"Ace week" in girl guiding.

[WarriorN]

What fresh hell....

Thankfully a number of posters really not impressed. Worrying number think it's entirely appropriate

https://www.facebook.com/girlguidinguk/photos/a.398392309681/10158689026444682/?type=3

But it was worth reading it to find this excellent analysis of "Ace" identity and issues around it.

bryndisb.substack.com/p/asexuality-queering-the-mundane

Interesting TedImgoingmad

They talk about all sorts of discrimination, but I couldn't see any mention of asexuality.

We heard from girls, volunteers and staff who've experienced exclusion and discrimination. There are instances of racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, discrimination because of class (classism) and discrimination because of disability (ableism) happening in Girlguiding.

So how come they didn't recognise the lesbian visibility week? Is that because they don't know what a lesbian is? Or because they don't think their members are ready to hear what they think one is.

If they're going to tell everybody that they've been working on inclusion, they're going to have to be held accountable about what that means.

Do they not realise that people are scrutinising them now?

Thanks for the link. Revealing as ever.

I have also learned that you can be asexual and still “be horny” and agree to have lots of sex with people.

Fine. What about the people the asexuals want to have sex with? Do they get a choice to say no? That they want a sexual partner where mutual attraction, love, the chance of a relationship developing is their boundary? Or, like lesbians being told that rejecting penis is transphobia and hate, or like anyone not attracted to a person of colour being told to consider their deep seated racism (by the likes of Ash Sarkar), will having to accept an ACE person because they choose you be next in the line of coercive relationships under the banner of "inclusivity"?

@Datun, as you well know, lesbians aren't cool, and talking about them might result in a conversation about why they are actually increasingly invisible, having been ousted from Pride, their own spaces, and their own sex class. ACE is well cool, and who knows, might come with cool wonga from one of the funders GGUK is chasing.

I have absolutely no idea anymore.

I thought it was a label or people who didn’t want to have sex. Apparently it could be a label for people who fall in love, who want to have lots of sex but just aren’t attracted to whomever they chose to sleep with.

I was trying really hard to actually understand it. I have given up. One ACE person says that they felt so alone because they weren’t in a relationship and never would be. Another is in relationships and are “horny”, another can fall in love and have sex, just…not attracted.

But at the end of the day, the people on the threads here seem to be most concerned about validation. They want everyone to know about this label which nobody seems to agree on. They find their personal validation so important that they cannot see how inappropriate it is for random adults to talk to children about sex. And they shout about heteronormative society blah, blah, blah.

If I had children over at a play date (8 years old or 10 years old) and I started to tell them that I had regular sex with my husband and that we enjoyed it, I hope the parents would call the police. It is the discussion itself that is inappropriate, not the intricacies of some label nobody can agree on.

I've known people who seem happy to live alone and I've never felt the need to question whether they had or wanted sex. Do they feel that they are being discriminated against?

And it's not just people who live alone. Apparently asexual people may be in romantic relationships, may have sex, may enjoy sex even. Which does really leave me wondering what information being asexual adds that anyone other than a potential partner needs to know. Certainly how on earth you'd explain it to a 10 yr old.

People who only feel sexual attraction once they have an established romantic relationship are apparently on the ace spectrum now.

I mean, I thought I was a boring old hetero middle aged woman. Nope, turns out identity politics would label me as a nonbinary genderfree demisexual.

It's a total joke. I felt like I was being trolled trying to understand it. Incoherent tosh at best. At worst worst deliberate piss take. Why do we have to 'educate ourselves' about this bollocks.

[quote TedImgoingmad]@Datun, as you well know, lesbians aren't cool, and talking about them might result in a conversation about why they are actually increasingly invisible, having been ousted from Pride, their own spaces, and their own sex class. ACE is well cool, and who knows, might come with cool wonga from one of the funders GGUK is chasing.[/quote]
It's so glaringly obvious, I don't understand why they aren't better prepared to cover themselves.

Seeing the ideological capture in action is really quite gutting.

All those young girls who may have a lesbian orientation being specifically excluded from an allegedly girls only group, during an explicit inclusion campaign.

