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

Then look at why. Instead of blaming an incredibly small number of children. It is not beneficial and just comes across as hateful towards all of the other sex.

To be clear I agree this does happen.
But it isn't just boys that do this. And to push the problem onto one sex is to ignore it when the other does so.

Anyway, it's not just a matter of 'threat'.

All the Guides sections used to overtly be about girls having a space away from boys.

This encouraged self-expression, where girls felt more able to express themselves and more comfortable doing so and participating in activities without fear of judgment from boys.
It fostered girls' confidence by providing a space where girls felt secure enough to try new things and take on leadership roles without being judged or shouldered out by boys.

This is true. But both the legal case and the article present that as not being the case.

The whole issue is "potential harassment" and or "discrimination". Which is presenting any none female in the program as a threat to their inclusion or safety.

Very different from it just being a different environment to scouts so girls can be themselves without feeling embarrassed or judged, wouldn't you agree?

But it is a potential harassment. Having to get changed, to deal with periods and puberty in front of a male bodied child against your wish and your parents knowledge is harassment.

Being embarrassed or judged is a form of harassment.

You may be forgetting Ranger Guides.

So hold on. You want them to allow some boys but discourage others? Why? Why are some boys to be included but others not? Why do you believe girls are not allowed their own groups?

Good. Hopefully some other parents will now have the confidence to do the same.

The “Hell” they’ve been through was most likely at the hands of abusive/homophobic parents. It’s not in the remit of young girls to sort them out.

Indeed psychiatrists helping them tro understand that they’ve been wrongly taught to despise themselves and their male bodies and teaching them it’s okay to be a feminine male would be a positive step towards them accepting themselves and learning to live with who they are.

Of course, if you’re an AGP posting, then chances are you need those poor boys to hide your fetishized perversion behind. And if you’re the bullying parent who couldn’t accept their feminine son, then I pity you for not loving your child as he was.

Thank goodness for the wonderful women still supporting Girl Guides in the face of this invasion and thanks to the parents bringing this case, protecting their own daughter as well as thousands of other girls.

But it’s not any different to Scouts. It is also mixed sex but not being up front about it. And also discriminating against boys who do not think they are girls by letting in boys who do.

You/your parents were able to make an informed choice about Scouts knowing it’s mixed sex.

Me too - I was a district commissioner at one point so thought I’d come back to it when the kids left home/go to uni. I loved the ‘Girls Can’ mantra and the way it enabled girls to try shooting, archery, climbing, kayaking etc outside the male gaze. Watching shy and nervous young girls blossom, gain confidence, develop leadership skills was so enriching - for me as much as for the girls themselves. GGUK have destroyed that ethos, and something that was incredibly special. Am gutted.

It's not about children being a threat to others. It's about telling children they have no right to privacy and boundaries from the opposite sex. It's adults allegedly qualified to work with children openly telling lies that a boy is a girl and vice versa.

I've taken countless groups of children away on residentials - usually mixed sex groups where the safeguarding includes ensuring single sex bedrooms / dormitories etc. Pretending that a child is really the opposite sex - and catastrophically with the GG - pretending that adult males are really women and therefore able to undertake direct supervision of girls in dormitories etc - undermines both safeguarding principles & the wellbeing of all children.

Nobody is “blaming an incredibly small number of children”.

The point is that Brownies and Guides are single sex. If you start making exceptions and allowing certain boys in, it’s not single sex.

We are discussing single sex spaces for girls, which many women feel are beneficial, not least because from a very young age, boys and girls are treated differently by adults, often to the detriment of the girls present in mixed sex groups.

If you want to argue there’s no point in being single sex under 10 (or whatever random age you want to pick) then argue away, but don’t try to pretend it’s about women on here blaming a small number of troubled boys. I think we all accept those boys are not at fault. They’re just boys and, as such, don’t belong in Brownies.

So what you are saying is that girls should learn from age 6 that they aren't worth safeguarding from sexual assault and harassment from males because the feelings of males is more important. It's ok for a small number of girls to be sexually assaulted or harassed so that boys can be affirmed as girls.

Gotcha.

Would you like to say what number of girls being assaulted is an acceptable number as collateral damage before we should take safeguarding seriously, just so we can put this into context?

How many girls need to be abused for the benefit of the feelings of males who are either lying or themselves being sold a lie about sex by their parents?

Come on, how many is acceptable?

Can we have a number please?

Is this what equality of sex looks like?

It is a profound degradation and humiliation for institutions to expect women and girls to tolerate (under fear of reprisal) the false notion that a male can be female and be just the same as them, and have access to all their spaces, language and status. This is what Girlguiding are doing to young girls. It is psychologically harmful. It is coerced association and coerced belief / proselytising.

Scouts have been mixed for years, long before we heard of 'trans'. One troop was pleased because several Leaders had daughters as well as sons. They started letting the girls join in the activities at camp, kayaking or hikes etc. That went well.

Yes that’s great - but the very big difference is that girls are kept safe as they have separate sleeping arrangements and safeguarding in place and everyone knows who is who. Same with Air Cadets and other youth groups

Again, you don't base a safeguarding policy on the say-so of the people who are meant to be doing the safeguarding.

Does it really not occur to why that might not be effective risk assessment?

And have female leader or parents on site or with activity.
If a Group has mixed Scouts and a Venture Unit, then Ventures have to be mixed, continuity.
My terminology might be out of date, I was there a few years back.

Ten year-old boys can, of course, present a threat to girls.

But even if they're not presenting a physical threat, they're absolutely representing a threat if you are telling those girls that the reason they are there is because the girls must not recognise the male sex.

Can people who think that this is only right and correct, because poor boys, drag their eyes off the bloody male sex for five fricking seconds??

Of course it's detrimental to girls to tell them they must not recognise the males, because some boys are sad about it, or have homophobic or sexist parents.

It's not our job to stand around making men and boys feel better about their self image.

You cannot be serious here surely?
This is not hating people for who they are, this is wanting the very clear law applied.
GG more than most organisations have high duties of care & safeguarding.
I am shocked anyone of sound mind would not want to see this challenged.

Supporting a marginalised minority of young people doesn’t diminish women; it’s part of what equality actually means.

No it isn't. You're saying that young girls have to support a subsection of boys, to their detriment, because it's equality!

That's not equality. That's sexism.

If girls want to support their male peers, who wish they weren't male, they can do that outside of girl guides.

Why do they need to give up their name, their organisation, their privacy, their boundaries, their safeguarding and the very concept of being female, in order to do it??

Honestly. Girls really get a number done on them, don't they.

Girl guides is teaching girls that whilst they are 'pro-girls' and 'single sex' they must defer to boys at the first available opportunity and the meer concept of what it is to be female.

If that isn't fucked up sexist tripe, I don't know what else is.

Those posters who want to support trans girls (male children) should go and set up their own mixed-sex activities group for anyone with a feminine presentation.

You could call it "glitter club" or something.
Unfortunately the name 'rainbows' is already taken.

You don't get to hijack the existing female-only organisation without a fight.
Go set up your own.
(Then wait to see how many female children actually want to join.)

I feel exactly the same MetricMs. Incredible (and patient!) aren’t they?