Telegraph: ‘I will not put my girls in that organisation’: How a trans crisis engulfed Girlguiding

[ResisterRex]

I couldn't see this posted. It covers the "Rainbow" story, males with guns as volunteers and other recent developments in GG. On "Rainbow", one mother says:

“I really object to my child being used as a prop in this social experiment of pretending that biological males can be girls. Girlguiding is telling my daughter that something that isn’t true, is true. And to think the opposite is wrong.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/06/will-not-put-girls-organisation-how-trans-crisis-engulfed-girlguiding/

@Minecraftatemychild on the thread about the article in the Girlguiding summer magazine (referenced in the telegraph article), it was very heartening how many leaders were commenting on how much they disagreed with the policy that is very much coming from HQ (not grassroot units) and actually were staying involved to protect the girls in their unit from the direction HQ is going.

Yup, I enjoyed Brownies as a child but I don’t trust GG with my DDs. They haven’t joined and won’t be joining.

Its attitude towards safeguarding means I would not now trust a child of mine within it.

Agreed. Even in their Settlement statement for the Alcock case, they have been less than clear what their 'inclusive policies' actually boil down to, despite stating that they will ensure that parents etc know what they mean in practice. The fact that a Leader was expelled for pointing out that parents were not being informed properly and only now Guiding (under threat of legal action) were pushed into stating that they will make this clear to parents means that I have no confidence in them taking safeguarding of any kind seriously.

I went to guides and loved it. Sadly none of my family or friends kids go, since the whole controversy of them becoming mixed sex by stealth.

I was looking forward to becoming a guide leader myself by noway am I going near them as an organisation now.

I am female and was a beaver, cub and scout and thoroughly enjoyed my time there. I also went on a camping trip.
But because it was mixed sex, safeguarding rules applied and we were segregated when appropriate.

When you call yourself a single sex charity and start calling girls - boys and boys - girls, you cannot safeguard and you are essentially lying.
This is very confusing for children and makes it difficult for them to keep themselves safe also.

They need to be inclusive in an honest way and include biological boys and girls in both organisations and safeguard accordingly.

Eh ? What word salad is this ?
“We are a single sex but we aren’t single sex even though we say we are single sex we are single gender identity and therefore single sex and also mixed sex but single sex “
Deliberate obfuscation there me thinks. Unless they only employ very dim people at GGHQ.

This was the reason we switched to beavers/cubs for my DDs. At least they (for now at least) know what sex is. No way I'd be sending my DDs off to camps where there could be biologically male children in their tents (or volunteers) without our knowledge.

How unfortunate that your post came just after the image that the transitioned male leader posted on social media and seemed to take great pride in doing so….

I suggest you look up that leader, I won’t give you their name, but I am sure you can find the search keywords that would work. And then look at their other photos and you might see that automatically assuming these males will be ‘more concerned’ with safeguarding than females is actually rather without any evidence.

To the person who said that girls could end up in tents with teenagers who are biologically males, potentially without consent - they’re also ending up in tents with teenagers who are biologically females. Just a note, that’s how I lost my virginity

Do we really need to have a conversation about the likelihood of girls losing their virginity to other girls compared to boys? Or the difference in potential impact?

In fact, I almost feel that the people who were responsible in doing a search on the social media content for that guide leader pictured up thread, had the same training that the people doing the social media searches for DQST and Sab Samuels.

I wonder where they get their guidelines for what is acceptable for children from, or if that is not it, how to do a simple search for sexualised content.

Or is having sexualised content freely available and easy to find on social media now also acceptable for females too? And since when?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11085685/Why-councils-spending-taxpayers-cash-drag-queens-read-children-Asks-KATHRYN-KNIGHT.html

This article mentions some of the content Samuels the drag artist has posted. It is still very easy to find using a search engine. They were certainly not trying to hide it and it crossed boundaries by including jokes about children that I would be horrified in finding out this person was felt to be suitable to be around children.

I started from a position a few years ago of yay diversity. And if male people wishing to identify as women and go into women's roles such as Guide Leaders had done so showing:

• the level of knowledge of safeguarding expected for anyone in that role
• the level of respect for safeguarding and children's safety and care expected of anyone in that role
• a sensitivity and interest/passion for meeting the very specific issues and needs of a group of female children in a specifically created female only group to meet those specific needs expected of anyone in that role
• additional awareness and sensitivity plus concern to effectively manage for the girls the specific issues arising from them being biologically male such as potentially excluding some females from vulnerable groups
• strong leadership in effectively managing the safeguarding risks in a child centred way such as being extremely clear that they are biologically male, that there are boundaries due to this, and managing so that they are able for example to take girls on residentials while clearly and transparently maintaining safeguarding and ensuring they have strong boundaries and have planned female staff and helpers to do what they cannot- as anyone who has the basic qualifications to run a residential should show?

I'd have been right behind them in these roles. I'd have said why couldn't they do this job? As I would have been interested to see what a male women's officer could do if they were genuinely and passionately interested in the needs and issues of female people and representing them and caring for them.

