Meeting with Girlguiding to express my concerns around their self-ID policies

[AJNorthWest]

Hey all, I posted ages ago to share my experience of raising concerns with Girlguiding. I got lots of support then from other leaders and parents of girls - thank you!

I now have a scheduled meeting with the CEO for later this month and I would like to ask if anyone would like to submit any of their own concerns for me to pass on. I intend on handing over a pile of printed letters of concerns, anonymous or not, to highlight that my concerns are not in the minority.

I will be talking about the incorrect language they use throughout their website and policies, along with the safeguarding implications of using unclear language and having unclear policies that revolve around keeping biological boys and men happy, with no regard for the girls and women.

I know many women share the same views but are scared to speak out, or HAVE raised concerns and been shut down. If you'd like to add your voice to mine please feel free to send me a message.

Well done for arranging the meeting. Bumping.

Well done AJ
My two DDs will be going nowhere near any kind of guiding until they sort their shit out.

Thank you. I will definitely send you something - I am in the camp of people who raised clear concerns and was shut down with deliberate obfuscation and a refusal to acknowledge any issues. Safeguarding issues, what safeguarding issues?!

I have dedicated years of my life to GG, benefitted from it hugely, think there is a huge need for a female space (perhaps now more than ever), and view their shift to 'you are a girl if you believe you are' as an utter betrayal.

Bumping as not got any girls in gg

I would like to know who from Stonewall informed their current policy and whether they've looked into the backgrounds of their advisors. Was it really that Aimee Challenor?

And if an adult male advises them to change their policy so that adult men can choose to be treated as though they were female leaders, wouldn't GG want to have a teeny tiny look at whether the advisor is really obviously not a trustworthy person?

I would like to know who from Stonewall informed their current policy and whether they've looked into the backgrounds of their advisors. Was it really that Aimee Challenor?

As I understand it, Aimee Challenor, Jane Fae and Phil/Pippa Bunce we're all involved.

If those three were involved, could you take along examples of their statements/views as expressed on sm etc, so it's very clear the kind of people who have been informing GG policies and approach. This is in case they haven't looked into the people's backgrounds and so that they can't say they don't know now.

Also, a summary of the basic principles of safeguarding!

Please could you:

1. ask them about the equality impact assessment(s) that they definitely didn’t do did when deciding to allow male bodied members (ie trans girls) into Guiding and to treat them as if they are natal girls? Did they consider the rights and feelings of natal girls as part of the EIA? Did they consider the effect on eg girls who have been sexually abused by males, or for girls whose religions prevent them from eg sharing accommodation/showers with male bodies people? Did they consult any women’s groups eg Sex Matters as part of their equality impact assessment or did they just swallow wholesale the guidance of Stonewall which has been shown to misrepresent the law? Or are they of the view that there is a hierarchy of rights, and that the rights of trans girls should be given precedence over natal girls?

2. Do they acknowledge that following the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in Forstater, a) the expression of gender critical views is legally protected and b) that it would be unlawful discrimination on the part of Guiding UK to victimise their volunteers or paid staff from expressing GC views including safeguarding concerns.

3. have they taken legal advice on the risk of Employment Tribunal discrimination claims from volunteers who they have bullied out of Girl Guiding for expressing GC views and/or safeguarding concerns? (The ET has found that unpaid volunteers may in principle be able to bring claims).

Thank you for raising this @AJNorthWest !

GG seems to be facing financial challenges atm. They need to guard against action taken against them that might result in monetary loss (as well as reputational loss, including possibly holding the top level of management personally responsible(?)). As well as tribunal claims, there is the real possibility of parents suing if their daughters are exposed to detriment under GG activities - eg residential camps where unbeknown to parents their girls end up sharing sleeping accommodation and washing facilities with males. This may well include teenage boys with teenage girls.

As others have said. Thank you for raising this. It is such a needless waste of an organisation that has given so much to so many girls and young women.

Fucking drives me crazy they claim to be a single "gender" space and rewritten history to claim that's always been the case

It's just now mixed sex... They need to accept that...
They accept;
Boys, girls, men, women...

Including Boys and men pretending to be girls and women as well as girls and women pretending to be men.

GG is mixed sex.

But worrying is the fact that men pretending to be women and boys pretending to be girls are giving shared sleeping, toilet and washing facilities with girls... It's horrific!

It’s the fibbing, secrecy and obfuscation that gets me. You will not be told if your daughter is sharing sleeping accommodation and washing facilities with biological males. As a parent you are unable to make an informed choice about whether or not your want your child participates in the activity. Aside from the total dereliction of safeguarding, you have broken the bond of trust with parents. I suspect they’re still (just about) functioning because parents are unaware. Once parents understand GG is a covert mixed sex setting with lax safeguarding, they are finished as a going concern. I sometimes wonder if that was the TRAs’ end goal.

