Oh FFS. There are a significant number of Muslim Scout groups in the UK. They will simply be unable to participate in events outside those for Muslim Scouts because of the needs - which are protected in law - of many of their members to have access to single-sex spaces.
This doesn’t make everyone feel comfortable. It makes the group of people who have been taught their feelings & desires are to be privileged over everybody else’s more comfortable.
- Girls & women have a multitude of reasons for wanting single-sex toilets.
- The “accessible” toilets were campaigned for by disabled people so they could leave the house for longer than the limits set by their bladders & bowels - they are not, unless they are the only toilet on the premises, meant for everyone to use - the Scouts shouldn’t ever be encouraging that. It’s shitty enough practice to put the only baby change facilities for a venue in there (particularly when they’re at a height wheelchair users can’t actually reach) but the language-blur of “accessible” doesn’t change the reality of “doing this will cause disabled people to soil themselves in public”. No, you can’t ever guarantee that the disabled toilet will be empty; & on average people who need to use those facilities - whether it’s because they need carer support to toilet, they use a wheelchair, they have a catheter or colostomy bag to manage, they just need to use the grab rails, or anything else - can’t nip in & out; but those things mean you rely on abled people not clarting the place up. And disabled people shouldn’t have to explain our strategies for toileting to abled people who think “but you might have to wait for a disabled person” is a good reason to “just nip into” the “accessible” loo.
- Just magic up some new venues. Excellent plan.
- Everyone deserves privacy & dignity when it comes to bathing & changing. But they also deserve to have access to single-sex spaces for those things & crucially, for sleeping.
Forcing Scouting volunteers to try to come up with solutions to what shouldn’t be a problem is grossly unfair. I don’t blame at all those volunteers who won’t run residential events or take part in large-scale ones (in Scouting or Guiding) because they feel unable to safeguard their young members.
Scouts & Guides might well have excellent & comprehensive insurance, but money wouldn’t help the girls I continue to hope won’t end up having to claim against them. It does seem it can only be a matter of time though, courtesy of “who needs safeguarding when we have GenderWoo?!” 
I’m so sorry @sickofthisnonsense - this should be pure excitement for you & your eldest DC & instead it’s marred by worries about the safety of the event. As for pronouns on badges without consent, that’s a huge issue even if one is A Believer - if one of them had changed pronouns, or their chosen pronouns are other than those parents put on the paperwork… and how distressing for the agender: some people do demand no pronouns be used, but a case could absolutely be made that while most will use those that align with their sex, forcing agender people to be labelled with a pronoun understood to relate to gender would cause them distress. I’d certainly find being made to wear anything about my “gender identity” distressing because I do not have one, so I would be being forced into a lie. Poor choice, Scouts.