to the one I describe.

Of course I have read the policies. What else do you think is going on? I am, I suppose, lucky that I haven't (yet) been put in a situation similar to the one I describe.

With all your safeguarding knowledge, then do educate me on how you would risk assess a residential holiday when a transgirl is attending?

The point is that I couldn't adequately risk assessment, as I wouldn't be aware, and even if I was, I wouldn't be allowed to say or do anything, so the event wouldn't be adequately risk assessed.
Are you mixing me up with another poster?

I note the situation you have describe. But I am not sure why you are telling people to educate themselves when clearly there isn't adequate safeguarding policies in place around this.

Are you mixing me up with another poster?

I might be. Your name has been carried down on that comment. Apologies. You clearly do see the problem.