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

The Times article fails to mention whether parents will be informed if biological males are going to share with biological females. Given this is one of the reasons given as why Katie raised the issue - child safeguarding - it seems like an ominous admission.

I mean really, that's all any parent reading that will be thinking - so, are they going to tell us if our kids will be in mixed sex accommodation / have adult males supervising?

Or are they going to lie by changing commonly accepted language without bothering to clearly tell parents what they really mean?

Are they liars and will they put our daughters' safety first?

The fact it's not addressed by the GG tells me I won't be letting either of my daughters join the Guides any time soon.

It's quite simple - they need to put out a statement which answers the following:

Will parents always be told if adult males are in supervisory roles (whatever their gender identity)?

Will children ever potentially be in mixed sex accommodation and share mixed sex loos and changing rooms?

Yes or no.

They need to answer these questions clearly. It's not 'complicated'. It's very, very simple.

Hope you all like my shirt.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1d5dc0a0-c331-11ec-8e50-d692b1fbef48?shareToken=6be42d7408d1be90fa63ebdfec9c4a1d

Love the shirt Katie, good interview. It’s good it pointed out the Stonewall and EHRC advice they were using was flawed.

Shame the article didnt go on to mention the mess they got into appointing Sulley as a leader. I see they haven’t committed to going back to being a female only organisation.

Also being, or claiming to be, trans doesn't make someone 'less' of a safeguarding risk.

Nice shirt. Brilliant article.
I hope many Guide Leaders read it.
I am going to write to Girlguiding myself. Asking that girl only means girls only. By the common understanding of that expression.

Even if GG put out clear statements about who is going to lead groups, be on residential etc, I wonder how many objections by parents and girls will result in a change of policy. I guess the complainants will be told to leave , however much free speech is allowed. Really glad you have had some acknowledgment, Katie, but until GG really see the problem with safeguarding, yet again girl only groups are being destroyed. Sad.

I'm really sorry you had to go through all this Katie. I'm glad your costs were covered and you can speak freely.

But I'm afraid that while GG and the Scouts are doing what they're doing, I wouldn't be sending my DC there. Just why? What's the point? I loved Brownies as well so it makes me very sad that kind of experience won't be passed down.

But protecting my DC comes over and above everything.

Well done Katie. Are they covering all your costs or is there some left to pay after the 100 000?

It still amazes me that it's taken them 4 years to agree to being honest about their own policies (!!!!), and agreeing not to chuck people out of the organisation for holding opinions that most people hold if they think about it, and most people would be surprised to hear are controversial.

Such a waste of money. £100k to Katie and then all their own costs that have been incurred.

All comes straight out of the subs people are paying for their daughters to participate in unit activities.

GG decided to waste that money. And this happened during that time:

whatisawoman.uk/?page=MonicaSulley

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10235539/Girlguides-launch-probe-trans-Commissioner-58-saucy-dominatrix-style-picture.html

thecritic.co.uk/misguided-or-misgendered/

Well dobe Katie, great to see this x

Girlguiding has agreed with Katie that as part of Girlguiding’s diversity and inclusion strategic plan, we will engage with new members, volunteers, parents, carers and girls to ensure our inclusive policies and procedures, and what they mean in practice, are easy to understand.

I was wondering about this, theemperorhasnoclothes. I would like to think that the above para suggests that in future, although they still won’t identify individuals, GG will have to spell out to parents that there may be biologically male attendees and volunteers in the organisation.

If that is actually the case, then I’m cautiously optimistic. Once more and more parents become aware of the policies and what they mean in practice, particularly wrt trips away, I would imagine there will be a lot more pushback. And a lot more pushback from parents is what is going to make a difference ultimately.

Love the shirt!

I hope they'll be honest too, and recognise that *we will engage with new members, volunteers, parents, carers and girls to ensure our inclusive policies and procedures, and what they mean in practice, are easy to understand *means accepting that for the vast, vast majority of the population 'girl' means biological female and 'woman' does too. It's not 'easy to understand' if you fail to recognise that reality.

However, I'm not convinced unless and until they spell out that they're mixed sex.

Word salad and queering the use of common language in my experience usually means trying to obscure reality so that women and girls - and parents - don't get the chance to say 'no' but are deceived into having their boundaries trampled.

The fact they're saying our 'inclusive' policies when they know full well the same policies are EXCLUDING girls and women, just as they excluded the magnificent Katie Alcock, suggests to me they're still invested in lies and deception.

Just to remind you that if any of you are Lancaster graduates, or have DC at Lancaster, you might want to write in support of Dr Alcock and/or in criticism of the university, which has allowed quite defamatory statements to be made about Dr Alcock on the University's Facebook page.

I think that GG is a fundamentally heart in the right place kind of organisation. The paid staff are a fairly small number of people and I think they've been badly advised on this issue and have made a series of poor decisions. Ultimately though, they depend for their existence on volunteers and members. I understand that membership numbers and volunteers are lower than before Covid and financially this must have an effect. It's a much smaller organisation than Scouts and doesn't have the same huge property portfolio.
If they lose too many members and volunteers that will be difficult. I really hope that they decide to listen to their wider membership. If they decide they do want to travel in a direction that includes men, that will be a huge loss for women, but at the least it seems they will be using language that reflects that better.
The expense of this court case must have hurt and I hope has opened eyes.

Is this on the university's own page, rather than a group or a society's page?

The fact they're saying our 'inclusive' policies when they know full well the same policies are EXCLUDING girls and women, just as they excluded the magnificent Katie Alcock, suggests to me they're still invested in lies and deception.
This us a good point.

hi can you link to these comments? DP is a graduate and may be moved to comment

If these comments are new, then it's the University Press Office that runs the FB page.
If they are not new, then on the principle of "don't fan the flames" it is usually best to ignore.

A huge part of the 'sleight of hand' is the 'consultation' stage (usually encouraged by SW) as happened with GG.

Q. Hey, shall we be really shitty to trans kids?
A. Of course not!
Organisation: Cool, thanks, we're listening to you and we're going to prioritise gender identity because you told us to!

Yes, I’m sure you’re right and there’s been no real change of heart in the leadership of the organisation, and it will not be an easy road to hold them to account. Still Stonewalled.

But the fact they’ve said this, and the fact they’ve settled with Katie and acknowledged she was perfectly entitled to express her views within the organisation, means it will be much harder for them to silence other GC guiders who speak up. Those guiders can now honestly say they’re just making clear what the policies mean in practice, whatever weasel words GG HQ use.

Katie, what’s your feeling about what it’s like on the ground, among other guiding volunteers? From the way you were ostracised after being excluded, I don’t hold out much hope of there being a significant GC presence, but do you think it will now be easier for the minority who are aware, and who haven’t bought into “be kind”, to speak out without worrying so much about the consequences?

In the Mail today, it's all been a bit of a whirl!
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10765045/I-outcast-shunned-like-criminal-just-wanting-Girl-Guides-safe.html

It's a great article, I read it earlier. This stands out:

"To be clear on this directive — and Girlguiding was singularly opaque about it — they were referring to individuals born male who had transitioned or who identified as women and girls, even if they still had male genitalia."

It's now the top article on the app.