Girlguiding dilemma

[Nameychangey33]

Name changed for this in case outing but frequent on this board.

DD currently goes to an activity with a small bunch of other girls. Now all of the girls are joining a group under the Girlguiding banner and I really don't know what to do. DD is the only one not going. If she gets wind of it, and at some point she will, she will feel left out and ask to join. At this point there may be no spaces and I'll feel guilty for not registering her.

I've had a good read of the website, it's all kindness this and inclusion that, and their position is still letting self id rule for members and volunteers alike. Their section on any parent of girls with questions, basically refer them to their page (for 'education' basically!) I think at DDs age my main concern is she comes home from a session talking about pronouns and identities etc. I don't want her subjected to any woo woo at such an impressionable age. I also don't want GG to see her registration as me condoning their position of this ideology, as I really really don't.

I really get on with all the other mums, but I don't want to rock to boat by voicing any of this to them though. But I don't want DD left out, and by extension, me too. I find it hard to make friends, and these are the only mum friends I have. If DD was to join anything like this I'd rather it was under Scouting because you know you're getting mixed sex from the get go. But her friends aren't there.

I'm probably over thinking this, I could just let her go and keep a good eye over what she's learning there.

Not interested in the usual lurkers popping up to tell me what a bigot I am so bugger off in advance. More do I just grit my teeth and swallow my principles because it'll make DD happy to be with her friends.

This thread alone should show parents that GG does not take safeguarding seriously.
Every leader on here has clearly stated they would, will and have ignored policy from HQ on this.
No leader in any organisation should be ignoring or going against policy- it put themselves and others at risk.
Ostrich mentality, bury your head or sticking your fingers In Your ears and singing.
GG 'safeguarding' policy is dangerous for everyone involved.

GG is not just isolated little groups run by individuals, it's a worldwide movement.

FFS leaders need to wake up! You are not safe and nor are the girls you purport to support- you have no safeguarding policy that protects you or them. You are going against HQ therefore you have no insurance (literally or figuratively) when something happens you would be entirely libel.

sickofthisnonsense and that's why I left GG. I was the person approving the paperwork and general organisation of a residential in my District and felt I'd be hung out to dry either way: if I approved an event with a male present and something happened, and also if I refused to.

I'm a bit shocked about some of the safeguarding attitudes. It's all very 'Well my unit is fine, trust me'.

You should know that's not how safeguarding works. We can't ask parents to put their trust into individuals who will do the right thing with safeguarding against or instead of organisation policy. It's too fallible.
To be blunt, having worked in education and various volunteer roles, I've worked with some right idiots and I definitely wouldn't be able to trust them to make the right decision. I've also been in situations where, if I didn't have a policy to follow, o wouldn't easily have known the right decision to make.

That's the beauty of safeguarding policies. It gets banged into everyone in the organisation, low to high. Dim or bright. There's no room for a mistake because everyone sings from the same hymn sheet and anyone who doesn't is knowingly going against policy so are personally responsible if anything happens.

What a few posters have said is that they know there's a safeguarding flaw, but it doesn't apply to them, or they won't follow it etc.

Which doesn't work in an organisation like this. You can't get other leaders to go against policies. You can't guarantee you won't need the policy when you come into contact with other units. It's a mess. And you're screwed as a leader either way, if you follow it and something goes wrong, you're complicit in knowingly not protecting children. And if you ignore it and nothing goes wrong the organisation can penalise you for not following policy/ethics.

Personally, I wouldn't leave my precious child with an organisation that condoned this. Even if there are no male children in your unit or amongst your leaders etc. By doing so you are condoning that and what might happen. You are saying you are happy for other girls to be at risk as long as it's not your child.

Finally, I have to wonder. If it were scouts or another boys activity that had shown this absolute non grasp of safeguarding and doubled down thus, would you let a little boy attend? Because really whichever way you answer that it's absolutely loaded with implications.

Just a comment on letting a child go to meetings but not on trips away. For completely different reasons, I couldn't go on trips away when I was in Guides, and it made me really miserable (not helped by a particularly unsympathetic and inflexible Guide leader.)

Obviously you know your own child best, but in retrospect I'd have probably been much happier doing a different activity where I could have joined in with everything.