Sadly this is never the case. I only see a whole lot of what the role gives to the person, how it makes them feel, the boundaries they are enjoying breaking - it's one whole world of Me. And it inevitably comes with a whole lot of gaslighting and expecting female people to abandon boundaries, safeguarding, and to pretend something that isn't in fact true in order to benefit this person's chosen identity. Please feel free to provide me with evidence to prove me wrong here, but I can think of several well known TW who have taken such posts and proven their unsuitability and unwillingness to let the job get in the way of their experience that is well evidenced by their own posts and writings fully available and easily found on line.

Regardless of sex or gender identity, someone without the capacity to do the job should not be in the job. It has nothing to do with the trans part, it has to do with someone unable to put the needs of children above themselves.

I should have added: there is also a fundamental issue when a group or organisation run for the benefit and very specific female only needs of a group of females is seen by a male person not with any value for what it is or what it does for those females, but as something there to use for their own personal benefit.

Again. A fundamental unfitness to be involved with such a group. Leave those kids alone.

It seems so.

And then probably throw in the potential for coercive behaviour too. Nothing like thinking that a teen alone in a tent with someone they trust is put in a position they don’t know how to get out of and feels powerless to stop….

I've a much more prosaic reason to out my daughter into scouts instead: the guides uniform is a disgrace. Even on parade they just wear a t shirt.

That reply to @McDuffy is eye-opening, isn't it.

It's interesting that GGs refer to their exemption to be a single-sex charity, when they're so clearly not. They can't claim an exemption they themselves have failed to apply.

They refer also to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but since they're admitting children, really they're accepting young males on the basis of their gender identity.

Since gender identity isn't a protected characteristic, they have no exemption for discriminating on that basis. They admit some male children, but not the majority of them.

Surely it's only a matter of time before they get a sex discrimination claim?

I would be more able to get wound up about this if it cut both ways but since females can join Scouts, I really can't.

I wish people would read the thread. As many other people have said, guides is totally different to scouts as scout's is a MIXED SEX organisation and as such has mixed sex safe guarding protocols.

Guides is being run as a SINGLE SEX organisation only is actually catering for both sexes.

I would be more able to get wound up about this if it cut both ways but since females can join Scouts, I really can't.

Be wound up about the fact that Girlguiding states it is a single sex organisation and therefore leaders and guides are all female and will share all the facilities together and in the case of leaders will have exactly the same responsibilities when supervising the young girls in their care. Do you think a male person should be supervising girls' sleeping accommodation? Do you think teenage girls should share a tent with a teenager of the opposite sex? All of course unbeknownst to the parents of these girls. Maybe none of the above bothers you but it certainly bothers me.

Does Scouts involve mixed sex sleep overs?

"you know your gender isn't right from a very early age"

"How about we stop dividing people along the lines of gender and just call kids, kids?"

@TheKeatingFive @Cherryblossoms85 @ItsTuesdayToday but boys and girls can share accommodation on scout residentials:

www.scouts.org.uk/volunteers/running-your-section/nights-away-and-camping/nights-away-answers/

As per my link above, the scout trans policy doesnt prohibit trans members sharing accommodation with their preferred gender, although does state that it's best practice to provide mixed sex or single person accommodation if that would help them feel more comfortable. So I'm struggling to understand how scouts is a better option?

But, LaughingCat, how do you know "when your gender isn't right"? - Is it a case of "I just do", or something like "Don't I always know myself better than anyone else"? Do you think people always know the truth about themselves better than others?

Of course people make mistakes about themselves. Some people think they're clever (when they're not); some (especially adolescents, ime) think themselves ugly (when they're not); some think they're fat (when they're not) ... and so on and so on.

Thing is, LaughingCat, I'm sure (I PROMISE you (!)) children who say they know their gender isn't right only think they know this. How can I be so sure? - Well, there actually is no such thing as a 'gender' possessed by a child in such a way as for such a child to be 'not right' in that way. And you can't know something that isn't true, can you? You can think you know it, but if it's not true you can't know it, can you?

So, again, how do you know you're not mistaken?

Do I "genuinely believe there is no such thing as a trans person"? Only in the same sense I genuinely believe there are no people of way below average BMI who are actually fat, or beautiful children who are actually ugly. Of course there are some people who believe themselves to be so-and-so or such-and-such. In that sense there are such people. But sometimes, with a bit of thought and common sense, we can work out they must be mistaken about what they think about themselves. No?

This is not to deny the existence of anorexia nervosa or body dysmorphia, is it? And ... well, fill in the rest.

Dissonance alert!! The clanging is reaching explosive loudness!

@YorkshireTeaCup I'm not particularly concerned. My DH is a scout leader and there are separate tents for girls and boys on camp, chaperoned and supervised by women and men respectively. We live in a very diverse city where most of the scouts families are Asian and they don't put up with any mixed sex accommodation, ever.

I am autistic (Ciss-female). When I was a guide, at camp I had to be sterogated from the other girls at night in case there was an ‘incident’ (I had never acted violently or even had a meltdown whilst at guides) I had to share a room with my mother, upstairs, while all the other girls were downstairs having fun. I was told it was “to keep everyone safe”.
Being told that you are a potential danger to others at 11 years old, has actually left me with some trauma 10+ years on!

Because of this, I feel passionately that organisations must be fully inclusive. We can’t make assumptions based on what is in between someone’s leg or their brain wiring and assume these characteristics automatically pose a danger.
Sorry but I can’t condone another child to have the same trauma I have. Sorry, whilst I understand your fears, I know what it’s like to be on the other side of this argument.