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?

Well, it's just that I see so many women on here who go on about how unsafe it is for women to walk alone etc. How men just don't understand this. Always seemingly completely oblivious that they're much safer than men. This type of mentality comes from constant discussion and fixation about risk and danger.

Safer than men how, exactly? Statistically, it might be the case that more men are victims of male violence than women, but the individual woman is generally going to be more vulnerable IF subject to male violence, because biology. Or are we meant to apologise and stop complaining about male assaults on women because men attack men too?
You can fuck right off with that one. But rest assured, mothers of young sons are as gut-sick worried for the safety of their children as are mothers of daughters.
Toxic masculinity. 'Everybody hates it, [some] men don't care.'

Well, it depends on the barometer of how you judge safety. Donald Trump is probably less able to defend himself than a young black male from the Bronx, but he's also much less likely to experience police or gang violence.

If we're going to say that women are at higher risk or spousal murder due to the figures then it follows that men are at greater risk of attack by stranger. I don't say this to annoy anyone. It just baffles me when people use being a man as an example of the pinnacle of safety. I think it's because they apply it to their experience and aren't reply aware of how men are challenged and targeted by each other.

This is a feminist forum. We centre women, the risks to them and their safety and well being.

Street harassment, sexual harassment, sexual coercion, rape, sexual assault, #MeToo, etc. These are what women suffer at the hands of men. Men suffering from male violence do so in an entirely different way.

Women's boundaries are under widespread attack by men in a way mens simply aren't.

Pretending there is no difference between the offending or behaviour of women and men will impact women.

Male violence is a scourge for both sexes, but the issues for women and men aren't symmetrical.

That kind of 'men are unsafe too' is half right. But who are they being attacked by? (Clue: in the main, it's not women)
Plus we're not talking about being in the street and attacked by a random, or in the Bronx. We're talking about a group of children in a club in the UK. Being looked after by women they trust and who their parents have trusted into their care.

I think it's because they apply it to their experience and aren't reply aware of how men are challenged and targeted by each other.

I think the majority here recognise that male violence is a problem. To women. And to eachother. This is however the feminist board. Where we centre women and children. There is however another section that centres men in their feminism. But this isn't it.

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

Wow. If that is so, Brownies don't give a shit about safeguarding or the safety of children. Anyone can adopt a new moniker and shed a 'problematic' past. How wonderful of Brownies (and/or the state) to enable that.

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

That's very concerning. Why wouldn't they provide all the names they had been known as on their dbs application. One could be accused of having something to hide otherwise. Massive red flag.

@Cailleach1

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

Wow. If that is so, Brownies don't give a shit about safeguarding or the safety of children. Anyone can adopt a new moniker and shed a 'problematic' past. How wonderful of Brownies (and/or the state) to enable that.

This was a hypothetical situation, not my actual unit. My team is in fact a fabulous group of biological women, aged 21 to 55. I've known two of them since they were babies and another since we were teenagers together. Every other unit I've ever been involved in has been similar, but we live in a close-knit area with a low population turnover where everyone knows everyone else. That won't be the case everywhere.

Is it actually a thing where people aren't required to put all the names that they have been known as on their DBS? Although thinking about it, I'm certain it is a requirement, but there's a massive problem if people can actually get away with not doing so.

I think actually there's a confidential route people can take so their former name isn't mentioned to their employer. Though I don't know how anyone would know if they didn't.

If I'm totally honest I'm not sure. There was talk about it being possible some time ago, and I am not certain if it was ever confirmed as possible.

Here
www.gov.uk/guidance/transgender-applications

So the person could do a DBS under that route, not disclosing their previous name to
(Eg.) Guiding, but the DBS would still show up any convictions obtained under the previous name? Or would it just not show up anything from before the name change so their new employer wouldn't be aware of their past?

My understanding is it would show up any convictions but not the name/sex attached to them.

If that's the case then that's good, for both the organisation and the volunteer.

Certainly if you change your name by deed poll, you can disguise your past.

As many sex offenders have already done.

I'm pretty certain it works the same with a GRC too. It's my understanding that you have to volunteer the information about your past name, if you don't, then no one knows about it.

I mean for God sake, how difficult is it to get two databases talking to each other.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/af26ad76-e4b6-11eb-a821-58982b1c936d?shareToken=add47972c90d4100cb9566f56f1d4f3c

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/af26ad76-e4b6-11eb-a821-58982b1c936d?shareToken=d6a2ac79b2570e069cbd82633e9de831

Sex offenders changing names to avoid scrutiny.

Could they circumvent DBS checks this way?

self declared

Cross post

Why might a sex offender decide to use a new name not linked with their offences and not disclose the name they are known to the police as when applying for a role involving access to children? 🤔 No, can't think of any reason they would do that. 🙄

@Tibtom

Why might a sex offender decide to use a new name not linked with their offences and not disclose the name they are known to the police as when applying for a role involving access to children? 🤔 No, can't think of any reason they would do that. 🙄

It's obviously bonkers, and very dangerous.

The most shocking thing, to me at least, is that this wasn't considered as an implication. Or if it was, it was dismissed.

It's the first bloody thing I'd think of.

That kind of 'men are unsafe too' is half right. But who are they being attacked by? (Clue: in the main, it's not women)

Not to derail thread, but isn't this a form of victim blaming? A grievous assault isn't lessened by the victim sharing his sex with his attacker, surely.

@Datun

This is a feminist forum. We centre women, the risks to them and their safety and well being.

Street harassment, sexual harassment, sexual coercion, rape, sexual assault, #MeToo, etc. These are what women suffer at the hands of men. Men suffering from male violence do so in an entirely different way.

Women's boundaries are under widespread attack by men in a way mens simply aren't.

Pretending there is no difference between the offending or behaviour of women and men will impact women.

Male violence is a scourge for both sexes, but the issues for women and men aren't symmetrical.

I agree but I'm not so much talking about the trans thing so much as when women frequently say they'd love to be a man for a day so they could walk around at night with no fear.

I feel most would change their minds pretty quickly the first time a chav threatened to stab them for 'looking at them funny'.

* I feel most would change their minds pretty quickly the first time a chav threatened to stab them for 'looking at them funny'.*

Funny how it doesn't stop men going out on their own at night.

I think you've misunderstood my point.
Men are also attacked. But it's mostly by other men, not women. So yes, men can be unsafe too. Which is the point you make in your other post.
I'm not victim blaming anyone.
But this thread is about having male people in Brownies and Guides.