Leaders on this thread have not said they would go against policy. They are saying that there is a difference in attitude at grass roots compared to HQ. That's not the same as ignoring safeguarding.
I think putting risk of pregnancy in an assessment before a residential would be reasonable though. Because then you have to mitigate that risk. It would be a safeguarding fail to ignore that.
GG do need to figure out how to reconcile the privacy of an individual with the needs of all.
One change I noticed fairly recently was that it is possible to exclude a member if they pose a safeguarding risk to others. This wasn't, as far as I know, explicitly set out before.

I don't know if you've looked at Scout's pages on this. They do also describe themselves of inclusive of trans people, respecting pronouns, allowing trans young people to choose which facilities to use, etc. Even though there's been a lot of Twitter attention on Girlguiding specifically, I expect most youth organisations are similar.
@Siepie Scouting UK doesn't pretend to be a single-sex organisation, and therefore has safeguarding policies that matches its mixed-sex status. GGUK on the other hand pretends to be single-sex but is mixed-sex in practice so has no policies for separating males from females.

Well, yes, I was addressing the specific safeguarding fails of ignoring that they are now a mixed sex organisation, both in terms of members and leaders.

It is the lack of engagement with the reality of them being a mixed sex organisation, whilst purporting to be a same sex one which is the biggest red flag and fail.

Both in terms of the situations they are not accounting for that their members will be exposed to(eg, mixed sex sleeping accomodation)

And who they are exposed to(male leaders)

Both require different safeguarding approaches than a purely female organisation would. Guides have largely got by with their less than standard safeguarding because they were single sex. The good thing about scouts is due to mistakes they have made in the past they've tightened up their vetting process and policies etc.

Yes, both steeped in the ideology, but I imagine guides are more heavily targeted simply due to the fact it's girls and single sex.

For some inexplicable reason those factors make it more vulnerable to those who wish to peddle gender ideology.

I don't think any leaders on this thread have said they would ignore girl guiding policies. If they did they wouldn't be leaders for long!!

We don't have any boys/men in any of the units in our district so it isn't something that has affected us yet. If a boy/man joined our unit I would leave and the unit would close because neither of my assistant leaders would take it on. I don't want the unit to close because we run in a very deprived area and what we do is very important to the girls who attend.

@Beamur

Leaders on this thread have not said they would go against policy. They are saying that there is a difference in attitude at grass roots compared to HQ. That's not the same as ignoring safeguarding. I think putting risk of pregnancy in an assessment before a residential would be reasonable though. Because then you have to mitigate that risk. It would be a safeguarding fail to ignore that. GG do need to figure out how to reconcile the privacy of an individual with the needs of all. One change I noticed fairly recently was that it is possible to exclude a member if they pose a safeguarding risk to others. This wasn't, as far as I know, explicitly set out before.

GG policy is to claim that they are a single sex, female only organisation.

The leaders on here have stated that they would not follow the GG policy of pretending that the male child or male leader was in fact a female.

The fact that the leaders aim to go above and beyond the limits of GG policy to provide enhanced safeguarding is to their personal credit.

One has stated that she has left the organisation as she would not comply with the GG policy of risk assessing on the basis of the pretend its single sex, female only space.

The woman who took over her role can not risk assess for a female and a male engaging in acts of sexual reproduction because according to GGHQ she has to pretend that its two females having sex.
No organisation writes policy for something which is not possible.

So how is she going to fill in the paperwork?

Eg
1.0 Sleeping accommodation - sexual activity:

1.1 Risk of sexual activity
Event risk occurs one or more occupants engage in sexual activity.

Key Risk factor:
One or more occupants deciding to engage in sexual activity
Shared accomadation so risk factor starts a 1

Frequency of risk event:
Any time one or more occupants decide to engage in sexual activity
Shared accomadation so risk factor starts a 1

Probability of risk:
(Key risk factor × Frequency of event )
1 × 1 = 1
There is a risk of sexual activity occuring in accomadation provision.

Management of risk:
There is a risk
Mitigation of risk required
Action required as sexual contact may be
• consensual sexual contact
• unwanted sexual contact
Further risk assessment needed

Policy required
Yes

1.1.1 Risk of consensual sexual contact:
...
Management of risk:
There is a risk
Mitigation of risk required
Action required as consensual sexual contact may be occur
• leading to pregnancy
• while other members are present
• between girls under the legal age
• ...
Further risk assessment needed

1.1.1.a Risk of pregnancy
Event risk occurs when a ova producer (female) and a sperm producer (male) engage in an act of sexual reproduction.