They don’t know the truth if it hit them in the face. They tried to tell Girlguiding overseas that they were being closed for safeguarding reasons but couldn’t explain why. Leaders overseas do this job day in day out as their full time job but none of them were consulted.

Then the reason changed until they couldn’t actually explain why. Lots of words sent out but they made no sense.

Then the activity centres were told they were closing. HO & the board of trustees & the chief guide have forgotten the basic promise.

Because the real reason is MONEY.

I think they'll fold soon enough.

Thanks OP. I would like to add my concerns to this. My DD attends Brownies and loves it.

I am not a bigot and (in everyday life) do not have any issue with male people or with trans people.

I just think that things involving safeguarding, such as adult intimate supervision, or sharing accommodation and washing facilities, need to be split by biological sex not by gender identity. Otherwise there is a safeguarding problem.

I'm a leader of all sections and DC in my area and quietly keep my thoughts on the policy to myself due to fear of being thrown out after 30+ years service.

Guiding has always been a single sex organisation. The focus has been on providing girls with opportunity to develop skills and be challenged to prove to themselves that girls/women (natal) can do anything. It has provided a safe space where girls can talk freely. My experience (of when we do joint activities with scouts) is that generally the conversation and freedom to be themselves changes when it is not a female only environment.

I run my (very successful) units as I and my fellow leaders see fit to safeguard the environment for OUR members.

To be clear I am not a TERF (or any other derogatory term) but I do believe there are multiple other organisations that can provide similar activities for those whose gender is not the same as their biological sex (scouts for example).

I would remind the CEO that Scouts was on the point of collapse due to a lack of male volunteers, so went mixed sex because there are enough female volunteers to make it happen. But of course parents know Scouts is mixed sex, and they have appropriate safeguarding for underage girls and boys.

The key words here are "female" and "safeguarding"- please ask the CEO to check their understanding of these terms.

I think likely it was the TRA's goal. There is a clear pattern of TRAs targeting female organisations, groups, spaces and getting very quickly into positions of influence - see WI for eg.

I'd love to hear from you. I feel very much the same - I've been a member since I was a child myself, have dedicated so many hours to being a leader and feel completely betrayed by the organisation. They are doing girls a huge disservice.

Thank you for adding your voice here. I agree, it's about safeguarding and transparency. Feel free to message me privately if you'd like me to add a statement to the ones I submit at the meeting.

Thank you for sharing your experience, and I'm sorry that you don't feel able to speak up - I don't blame you, the response I got was not a friendly or understanding one. My main issue is with the lack of transparency and the environment they have created where leaders are afraid to speak up about concerns. It was a single-sex organisation for a reason, as you've described, and if they've decided to change that they should be honest about it.

Feel free to message me privately if you'd like me to add a statement to the ones I submit at the meeting.

Good luck.
I suspect GG are floundering under the weight of decisions to close BGO and the activity centres and the storm of criticism from 'volunteers' this has created.
Given they have dug in and defended their single gender position (including £££ in costs for failed legal action against former Leaders for questioning this ideology) I think that they will continue to parse this line.
I really don't know what it will take for the people leading this organisation to listen to the people actually out there delivering Guiding.
I have attended a lot of Guiding events and camps over the last few years. One observation is that whilst there are a fair few gender non conforming girls in Guiding I suspect there are actually very very few Guides or Leaders who were born male. So their single gender position is pretty weasely as I don't imagine in practice it's actually happening very much...
However - I would bet there's a significant number of leaders who would quit or stop running residentials if they had to try and run their unit with a mixed sex cohort. The responsibility would be too much.
Given their recent studies about the level of happiness of girls from their own surveys and the chronic lack of Leaders (73,000 girls on waiting lists?) Can they really afford to keep ignoring and over riding their voices and concerns?
Personally I would refuse to attend any residential or activity where I thought I couldn't keep the children in my charge safe.

I would walk away from Guiding rather than try and engage with GG over this as to be honest Guiding just isn't that important to me. I enjoy doing it but I'm not prepared to put myself through aggravation for an organisation that blatantly disregards it's volunteers/members and has previously characterised different views as bigoted.

Thank you for doing this, I will have a think and probably message you.

I have been a leader for many years and hold county level roles but am honestly thinking of leaving over this. There is no possible way I would continue in either of my units if they admitted a boy and I would probably pull my daughters out of their units too.

No questions but you can pass it on to them from me that I'm keeping my children (male and female) well away from their organisation until they start to put reality and safeguarding ahead of ideological capture.

Good luck.