Girl guides are not safe. Parents beware!

[HelenaTranscart]

From James Esses:

A whistleblower from
@Girlguiding
has been in touch. Volunteers have been instructed that, irrespective of the Supreme Court judgement, boys who identify as girls can use female camp rooms and toilets. Worse still, parents must not be told.

This is a safeguarding nightmare.

https://x.com/JamesEsses/status/1915689045356654904

Their employees are mixed sex. It's the membership that's "single sex".

Sounds like some of the FB posters need to be reminded of the code of conduct.

The EHRC can take enforcement action.

Membership is 'single gender'.
They changed the wording.
Then the meaning of the wording.

As a charity, their entire purpose is about providing a girl-only space. That USP is the only thing that allowed the organisation to survive this long.

The organisation is already teetering for survival since the pandemic. Membership dropped off a cliff and hasn't recovered, they had to make 30% of their employees redundant, and they've had to sell off properties.

If they tried to go mixed sex, they'd fold. There'd be no point to the organisation anymore and no way they could compete with Scouts without their "girl-only" status.

How they respond to this judgment is going to be existential.

@TimeFlysWhenYoureHavingRum

Who says the whistle blower is a man? The X account is a man's account but it says 'a whistle blower from GG has been in touch' no mention of their sex.

There's no exemption in the Equality Acct for "single gender" associations though, so they are breaking the law.

Yes I am aware of the issues and history, hence my choice of punctuation.

I am not going to attempt using their muddled meaningless terminology when I am commenting on sex as a protected characteristic.

Guiding was created as a single sex organisation. Many members and non-members are still of that view and don't appreciate the significance of them tweaking their phrasing. Lots of people still think "gender" is nothing more than a prudish way to refer to "sex", so won't realise the implications.

Ultimately the organisation has been misapplying the EA and its stance is unlawful, so it doesn't matter what linguistic gymnastics they've been trying to use to justify that up until now.

I had to look hard just now through pages of mentioning ''girls' to find this: Supporting trans members | Girlguiding
You have to look for it. It isn't clear on e.g. the Mission page Our mission | Girlguiding

@countrysidedeficit I am agreeing with you!

It's in their Equality and diversity policy too. https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/information-for-volunteers/policies/equality-and-diversity-policy/

What's sad is that none of the decision-makers managed to recognise the cognitive dissonance of imposing gender ideology on a previously female single sex organisation, whilst publishing mission statements such as:

"Girls face pressures and expectations in every area of their lives. They’re limited by gender stereotypes and face barriers to accessing things they need to feel happy. They tell us they don’t feel safe in their daily lives.

In our relaxed and welcoming all-girl spaces, every girl can be herself and feel at home. No pressure, no judgement – just fun and learning with other girls, guided by our inspiring volunteers.

We won't tell them an activity is 'for boys'. Our girls score tries at rugby, go bouldering or simply play the games that they enjoy most.

We give girls somewhere they can talk openly about what affects them and get support from other girls." [Emphasis added]

Lots of us have been saying this for a long time about the code of conduct. You only have to look at any of the comms around the activity centres or the closure of guiding overseas. It seems that HQ don't seem to bother enforcing the CoC anymore.

I saw some of the very intense comments reacting to the TACs announcement and was surprised people were posting such things in public under their full names.

I agree, it does take a bit off searching, and if I didn’t know, I would assume the ‘supporting LGBT etc ‘ bit, was referring to supporting lesbians etc, not admitting boys to the movement.

https://x.com/mforstater/status/1920247918000271631?s=48

So, 3 weeks after the SC ruling, Girl Guides is STILL not safe. Parents beware!

I was not surprised to read this from Girlguiding yesterday evening. Basically they are going to ignore the law for as long as possible.

For God's sake. Will this ever end.

I don’t have twitter so went on the website to find the latest news posted. Nothing under ‘news’ and I can’t find anything to do with the what was posted as shown by @averylongtimeago (or they’ve hidden it well).

Methinks I could be sending an email.

Presumably the GG or maybe the WI will have to be one of the organisations challenged in court? The GG with their promotion of some deeply unsuitable men to be working with girls would hopefully be a priority? They managed to piss off and alienate so many women that I'm sure the funding will be swiftly available for them to explain why their desperation to centre men takes priority over the law and safeguarding?

Not for a while yet. this was to be expected. True believers and those who have supported or propped it all up are playing for time. They need to save face. Some of them could face legal consequences and they know it.

Maya saying it like it is.

And GG can hardly deny it, given that Monica man with the whip.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at the EHRC. I bet every day there's another 'scenario' to address. Forensically checking every single letter of their proposed guidance will be taking up a lot of time.

Their necessarily deep dive into operation let them speak is going to be enlightening. And I bet the guidance reflects that.

Interestingly I've had no response from them and it's now overdue. They still haven't confirmed one way or another - probably checked previous communications and decided I'm a trouble maker lol

Well all credit to the GI lobby, they're showing the EHRC loopholes and how tightly they're going to have to be closed on a daily basis. Compliance enforcement is going to have to be part of this, and the government is going to have to help or demonstrate law isn't what they very expensively argue and create, but whatever an undemocratic extremist political lobby wants a la protection racket kind of methods.

Although as we saw last night, they'll be doing fuck all in the name of integrity or common sense.

That statement has gone out in an email to volunteers. I couldn't find it on their website or Facebook feed. I think they're delaying the inevitable. Probably because they know what a shit storm it's going to bring with it - either way. Personally I can't see how they're going to be able to admit TW without falling foul of the SC ruling.
My own employer, v inclusive but pragmatic has a statement on their website now spelling out the SC decision in very clear language.

💯

My own employer, v inclusive but pragmatic has a statement on their website now spelling out the SC decision in very clear language.

that's it. That's the way to go.

That's the way they're going to have to go, in fact.

Sorry, what does ‘GI’ stand for? Having a blank moment.