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/

I very much enjoyed my time at GG too. In part because it was one of the few places my abuser wasn't allowed to be.

And FWIW he used to comment that it was "such a shame" he wasn't allowed to be involved with GG, because if he was then we could "be together more often".

@ilovesushi Scouts do have a clear policy - trans members may use the facilities of their preferred gender. www.scouts.org.uk/volunteers/inclusion-and-diversity/including-everyone/lgbtplus/transgender-and-gender-identity/supporting-trans-young-people/ Leaders are also not permitted to tell other young members or parents that there is a trans member.

Yes of course they should! as should any adult working or volunteering with minors or other vulnerable people! Where did I say they shouldn’t?

But why if you don't bother with safeguarding girls? Female teachers are a far lower risk to girls that male boys and teenagers but you don't think girls should be protected against the higher risk category?

No way on earth would my DDs be a member of GG now with this nonsense being peddled.

Would you allow your children if one was a girl and one a boy to share a tent on family camping trip? Because unfortunately sibling rape happens as well.

I never cease to be sickened by the depths posters will stoop, to further the men's rights agenda. Shame on you.

I am confused on why Neuro diverse and disabled children would become unable to attend.

Then you need to do some research on this. You won't have to look far, a number of neurodiverse MNetters have shared their experiences and thoughts right here.

As for faith, ultimately that is a choice that one is free to make.

And a protected characteristic, covered by the Equality Act.

However because it’s a personal choice you’ll need to accept that not everyone will share your personal beliefs and that people have a right to have policies/rules that contradict your personal values.

You still cannot exclude female children with protected characteristics to include a male child who you see as more important. You do realise you're dismissing and handwaving away the female needs and issues (some of which you agree you didn't even know about) in order to prioritise the male ones and that's just plain old boring male supremacism?

Girls can still participate in the activity regardless of someone with a penis being admitted or not.

The policies and rules you're insisting shouldn't stand are bloody safeguarding ones for goodness sakes. You cannot put male and female children to sleep in the same space, this is nothing to do with your personal beliefs, safeguard policies are created based on shared knowledge over time closing loopholes on previous disasters. You've clearly never been responsible for a group of children away from home or written a risk assessment, go and do a bit of research on what you're talking about. NO some female children cannot participate in some spaces and activities if male children are present.

And yes of course you've gone to the next bingo card square which is 'if female need throws up barriers to males having exactly what they want and I can't argue those female needs out of the way of said males, then females shouldn't be allowed any female only things anyway'.

This kind of sexism really isn't pretty and its founded on open ignorance of female need while glorifying male ones.

I'm still shaking my head at the idea that rather than a male child have one option out of the many available that is closed to them, female children who are excluded from all those other options should lose that one too.

To punish them for having been born into a faith, a culture, a disability or having a trauma that says 'no' to a male.

I'd be bloody teaching that male child to understand and have some compassion for other children with those needs and that facilities need to exist for their inclusion into society too. And that not everything is for them or about them, and learning to cope with that is a necessary skill in growing up.

But we're dealing with a male centric organisation whose view towards those female children is sod them, they don't matter, let's see them excluded from society and marginalised in favour of special male children. They'll soon learn their place.

Scouts do have a clear policy - trans members may use the facilities of their preferred gender. https://www.scouts.org.uk/volunteers/inclusion-and-diversity/including-everyone/lgbtplus/transgender-and-gender-identity/supporting-trans-young-peoplee**/ Leaders are also not permitted to tell other young members or parents that there is a trans member.*

My Cub and Scout Leader relatives, both males, have said that the point when they are told to lie to their packs and to parents is the point at which they resign. They are appalled at this blatant disregard for safeguarding and see it as entirely contradictory to Scouting principles of integrity and respect.

I just posted this on another thread. Some may find it helpful as evidence that our girls are most clearly at risk of harm, why the fuck are any adults advocating for the lowering of safeguarding standards for our girls?

www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-sexual-abuse-in-schools-and-colleges/review-of-sexual-abuse-in-schools-and-colleges

The girls who responded to our questionnaire indicated that, in order of prevalence, the following types of harmful sexual behaviours happened ‘a lot’ or ‘sometimes’ between people their age:

Non-contact forms, but face-to-face:

-sexist name-calling (92%)
-rumours about their sexual activity (81%)
-unwanted or inappropriate comments of a sexual nature (80%)

Non-contact forms, online or on social media:

-being sent pictures or videos they did not want to see (88%)
-being put under pressure to provide sexual images of themselves (80%)
-having pictures or videos that they sent being shared more widely without their knowledge or consent (73%)
-being photographed or videoed without their knowledge or consent (59%)
-having pictures or videos of themselves that they did not know about being circulated (51%)

Contact forms:

-sexual assault of any kind (79%)
-feeling pressured to do sexual things that they did not want to (68%)
-unwanted touching (64%)

and this

In the focus groups, many children and young people talked about teachers not ‘knowing the reality’ of their lives, or being ‘out of date’. In general, they reported much higher incidences of sexual harassment, online sexual abuse and bullying behaviours than teachers and leaders tended to be aware of.