Key Risk factor:
Sexual contact with sperm producing human in sleeping accommodation.
Shared accomadation but risk factor is 0

Frequency of risk event:
no sperm producing humans have access to sleeping accommodation.
Shared accomadation but risk factor is 0

Probability of risk:
(Key risk factor × Frequency of event )
Zero × Zero = Zero
Zero risk of pregnancy resulting from accomadation provision.

Management of risk:
There is no risk
No mitigation of risk required
No action required

Policy required
No

1.1.1.b Risk of two members engaging in sexual contact in the presence of another child
...
Policy required
Yes
__
1.1.1.c Risk of two members engaging in sexual contact and the age of consent
..
Policy required
Yes
__
1.1.2 Risk of unwanted sexual contact
Event risk occurs one or more occupants engage in unwanted sexual contact.

Key Risk factor:
^One or more occupants deciding to engage in unwanted sexual contact
Shared accomadation so risk factor starts a 1

Frequency of risk event:
^Any time one or more occupants decide to engage in unwanted sexual contact
Shared accomadation so risk factor starts a 1

Probability of risk:
(Key risk factor × Frequency of event )
1 × 1 = 1
There is a risk of unwanted sexual activity occuring in accomadation provision.

Management of risk:
There is a risk
Mitigation of risk required
Action required as unwanted sexual contact may be
• sexual harassment
• sexual assault
• ...
Further risk assessment needed

Policy required
Yes

Look at the model of the NHS situation.

A woman was raped on a women's hospital ward by a male identifying into that space as a woman.

The hospital denied for a year that the rape had happened, on the grounds that no male was on the ward.

CCTV and witnesses have eventually forced them to admit to reality, it's a case Baroness Nicholson is working on and has mentioned in the HoL.

Policy is that you just deny. And deny. And insist reality is what you say it is. And when females are hurt in the process, you deny that too. This is what GG has signed up to.

We don't have any boys/men in any of the units in our district so it isn't something that has affected us yet

If by boys/men you mean trans girls (which I'm guessing you do?) then how do you know?
If a parent registers their child under a "female" name for Rainbows or Brownies or Guides or whatever , then presumably you would take it that the child was born a girl?
Speaking from personal experience, I've known trans children for significant periods of time before realising they were trans; and then only because someone who knew them "before" has told me. Yes, it's usually much more obvious in people who have been through male puberty, but in very small children? Not so much

SolasAnla
Yes. I cannot see how a Leader could risk assess shared accommodation without saying there is a risk of pregnancy.
Even if they are obliged to keep with the fiction that everyone is a girl. There is still the 'female penis' to consider.
If I was in the position of being that Leader and told to deny or ignore that, I could not go with a clear conscience. I would refuse to go.
This is why I suspect that the dilemma simply hasn't presented itself yet in sufficient boldness for a rethink by HQ. They've been advised poorly and have responded to criticism by doubling down. But longer term this just isn't a sustainable position. They will at some point have to rethink admitting males or be more like Scouts in their approach. I do think that GG have been targeted because they are/have been single sex - both by the genderists and also people (like me) keen to see organisations respecting the difference between sex and gender.
Their policies at the moment are a well intentioned fudge. They will continue to draw fire until they realise this.

Beamur
Their policies at the moment are a well intentioned fudge. They will continue to draw fire until they realise this

It's not a fudge. They are not passive idiots. They are fully grown adults who are being entrusted with other people's children.

They have removed women for advocating on behalf of the children.

Each of the individuals involved made a choice approve policy, to not risk assess on a mixed sex basis.

Words are very important here.

Event risk occurs when a girl and girl engage in sexual activity

Event risk occurs when a girl and a girl engage in an act of sexual reproduction.

Event risk occurs when a ova producer (female) and a sperm producer (male) engage in an act of sexual reproduction.

Girl's who have not gone through puberty cant get pregnant.
Girl's can not get girl's pregnant.

In order to risk assess GG have to use sex words.
There has to be a classification of some type
Eg.
Girl Type A = pre puberty non-ova producer = female
Girl Type B = pre puberty non-sperm producer = male
Girl Type C = post puberty ova producer = female
Girl Type D = post puberty sperm producer = male

1.1.1.a Risk of pregnancy
Event risk occurs when a ova producer (female) person and a sperm producer (male) person engage in an act of sexual reproduction.