I mean, I thought I was a boring old hetero middle aged woman. Nope, turns out identity politics would label me as a nonbinary genderfree demisexual.

Come now third fiddle, you know those identities are not for the likes of you and me they are only for those who are woke and whose special identities must be centred at all times by everyone else who must educate themselves on the correct way of viewing the world and bend the knee accordingly.

@Franca123

It's a total joke. I felt like I was being trolled trying to understand it. Incoherent tosh at best. At worst worst deliberate piss take. Why do we have to 'educate ourselves' about this bollocks.

It's a power play.

It makes me furious

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

if you replaced ‘asexual’ with any other characteristic in some of the posts on this thread, such as homosexual, it would quite easily be seen as offensive.

Are you aware that Girl Guiding did NOT tweet anything for Lesbian Visibility Day?

And that is the responsibility of asexual people how?

It’s like I just wrote a post highlighting the language being used to describe zebras in a thread and you reply, well, are you aware it is because giraffes were not mentioned? Okay, not a perfect analogy, but my posts have been about the language and attitudes towards asexual people in these threads.

@CousinKrispy

MumofaceDD, I'm sure you're right that there's a lot of cultural baggage around asexuality and whether people find it "acceptable" (as if it should be anyone's business!).

I disagree that's it's appropriate or even useful to promote it in this way through a service aimed at children. As others have pointed out, homosexuality/bisexuality can be discussed in terms of relatiinships--"some women fall in love with/get married to women" etc.

But being asexual doesn't necessarily mean aromatic, so it's inaccurate and confusing to tell children "asexual people won't fall in love with or marry anyone".....if you want to define asexuality accurately, it still requires a lot more reference to sexual feelings and/or activities than explaining the diff between hetero and homosexuality.

I'm definitely down with telling kids that not everyone has to get in a relationship, fall in love, get married, have kids, etc in order to have a fulfilling life. And when it's both age-appropriate and is carried out by people with appropriate training, then by all means include asexuality as part of sex education so young people are aware it exists and is perfectly ok

Forgive the whole quote but I am on my phone.

There is nothing in my posts where I have said I think it is appropriate to ‘promote asexuality through a service aimed at children’. Apart from anything else, it is not something you can catch, is it? Or change to, if it is not how you are. It’s like clause 28 isn’t it? People were concerned children would catch being gay and discussion of homosexuality in sex education was seen as promoting it.

My posts are about acknowledging the existence of asexuality without being offensive to asexual people, which seems to be quite difficult for many people, going by this thread and the Times one. What if the civil service, say, had highlighted asexuality week? Is it the asexuality or the fact it was GG (in a tweet aimed at adults)?

They find their personal validation so important that they cannot see how inappropriate it is for random adults to talk to children about sex.

This.

@PumpkinGin

I have been reading the thread about ACE and girl guiding on AIBU.

It appears that some mums are really happy because GG discussed asexuality, lack of sexual feelings and also teaches the girls how to use tampax. The girl in question was 10.

I have also learned that you can be asexual and still “be horny” and agree to have lots of sex with people.

And finally I have learned that the identity of being asexual (and maybe others) is so important to some people that it is essential that society is saturated with it. They need to feel seen and validated. This includes children.

I also understand that many people don’t have a problem with adults talking about sexual identity and implications with children.

I cannot express how horrified I am.

Had no idea that thread existed. I'm now more convinced that this version of asexuality is absolute BS and has no place in GG.

There are clearly other more medically linked versions of asexuality that might need to be explored in hcp in a professional manner if the person involved so wished.

It's still nothing to do with GG.

Thread: To argue that this should is not a suitable topic for the Girl Guides http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/4389201-To-argue-that-this-should-is-not-a-suitable-topic-for-the-Girl-Guides

I haven't rtft but I'm increasingly concerned about the promotion of asexuality, because I think it potentially allows for damaged sexual function to be reframed as an identity choice, which is perhaps convenient when lots of young people are consenting to life changing medical treatments with very little knowledge available about their consequences for sexual function and enjoyment.