So, considering how high the prevalence seems to be for our girls to have already experienced some peer on peer sexual abuse, even rape or assault, why would we put them in a position that retraumatises them?

Why do we put them in a position where they are feeling pressured to do sexual things they they did not want to, but did not have the confidence or the ability to say no to?

Why do we have adults telling us proudly they lost their virginity to another girl in a tent like that is ok for males and females to share accommodations and toilets... because hey, it happens that girls have sex too?

(How many of those sexual experiences are enthusiastically wanted, and not regretted afterwards, (not pp's experience, but other girls) as well?)

How about we start listening to our girls and stop putting our heads in the sand around the risks they currently face which makes it even fucking harder for them?

And now we have this:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11090379/Suella-Braverman-tell-teachers-no-legal-duty-let-trans-pupils-switch-uniform.html#comments

Mrs Braverman will warn that it is unlawful for schools to allow children who are a different biological sex to share lavatories. Instead she will say that children who are transitioning should be offered a third alternative to preserve single-sex safe spaces.

Her speech to the Policy Exchange think-tank is a precursor to guidance expected to be published by the Department for Education this autumn.

from pp above: It's great GG are son inclusive and don't teach division and hatred.

So.... tell us again how GG is doing right by our girls? How GG are protecting them from potential harm and exercising strong safeguarding practices? How are GG strengthening our girls boundaries and the ability of them to recognise risk?

It has very quickly become apparent to the government that our girls need help, not these extra pressures. I wonder how long it will take for GG's to realise this too?

I am sorry that you went through that. But I am also very sorry that woman feel they have to expose their trauma to counter ridiculous posts.

Not wanting to be raped is not hatred and division. Honestly. We have the right to be safe in female spaces.

Eye opening thoughtlessness and complete insensitivity from some posters on this thread. There is not much else to read from that comment.

Totally agree with this.

Really ? I mean REALLY? You are ok with a teenage girl being put in a tent with a physically much stronger teenage boy ? I have teenage daughters, there is absolutely no way I would have them go on a trip where they might have to change in front of, or sleep with, boys. There is no way they would want to do this either.
How do you think a girl would feel if she got her period while sharing a tent with a boy ? Don’t you know about sexual assaults in schools ?
Oh and the word you used to describe yourself as a prefix to “woman” is a banned term on mumsnet so please don’t use it. Woman is enough on its own.

Leaders are also not permitted to tell other young members or parents that there is a trans member

Surely people can see? I suppose for younger children it might not be that obvious, especially if a boy's voice hasn't broken, but it's usually pretty obvious which sex a child is, especially if you spend a couple of hours with them every week and don't just have a fleeting acquaintance.

I would be ok with children who are biological male and Biological female sharing a tent, yes

And if the female child was sexually assaulted by the male child, how would you feel then? That they were collateral damage?

Or even if the female child was re traumatised because she had been sexually assaulted in the past and did not see for to advertise that fact, or 'merely' embarrassed and humiliated by having to submit to being seen in her underwear by a male. Would they be acceptable to you as collateral damage in the name of male inclusion?

You may consent, but you don't get to consent for others.

But if parents only come and pick up girls, they may not see all the guides and leaders. We had parents who never came inside, or even picked up their girls. The girls either walked by the themselves or were always picked up by another guide’s parents.

It would be very easy for parents to not know the sex of other guides that might be going on camp.

Not to mention that then means that parents have to start being suspicious about whether children are female or not. Which helps no one, least of all the children.

It will be much simpler for the massive majority of parents to just stop permitting their kids to go on overnights because they cannot trust their kids to staff under these stupid experimental ideas, and for staff to stop being willing to take kids away overnight and be responsible for them. Ends the problem. Bravo the entitled males. <slow clap>

Staff?????STAFF!!!
Volunteers- Girl Guiding and Scouts are run by VOLUNTEERS.
WE DO NOT GET PAID AND ARE NOT STAFF!!!

“Lalalalala, not listening, not listening …”

I only say that because it was when I realized the dissonance was so bad that I had to work it out and actually find evidence to support my thinking.

And not just regurgitated crap from someone who has no expertise. Sometimes I had to go to the original sources to get clarity.

To reassure those who are shaking their heads in disbelief at the casual disregard for the safety of children, I'd like to say that in the voluntary field I'm involved in (RDA) we take safeguarding extremely seriously. I wonder if it's because horsey people are more bluntly aware of the actual reality of penises? Nobody involved with livestock is ever coy and dismissive about "what's between their legs".

And the point about safeguarding is that it works BOTH ways. It protects the vulnerable from potential abuse, and those who might be falsely accused. Should I really have to be pointing this out on a parenting website?!

Have just queried with leader whether DD can go on three day camp...