Guide Association settles with Katie Alcock

[GrimDamnFanjo]

I thought this deserves a thread of its own.

Well done!

go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=mobile.twitter.com/wontsomeonethi2/status/1516374537126002691?t=N6mKy04rpaiNyX9jmwKM6A&s=19

Given what Katie's case was about I think the GG statement means that Katie has effectively won her case without going to court. Other than compensation they have said everything that you would hope a judgement would bring:

• Katie is allowed to be a guide leader so they accept they were wrong to dismiss her.
• they publicly acknowledge the upset its caused her personally

-They say gc leaders & girls have a right to express their gc views. This is huge because it's the reason she & the other volunteer were kicked out. -languafe will reflect the fact sex & gender are different

• they are going to 'engage' with volunteers and parents on the inclusion plan, and (important) they are going to say what it means in practice in a way that's easy to understand (no more hiding the reality).
• they will consult a variety of organisations. They will consider orgs that Katie recommends. OK that's not much of a commitment but it's an improvement.

They are obviously not changing their inclusion policy, but the case was not about that. They are going to tell parents & volunteers what it means, engage them on its development & not close down gc voices. It reads to me like she has made them agree things that will make the debate happen within GG.

That's the theory, but the proof will be in the eating of the pudding!

Well done Katie that is significant progress

Well done Katie.

However, my trust in GG is completely gone now since the Sully incident. I do not trust the head office and certainly they have shown their safeguarding process is significantly weaker than it needs to be.

@NotAGirl

Well done Katie that is significant progress

Yes it is.

Principles are being laid open now, as @Manderleyagain lays out.

Good news, and well done Katie. But still. Oooooof. What the hell is/was going on?

Does anyone know what the Scout Association says about transgender children? Do they insist on single-sex accommodation or are they also single-gender?

@ovahere thanks for linking the GG statement. It is marginally clearer than Kate’s.

Although as far as I can see the main thrust is they accept GC beliefs must be upheld. A fact already determined in law.

It seems they will continue to allow males into their female spaces but they’ll be clearer that is what they’re doing.

Wow, have been following this for ages but didn't see this until just now.
Hope Katie is OK and is glad this has ended, at least.

I'm looking on the bright side, and think parts of the GG statement are telling.

"Girlguiding recognises that gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act and that there are girls and volunteers who hold gender critical beliefs within our membership. We respect and value their right to do so, and to express those beliefs. Girlguiding is also, and shall remain, a home for trans people. Whatever their protected characteristics, all our young members and adult volunteers are welcome within Girlguiding."

@PonyPatter44

Does anyone know what the Scout Association says about transgender children? Do they insist on single-sex accommodation or are they also single-gender?

@PonyPatter44 Scouts transgender policy is here: www.scouts.org.uk/volunteers/inclusion-and-diversity/including-everyone/lgbtplus/transgender-and-gender-identity/supporting-trans-young-people/ Section on accommodation is rather woolly, although section on toilets and showers is clearer: "Trans young people should be able to use the toilets or facilities of the gender they identify as.", although it does go on to offer suggestions of mitigations eg. self contained cubicles, or rota for private use.

Whatever their protected characteristics, all our young members and adult volunteers are welcome within Girlguiding.

Tut tut tut, breaching their own Code of Conduct by telling a giant lie. That they know is a giant lie - they’ve actively chosen not to investigate serious issues of institutional ableism, racism & religious discrimination (including sectarianism). They know their current Code of Conduct does not adequately protect volunteers, in particular.

There are lots of truly excellent volunteers in Girlguiding. There are also some who are absolute bullies, including a few whose narcissism - not a word I use lightly - makes them genuinely dangerous. Girlguiding has been haemorrhaging volunteers for the last several years - perhaps unsurprisingly “toxic bullies” they retain well. Not a great advertisement, that…

@Helleofabore

Well done Katie.

However, my trust in GG is completely gone now since the Sully incident. I do not trust the head office and certainly they have shown their safeguarding process is significantly weaker than it needs to be.

