A trans-Identified BDSM fan/gun nut is now a senior leader at Girlguiding

[Scraggythang]

Via Glinner’s sub stack. Sorry if this has already been posted!

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/wtf-are-girlguiding-thinking

@Artichokeleaves

It's nothing to do with being trans, it's to do with breaking the GG gun policy, and extremely questionable SM behaviour which is going to trigger safeguarding concerns if you're stupid enough to behave like that while working in a responsible position with children.

All a DSB shows is that there are no criminal convictions.

^This^

Anyone who argues that normal safeguarding should not apply for any ‘scared caste’ should not be surprised that those who are concerned about safeguarding asks why they are exempt and cites reasons why they shouldn’t be exempt

It's a pity the opening post mentioned trans.

BDSM fan/gun nut is now a senior leader at Girlguiding was enough on its own.

@KimikosNightmare

It's a pity the opening post mentioned trans.

BDSM fan/gun nut is now a senior leader at Girlguiding was enough on its own.

A man is now a senior leader at Girlguiding should have been enough on its own.

I've just had a reply to my email:

"Thanks for your email.

Girlguiding is aware of concerns raised. We are looking into this as a matter of urgency and will provide the necessary support and action in line with our compliance procedures.

A lot of care and attention to detail goes into making guiding happen safely, and ensuring that all our young members’ needs are balanced and considered in everything we do. Our rigorous recruitment and vetting policies help keep our member safe. Our Safeguarding policy must be followed by all volunteers.

Our exemption under article 16 of the Equality Act 2010 allows us to be a single-sex charity. But under the Equality Act 2010, we are also allows to be trans-inclusive. We have a trans-inclusive Equality & Diversity policy to ensure that all our members are supported. Our trans-inclusive Equality & Diversity policy is grounded in the Equality Act 2010, and we're proud to be an inclusive organisation.

We have been looking after girls and young women for over 100 years and we will always have their needs, their safety and their enjoyment at the heart of everything that we do.

Kind regards,

Volunteer Support."

That's actually a clear letter. I wonder what they mean when they say that under the Equality Act they are allowed to be trans inclusive?

@Sexx

I've just had a reply to my email:

"Thanks for your email.

Girlguiding is aware of concerns raised. We are looking into this as a matter of urgency and will provide the necessary support and action in line with our compliance procedures.

A lot of care and attention to detail goes into making guiding happen safely, and ensuring that all our young members’ needs are balanced and considered in everything we do. Our rigorous recruitment and vetting policies help keep our member safe. Our Safeguarding policy must be followed by all volunteers.

Our exemption under article 16 of the Equality Act 2010 allows us to be a single-sex charity. But under the Equality Act 2010, we are also allows to be trans-inclusive. We have a trans-inclusive Equality & Diversity policy to ensure that all our members are supported. Our trans-inclusive Equality & Diversity policy is grounded in the Equality Act 2010, and we're proud to be an inclusive organisation.

We have been looking after girls and young women for over 100 years and we will always have their needs, their safety and their enjoyment at the heart of everything that we do.

Kind regards,

Volunteer Support."

That reply completely misses the point.

The red flags are the guns and the BDSM- not being trans.

“We have been looking after girls and young women for over 100 years” is their response to everything. How could we possibly have got anything wrong, we’ve been doing it for 100 years. We’re perfect and beyond reproach.

Totally agree that they’ve missed the point. The fact this woman was born male is not the issue. What did you say in your email? Did it mention she was trans? I suspect this is, however, a generic response that is going to everyone regardless of what is in their email.

I'm confused.

Do they or do they not have a gun policy? A very strict one?

A social media policy that's clearly been breached?

Are they inappropriate sexual sharing and gun picture inclusive?

Are they implying that inappropriate sexual sharing and gun pictures are a normal part of being trans and there's a safeguarding kind of white card involved with trans volunteers for this? Because that seems really quite fantastically transphobic and offensive, to imply that this kind of inappropriate behaviour while in a position of trust is just expected of a trans person? And if that is what they are saying, then doesn't the clash between safeguarding and trans people need explicitly addressing by them ASAP?

Has anyone there at any point had any safeguarding training? Were they conscious and awake at the time? Have any of them ever heard of Dunblane?

Ffs, this lot aren't competent to run a bloody stall at the village fete never mind be responsible for children.

Dear lord….

Utter freakshow.

I'd quite like Debbie Hayton's views at this point, since Debbie appears to have managed a responsible job for decades without being sexually inappropriate all over social media and taking pictures of themselves in dramatic poses with weapons for efficient killing. I suspect GG's implication that this is just part of including trans people would be something Debbie would vehemently object to.

Are they implying that inappropriate sexual sharing and gun pictures are a normal part of being trans and there's a safeguarding kind of white card involved with trans volunteers for this?

Exactly. The only way that the person's trans status is relevant is if it is being used as an excuse for breaking social media guidelines - as in, if it's okay to post sexualised photos and gun modelling shots if one is trans. Which would be absurd.