Key Risk factor:
Occupants may be either a ova or a sperm producing human and in sleeping accommodation.
Shared accomadation so risk factor is 1

Frequency of risk event:
ova or sperm producing humans have access to sleeping accommodation.
Shared accomadation so risk factor is 1

Probability of risk:
(Key risk factor × Frequency of event )
1 × 1 = 1
there is a risk of pregnancy resulting from accomadation provision.

Management of risk:
There is a risk
Mitigation of risk required
Action required as an occupant may be
• ova producer (female) or
• sperm producer (male)
Further risk assessment needed

Policy required
Yes

1.1.1.a.1 Risk of pregnancy (ova occupants only)
Event risk occurs when a ova producer (female) and a sperm producer (male) engage in an act of sexual reproduction.

Key Risk factor:
Sexual contact with sperm producing human in sleeping accommodation.
No shared accomadation but risk factor is 1

Frequency of risk event:
only ova producing humans have access to sleeping accommodation.
No shared accomadation and risk factor is 0

Probability of risk:
(Key risk factor × Frequency of event )
One × Zero = Zero
Zero risk of pregnancy resulting from accomadation provision.

Management of risk:
There is no risk
No mitigation of risk required
No action required

Policy required
No

1.1.1.a.2 Risk of pregnancy (sperm occupants only)
Event risk occurs when a ova producer (female) and a sperm producer (male) engage in an act of sexual reproduction.

Key Risk factor:
Sexual contact with ova producing human in sleeping accommodation.
No shared accomadation but risk factor is 1

Frequency of risk event:
only sperm producing humans have access to sleeping accommodation.
No shared accomadation and risk factor is 0

Probability of risk:
(Key risk factor × Frequency of event )
One × Zero = Zero
Zero risk of pregnancy resulting from accomadation provision.

Management of risk:
There is no risk
No mitigation of risk required
No action required

Policy required
No

1.1.1.a.3 Risk of pregnancy (ova and sperm occupants)
Event risk occurs when a ova producer (female) and a sperm producer (male) engage in an act of sexual reproduction.

Key Risk factor:
Sexual contact between ova producing human and sperm producing human in sleeping accommodation.
Shared accomadation so risk factor is 1

Frequency of risk event:
ova producing humans and sperm producing humans have access to sleeping accommodation.
Shared accomadation so risk factor is 1

Probability of risk:
(Key risk factor × Frequency of event )
^One × One = One
there is a risk of pregnancy resulting from accomadation provision.

Management of risk:
There is a risk
Mitigation of risk required
^Action required
• re sex prevention strategies
• re pregnancy prevention strategies
• abortion strategies
• parental involvement
• ....
Further risk assessment needed

Policy required
Yes

Leaders are going to end up having to do 1.1.1.a.2 and 1.1.1.a.3 because GGHQ policy is to ignore the need for this.

Split post to make a point

That looked like a reasonable risk assessment document which covered all the bases.

Small problem with
1.1.1.a.1 Risk of pregnancy (ova occupants only)
and
1.1.1.a.2 Risk of pregnancy (sperm occupants only)

Both have an additional calculation

Key Risk factor:
No2:
control failure ova or sperm producing humans have access to sleeping accommodation.
Shared accomadation but risk factor is 1

Frequency of risk event:
No2:
ova or sperm producing humans have access to sleeping accommodation.
Shared accomadation so risk factor is 1

So each single sex accomadation has to be risk assessed on the basis of probability of risk calculated in 1.1.1.a.3 Risk of pregnancy (ova and sperm occupants)

Management of risk:
There is a risk
Mitigation of risk required
^Action required
• effective controls to keep space single sex
Additional actions due to possible control failure
•• re sex prevention strategies
•• re pregnancy prevention strategies
•• abortion strategies
•• parental involvement
•• ....
Further risk assessment needed

Policy required
Yes

So the document has to chage as the risks are identifed.

Pregnancy risk can only be risk assessed if GGHQ split members by sex and also examine how they are going to prevent sexual activity or pregnancy as a result of sexual activity

Mitigation of risk: pretending all members are the same sex and not letting anyone mention the reality that they are not

is probably not going to cut it at a serious case review, or when the parents sue.

