Girl Guides and the SC judgement

[Timefordrama]

It was the Girl Guides' trans policies which first opened my eyes to the nonsense. I've just checked their website and they are still saying that trans girls can use girls' toilets and changing rooms, and share accommodation with whoever they want. There's no indication that the policies are gong to be reviewed in the light of the SC judgement. Anyone know any more about this?

It is hard to do. There are going to be some very difficult conversations ahead, and this is in the short term going to be hard to do. The blame lies with Stonewall et al and those who believed them so willingly, and were so happy to not listen to or think about women as soon as men were involved.

It should have been equally hard to have excluded women and girls, but it wasn't. There was never any issue in saying get in line or go to them.

I'm afraid they're now just going to have to bite the bullet. There are mixed sex organisations a plenty for those members to move to.

https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/information-for-volunteers/running-your-unit/including-all/lgbt-members/supporting-trans-members/

This is still there.

And this includes a clear statement

• The Equality Act provides options for exemptions. This means that in certain, very limited circumstances, it is permissible to restrict membership to those who share certain protected characteristics. Girlguiding uses an exemption to provide a girl-only space for its young members.

They really are quite stupid.

Girlguiding uses an exemption to provide a girl-only space for its young members.

I am not involved at all with Guiding but can someone who is ask them a straight question, in that now that the Supreme Court has confirmed that sex is biological sex, how do they reconcile this statement with that ruling. Or are they now a mixed sex organisation?

They have been asked, and are “waiting for further clarification “. They have repeated this on several occasions, as recently as last week iirc.

Apparently GGHQ words are “a sensitive image “ so check back later

Well that made for enlightening reading. Do they have a large proportion of 20-35 year olds running things? I ask as this seems the most captured age group.
Their take on it doesn’t really work though does it? For a start would any trans boy actually want to be a guide given its suppose to be an all female organisation? I would have thought the last thing someone who felt they were male would want to do is hang around with girls.
next as a parent I would not be happy about a trans women (ie a man) being in charge of my daughter, I’d wonder what their ulterior motive was.
and trans girls (so a boy) shouldn’t be in shared toilet or tent / dorm room space as girls, that is a major safeguarding issue, wouldn’t that directly contradict their own safe guarding policies?
I find it baffling how the organisation, which clearly states why it’s important for girls to have their own space, then go on to welcome boys into their organisation. They either need join up with scouting and be unisex, or undate their policies, inline with the Supreme Court ruling.

And maybe reference Starmer's statement of yesterday that there is no reason to delay changes, they just need to get on with it.

The Magic Updated Guidance isn't going to reverse the SC judgment or change how it's implemented.

Again and again it's all about reassuring the menz and the fucking Jane Faes of this world. Unbelievable. Absolute travesty.

What was that lovely phrase from that article this morning? I think I need it on a t shirt.

Ah yes. About how agencies 'continue to behave as though the law were a mystery wrapped in a conundrum inside a quandary'

Because doing so allows the continuing illegal oppression of women and girls' rights. It's bad enough that government departments and the NHS are so into this, but actual women's and girls organisations.... let them all go down. We need to start again, set up by women who can concentrate on actual women and girls instead of on their own need for phallic drift.

The blame lies with Stonewall et a

You know what they say. Where there's blame there's a claim ?

I wonder - purely on a balance of probabilities - exactly how much Stonewalls defence of good faith might go before a court ? It's hard to believe that every organisation "advised" by Stonewall were themselves captured. There must be a few who are less than chuffed about the expense this will have caused them as a result of rather wishful thinking advice as opposed to legally sound advice.