Most of us in our teens and 20s had little idea of what part sex would play over the course of our lifespans, even that we might still be enjoying sex in middle and older age. So it's hard to see what informed consent means when a procedure might have a long term impact on that, or what kind of support and counselling young people need in making those decisions.

I am not suggesting that asexuality shouldn't be accepted as perfectly valid if that's the way someone feels or chooses to be, and it's certainly good if we can get rid of all the slurs associated with not wanting sex ('frigid' was a popular one in my younger days). But I think we should also be asking what other reasons there might be for giving it a special week and targeting this at pubescent girls.

My posts are about acknowledging the existence of asexuality without being offensive to asexual people, which seems to be quite difficult for many people, going by this thread and the Times one. What if the civil service, say, had highlighted asexuality week? Is it the asexuality or the fact it was GG (in a tweet aimed at adults)?

For me it's the absence of lesbian international day and then really what relevance it has to Gg.

Are they observing a full range of inclusive "days" eg disabilities, autism, congenital disabilities? Religions etc? International breastfeeding week?

Knowing that you're inclusive and non judgmental as standard doesn't mean they have to shout about it. That goes without saying it out loud. My school is very inclusive with inclusive policies etc, (SEND) we don't celebrate every day going nor talk about our sexualities unless there's a specific reason to do so around homophobic or abusive, sexist incidents or attitudes.

Gg have more important stuff to be getting on with imo. Cop 26 for example.

I'd like Gg leaders to stand up and talk about long term breastfeeding quite frankly.

Not anywhere near enough on that done in school.

It's a power play. Yes, on that thread, I agree.

There also appears to be an assumption that sexual attraction means you've only got to look at a potential partner to become aroused. Which is a fairly standard male sexual response.

Obviously there are plenty of women who will be aroused by looks alone. But there are also plenty of women who find men (say) attractive, without actually becoming aroused by it.

It wouldn't surprise me, in the slightest, if young women were being judged by male standards in this respect.

I also find it very suspect when people moan about the feminists coming over from FWR to 'whip up outrage'.

Five seconds of questioning on threads like that is very revealing.

If I flick through GG twitter and then scouts I do see a very sexist leaning towards "girls you must be kind" through all the fundraising and special days, and "boys can go and be adventurous."

Also a post celebrating and mis gendering Marsha P Johnson, who was a gay man.

If I was a girl today I'd be a scout.

What I mean is, being judged by male standards, and think there is something wrong with them.

@WarriorN

If I flick through GG twitter and then scouts I do see a very sexist leaning towards "girls you must be kind" through all the fundraising and special days, and "boys can go and be adventurous."

Also a post celebrating and mis gendering Marsha P Johnson, who was a gay man.

If I was a girl today I'd be a scout.

It would be interesting to do an analysis, wouldn't it?

Patriarchal power play, tis the women's place to constant doubt herself and humbly make sure she's serving everyone else and keeping to her spot.

Was always rather pissed off that my first brownie badge was making a cup of tea of others. Would have much preferred firelighting. 🔥

It would be interesting to do an analysis, wouldn't it?

It would.

Hot off the press, my county has just announced the following (names removed):

New Appointments

[WWWW] - Inclusion Adviser heading up the new extended Inclusions team. [WWWW] is passionate about helping everyone in Guiding feel welcome and have a sense of belonging. As Lead Inclusion Adviser, [WWWW] and the team will be able to support our members to be fully inclusive and break down barriers.

[XXXX]'s role has been renamed to Inclusion Adviser - Disabilities to reflect her specialism

[YYYY] - Inclusion Adviser - LGBTQ+ (from 2 November 2021)

Nobody dedicated to looking after the girls from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Oh, and on the County Team list, nobody is listed in charge of safeguarding - it's an empty appointment.

[YYYY] has a very unusual name. There's a person with said name with a Pinterest board sporting such delights as:

• Ur cordially invited to fuck me senseless ;)

• Please use he/they pronouns

• One day I'm gonna hurt you. I promise

• I just punched shit

Obviously, this could coincidentally be a totally different person with the same highly unusual name as the GGUK appointee.

TedImgoingmad, I am speechless.