Likewise. Sulley's revelation about being invited to apply to be a leader and then for the Head of (?) Diversity and Inclusion post about finished me. Especially as it seems that the latter invitation was extended while the investigation about the dominatrix outfit and gun photographs was in progress.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4409035-A-trans-Identified-BDSM-fan-gun-nut-is-now-a-senior-leader-at-Girlguiding

How can GG apply appropriate safeguarding for young girls, if they let grown males share overnight accommodation with them, in the capacity of guide leaders? These males are in a position of authority….in no other setting would they share sleeping accommodation with young females. I just don’t understand how they can allow this to happen. They know that the Challenors who advised them had dubious motives, one is now in prison for the rape of a young girl-how can they be so blind to reality?

FPFW have tweeted a thread of Nic on the BBC from 2018 where they raised concerns about GG. GG, Stonewall and the NSPCC would not appear on the programme to discuss those concerns:

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1516487379598544898

FairPlayForWomen on Twitter: "@wontsomeonethi2 @Girlguiding @AskNic Back in 2018 it was hard to get air time and we were in the midst of the #nodebate era. Girlguiding, Stonewall and the NSPCC all refusing to defend the policy /3 t.co/j7i5endNgC" / Twitter

Is that a win? Her statement sounds like a note a hostage would read.

They are obviously not changing their inclusion policy, but the case was not about that. They are going to tell parents & volunteers what it means, engage them on its development & not close down gc voices

Honestly, all we need for sanity to prevail is to stop people from hiding the fact that mixed sex spaces are mixed sex. Once your normal parents know this, the gig is up. There's not many Dads who'll be fine with a biological male who identifies as a woman (whatever that means) supervising their daughters on overnight residential trips. And parents should absolutely be informed, if they're not it's a safeguarding failure.

The only reason this ideology has got as far as it has is because most people were unaware it was happening.

In today's Times

Girlguiding boss sacked in trans row may rejoin

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aac7a24e-c0e8-11ec-8413-422ef6319ad0?shareToken=b329aee6fdf9017673326b5d96a06149

So sad for girls that they can't have an organisation without males but at least they say to parents when this is the case? Would they still let them all share overnight accommodation though? No idea how that's going to work or go down with parents.

The girl guiding statement reads as a reinforcement that girl guides is a place for all girls and it will continue to be so. They have not defined what they mean as girls but have previously been clear that they mea gender. Sounds like they will continue to ensure trans girls are included and do not experience discrimination.

They're now a mixed sex organisation, it looks like. They need to clarify and communicate with the public as to what exactly they are and who they take in.

I'm in the Times today, with an apparent promotion to Boss.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aac7a24e-c0e8-11ec-8413-422ef6319ad0?shareToken=d90faffc192c1c73cbbdc53a5ac13cd1&fbclid=IwAR01kqRRbwNjZ1Y44c5mTXGagaHQA5muLWBzF9MN0xtolkkEWasWSRrGSAQ

Nice promotion there Katie!

But seriously, I hope it was an outcome you wanted.

Well done Katie and thank you!!

I came across Katie's statement on another platform this morning and assumed because of its ultra placatory tone that she had thrown her hand in rather than pursue this in court. It seems that GG have conceded very little and it'll be business as usual for them. Most people won't understand the tweaks to their smallprint. I made a couple of contributions to KA's fund because I wanted to see GG publicly required to state their position in a way that would gain maximum publicity. It was the process and the evidence that would have been important. Now we've got this ultra reasonable statement and a barely perceptible shift in GG's stance. It's a massive PR win for them. I can't help feeling

Honestly, all we need for sanity to prevail is to stop people from hiding the fact that mixed sex spaces are mixed sex. Once your normal parents know this, the gig is up.

Most of the law suits are about enabling people to talk about this within their organisations & online without being sacked, slandered, harassed at work, arrested, visited by a police officer at work to check their thinking and much more low level stuff too. We just need to be able to put the case in clear language, and make organisations set out what their policies mean in terms of (eg) male teenager sharing tent & showers with girls. Because we think that when we can do this we will win.

It will be much harder to use the courts to force orgs to go with sex rather than gi (or both sex & gi). Upcoming cases which edge towards this are women talk back v bristol uni & su, & if the lady in Brighton sues the survivors network. But the cases which force organisations to allow the discussion in clear language are vital. So well done Katie again. We don't know if GG will follow through, and the sully incident is concerning, but I'm hopeful that this statement is a good piece of a big jigsaw we are building up.

I wanted to see GG publicly required to state their position in a way that would gain maximum publicity. It was the process and the evidence that would have been important.
Yes fair point it would have caused some scales to drop from eyes.