Girlguiding faces legal action from parent over trans policy

[Misla]

Good. Well done that parent!

Charity is accused of failing to follow Supreme Court ruling on gender, leaving girls ‘exposed to harassment’

Girlguiding is facing legal action from a parent over its transgender policy which she claims discriminates against her seven-year-old daughter.

The claimant, who has asked to remain anonymous to protect her daughter’s identity, has alleged in a pre-action letter to Girlguiding that the organisation’s policy “exposes girls to harassment”.

Under the policy, trans girls — boys who identify as girls — are allowed to join Girlguiding, and trans women — adult males who identify as female — are permitted to undertake volunteer roles previously reserved for women.

“It constitutes and encourages unwanted conduct which violates their [girls’] dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment,” the correspondence said.

“This includes, but is not limited to: sharing toilets, showers or changing facilities with boys, contact sports with boys, and sharing accommodation with boys, all without their prior knowledge or consent.”

The letter goes on to point out that Girlguiding operates “as a charity for the benefit of girls and young women”.

Girlguiding faces legal action from parent over trans policy

Another evasive answer

So it's just about pretending it's not about boys?

Of course it's about boys. I'm not sure what your point is?

I'm sorry that you have put yourself in the firing line but there we are.

You are suggesting that rather than having a robust safeguarding policy that provides an appropriate solution for every conceivable scenario, you operate an ad-hoc system based on the situation on the ground and your, and the other leaders, perception of risk.

Whatever else this is, it isn't safeguarding.

It's all about the feelz.

But it isn't about the boy who attended all meetings and events because on paper he wasn't a member but it definitely didn't make it a girls only space.

We followed all safeguarding rules and more. Your allegations are defamatory and you should apologise.

I realise people in girl guiding seem to feel threatened by an inclusive organisation that they accuse of being snidy for stating all children are welcome and I ask again if you are happy with guiding why are you so worried about scouting?Scouting certainly isn't worried about you.

I don't expect an answer as the question has been ignored before.

Girl guiding wasn’t inclusive though was it ?it excluded some boys but not all boys. It also de facto excluded some girls - the ones that might most want and need a female only space

to ignore sex is to ignore safeguarding

Because my children are in Scouts? And as far as I am aware, they still allow self-identification, and do not enforce truly single sex bathroom or sleeping facilities any more than GGUK were. This is as much of a safeguarding concern in Scouting as it is in Guides.

The example you have given of a leader's son attending Brownie meetings, trips etc - this is allowed, as GGUK recognise that some leaders would not be able to volunteer otherwise. They have specific guidelines on how the attendance of leaders' children affects ratios etc. I have two boys around Brownie age, fortunately have a DH who can look after them while I'm doing Brownie stuff (plus they are a monumental pain in the arse on the rare occasions they do have to come with me! ) but not everyone has this option. I agree that for some girls, having a boy as a regular attender even if not an official member, would make it culturally impossible for them to attend, and my personal feeling is that it's not ideal to have leaders' kids as regular attending unofficial "members," but it is allowed. However, there are clear rules around what that boy in your example can and cannot do. He would have to use boys' bathrooms. He would have to sleep separately from the Brownies. He would not be allowed to get changed with the Brownies. A trans girl attending Brownies (or Guides, or Rangers), until now, would be able to do all of those things, without the Brownies, their parents, or even necessarily all the leaders, knowing that it was happening. A trans leader would be able to do everything a female leader can, and share rooms with other female leaders. Literally all they needed to do was say they are female. No safeguarding concerns there?

This is still the case in Scouts. Yes, they are open to both sexes - that is their choice and I understand why they have made it. But their safeguarding guidelines around single sex facilities are absolutely no better than Girlguiding's, and there seems to be absolutely no acknowledgement of this in public. Meanwhile they're sticking the boot in to an organisation which is clearly, whichever side of the argument you are on, going through a very difficult time. And that's why it annoyed me.

How are all the children welcome? Boys aren't welcome, who don't have sexist ideas about stereotypes.

Girls who don't want to be in a mixed sex organisation, they aren't welcome. Gender nonconforming girls were originally told they weren't even allowed to join! A bloody organisation meant to empower girls, telling them they weren't girly enough!!

You end up with an organisation for girls who are told certain boys have priority, because they can turn this girls' single sex organisation into a mixed sex one. And boys who have been told they are entitled to do that.

It's the opposite of empowering girls.

Gender ideology is sexist as shit.

Hear hear.

As a general point, we need to recognise that transactivists have historically made a beeline for all children's organisations, trying (often successfully) to impose queer theory on them.
1.Children in care of the state (children's homes & foster care) were one of the first cohorts of children to have transactivists writing policies advocating for transitioning children alienated from their parents.
2.The Scouts (which had an absolutely appalling historical record of child abuse by adults and in response had worked really hard to improve with rigorous safeguarding policies. Sadly they then bought into sex change for children in a big way, undoing so much of their previous good work. Maya Forstater's battles with them summarise the mess they had to get themselves out of:
https://hiyamaya.net/2021/12/19/the-scout-association-has-apologised-now-can-they-face-up-to-their-problem/

3.A highly unsuitable adult male with a fascination for extreme porn claimed to have worked with the GG on writing their trans policies (GG subsequently denied this)

Schools, the NHS, charities, voluntary groups have all been targeted by adult groups with an interest in promoting sex change to children at an age when children are intellectually & emotionally incapable of analysing, interrogating and evaluating this niche adult belief.

This happened because - as seen on this thread - society failed to recognise the protected characteristic of age and to safeguard children, instead retreating in the face of the tactics of intimidation, bullying and silencing used by transactivists to impose their beliefs on an unconsenting population.
Just look at all the posters commenting that they still don't dare speak out in their workplace or community.

Reversing this to a stage where the safeguarding of children is the priority again will take a long time.

Thanks for the link to Maya's page on Scouts - I will be saving that page to read later as its a long read.

I don't think my allegations were defamatory and I can't see anything to apologise for. This is what you posted:

"I can't say what would happen In all cases, as I said you consider more than one thing. We camped so if they want to be alone or it was felt they needed to be alone they could be in a one person tent, or they could be with other trans children but with beavers and cubs it wasn't much of an issue, probably more of an issue with the older kids in scouts but again I'm sure leaders work to make sure all children are comfortable. We certainly did."

If that's the decision making process that is actually applied then it is the very antithesis of a robust safeguarding policy. In fact, it appears to be devoid of any safeguarding considerations. A safeguarding policy is not there to make sure all children are comfortable. It is there to ensure all children are safe.

If Hypothetical Pete and his son identified as mother and daughter
GG would have let them in
but Pete's brother and nephew would have been excluded.
That is direct discrimination.

Other than that one case up until now it has been the opposite. I guess the mum couldn't lead if she didn't bring him, so it was decided it was the best solution.

But generally speaking:

Boy says (s)he is a girl - can join Guides

Boy says he is a boy but wants to do Guiding things - nope, you can't join.