@Artichokeleaves

I'd quite like Debbie Hayton's views at this point, since Debbie appears to have managed a responsible job for decades without being sexually inappropriate all over social media and taking pictures of themselves in dramatic poses with weapons for efficient killing. I suspect GG's implication that this is just part of including trans people would be something Debbie would vehemently object to.

It's really insulting to trans people.

It's absolutely appalling in its implications for trans people in employment with vulnerable people and children. It's why my mind went to Debbie as Debbie is a well known writer in the national press as well as a secondary school teacher, and this is something they have the platform to address if they're as concerned and outraged by this as I am. @DebbieInBirmingham you might find this of interest.

@Artichokeleaves

I'd quite like Debbie Hayton's views at this point, since Debbie appears to have managed a responsible job for decades without being sexually inappropriate all over social media and taking pictures of themselves in dramatic poses with weapons for efficient killing. I suspect GG's implication that this is just part of including trans people would be something Debbie would vehemently object to.

I've seen the photos. TBH, I think that the same questions should be asked irrespective of the sex of the person depicted. So whether the person is trans or not is not the issue.

What we must ensure is that trans people are subjected to the same safeguarding procedures as everyone else. If we lower the standards for trans people then we are going to attract people who are looking for a lower standard of safeguarding. The dangers are obvious.

This is a quite separate issue to whether male people should be treated in the same way as females. I don't think we should, and we certainly shouldn't be taking up positions that are designated for women.

@PaleBlueMoonlight

That's actually a clear letter. I wonder what they mean when they say that under the Equality Act they are allowed to be trans inclusive?

They have no idea or they would have more than 'because Equality Act...' It seems a common tactic - thrown out the words to shut people up.

The only way that the person's trans status is relevant is if it is being used as an excuse for breaking social media guidelines - as in, if it's okay to post sexualised photos and gun modelling shots if one is trans. Which would be absurd.

I disagree - the fact this individual is male is also very relevant to safeguarding.

Maybe so, Lovely, but that is the person's sex. It seems to be the GG want to talk specifically about trans status, as if it is the subject under discussion.

DebbieInBirmingham that's a reasonable response.

The fact is that if Monica weren't a trans identifying man, Monica wouldn't be in girl guides. Because guides is an organisation for girls.

Also, I very much suspect that if Monica were female, guides would have got rid of them quick smart.

As Debbie says, we have to have the same standards for everyone

I'm deeply disappointed and not remotely reassured by GG's response.

The red flags are the guns and the BDSM- not being trans.

I think a male person who wants to embed themselves in an institution run by women for girls is highly relevant.

Was it really a surprise that a person transgressing such boundaries had unsuitable social media photos? No, it wasn't, it was boringly predictable.

Quite. This is a male who is placing their wants above the needs of girls in an organisation set up to support girls.

@Eggybrains

The Girlguiding Nottinghamshire “About us” page that was taken down when this came to light, with Monica on it, is now back up.

Presumably this means Girlguiding has concluded that Monica’s conduct isn’t a problem. That really does not surprise me.

How worrying. You would think this problem would solve itself - my dds don’t do guides or brownies but if this was one of their clubs or classes I’d pull them out immediately. What parents are looking at those pictures and thinking ‘aww but Amelia loves guides.’

Although I suppose on the flip side parents might then feel like they’re being pushed out of a place where their girls should be prioritised but there are usually a few guide/brownie packs? So surely most parents could move to another pack while making it clear why they’ve left.

The fact is that if Monica weren't a trans identifying man, Monica wouldn't be in girl guides. Because guides is an organisation for girls.

There is the distinct possibility that the safeguarding hole is even more massive than we thought. Quote from the latest :

I mean this is kind of even more hilarious when you think about it, but I believe they head-hunted this person. I believe they said, "Will you will you be a leader?"

Now I could be wrong but I think that's what they said. I saw a social media post from this person that said, "They asked me to be a leader, I don't really want to do it," blah blah blah.

But the thing is the hilarious thing is, that opens the possibility that Girl Guiding courted this guy because they wanted to go up on the Stonewall index, you know on the Diversity Champions scheme.

That's speculation, but it's not at all far-fetched, and is something that needs to be considered in the investigation.

It is consistent with what we've seen - organisations, particularly HR departments, doing utterly daft things to meet their internal targets of "top 100 Stonewall ranking".

So if Girl Guides was looking for a "trans" - ie male in their case - there just isn't enough supply! It's likely that they latched onto the first and only, extremely unsuitable, bottom-of-the-barrel male-claiming-to-be-a-woman person orbiting their organisation.

Basically you create this problem by saying "we want a male in this position, but only one who thinks it's appropriate to pretend he's female and work in an 'all-female' organisation for children".

What sort of male do you THINK you're likely to attract? And if you're then inclined to take whatever you can find!?