Justkeep- how would I fill in a ren form for a residential if I had a trans identifying male in the unit? It hasn’t arisen, and we haven’t been away for 3 years (covid) but I will always put safeguarding first, that would mean I couldn’t allow a male to share sleeping accommodation with the girls so I would have to either say ‘no’ and go against hq or, more likely, we just wouldn’t go away.

I think some people are mistaking leaders saying that it isn’t a problem in their unit for people ‘putting their heads in the sand’. It is simply the case that it really isn’t a problem for most units, most leaders are very sensible and very aware of safeguarding- not least because we are very aware of our responsibilities and most units don’t have any trans members . You may not be aware that gg has several problems at the moment, we’ve lost about 1/3 of members recently while units weren’t operating during lockdown. Risk assessments and covid rules have been really onerous. GG also spent lots of money completely rewriting the program and changing all the badges with the end result that they’ve made an unbelievably boring and highly prescriptive, admin-heavy list of activities - as a result lots of leaders are leaving, as are girls. Any extra pressures (eg being told to ignore safeguarding) are likely to be the final straw for many leaders.

This thread makes me want to weep 😢

I both agree with the critical posters and know the initiative value of what I actually do on the ground. I’ve been a leader for over 20 years since I was technically still a child. It isn’t as simple as ‘just leave’.

I know the value too, first hand. Otherwise I wouldn't care so much about this insidious crap wrecking it for girls.

Justkeep- how would I fill in a ren form for a residential if I had a trans identifying male in the unit? It hasn’t arisen, and we haven’t been away for 3 years (covid) but I will always put safeguarding first, that would mean I couldn’t allow a male to share sleeping accommodation with the girls so I would have to either say ‘no’ and go against hq or, more likely, we just wouldn’t go away

Would your DC sign this off? It's completely against GGs policy and could result in you both being chucked out.

@Justkeeppedaling

I know that view isn't popular on here, but it's the view taken by most people I know IRL, who have no issue at all with this young trans girl in my DDs class.

I would have no issue with a trans girl in my DDs class either, but you're missing the point.

The point being that GG have an explicit policy NOT to tell parents that there are people with male genitalia on GG residentials, to NOT call this out on a risk assessment, and to NOT segregate these people from the women at the event in areas where they are vulnerable: sleeping, showering, dressing, toileting.

Exactly. It's not about preventing a girl from playing with a male child of any identity, its about how we risk assess the contact between male children and female children, and about how we teach girls about how they are allowed to have boundaries.

so I would have to either say ‘no’ and go against hq or, more likely, we just wouldn’t go away

I understand those, but not going on residential because there's no possibility of an adequate risk assessment means that once again girls miss out because of the presence of a male.

OP you could volunteer to help at the sessions then you will have first hand experience of what dd is being exposed to. The leaders themselves are volunteers and in most cases are probably very grateful for an extra pair of hands!

Justkeep - I’d rather be chucked out than knowingly allow mixed sex sleeping! I’m just a volunteer, it’s not like being sacked! My legal safeguarding responsibilities override gg policy by far! But as I said we probably just wouldn’t go, which as a pp said means girls would lose out. I’m just a volunteer and don’t need the stress! Don’t forget that gg is part of the community too, so in a small village if you do anything controversial everyone knows! Welcome trans id male = piss off half the village, not welcome them = piss off the other half. But as I said it’s all hypothetical at the moment.

Welcome trans id male = piss off half the village, not welcome them = piss off the other half

How would you know, though? Do you ask on the forms that kids fill in when they join, whether their sex at birth is different from the sex they identify as now?

I only ask because I genuinely wouldn't have had a clue about the trans kids I know, had I not been told - in one case I'd known a child for the best part of 2 years before being told she was born a boy.

Sittininafield I left, rather than wait to be chucked out. (I know you can't actually be "sacked" as it's voluntary, but couldn't think of another word to use).

I was the DC, and didn't want to be in a position where I approved a residential where I was putting girls at risk - knowingly, or unknowingly.

As for "My legal safeguarding responsibilities override gg policy by far!" - I'd argue that that's not correct.

Whether or not you agree with the policies (I don't), from GG's POV, they need to be able to demonstrate that all of their Leaders follow the prescribed safeguarding policies in order to validate their own insurance. They can't allow people to make their own minds up as to what is safe or not safe when it comes to anything, not just how to manage having trans people in the organisation. Otherwise, what's even the point of them having policies.