Girl Guides existing members

[magentafox]

Is anyone addressing the fact that boys who have already joined the Guides - or who join in the next few days before the policy comes into force - can stay?

Their statement only says no immediate change I think it's unclear at this stage what they will do with boys who are currently members

There will be no immediate changes for current young members but more information will be shared next week.

They said they’d address that next week. I think they’re waiting for initial backlash to dissipate before taking decisive action.

I think there will be changes after Christmas or Easter when new subs are due

Hmm. I hope you're all right, but as GG don't track identity data I think they're going to say they can't identify existing male members to expel them.

A very risky tactic. It’s doubtful that every parent and leader in a unit with a boy on strength is happy with the previous policy especially now that they know that the policy isn’t in line with the law. They have probably been told that it was all fine and actually a requirement for them to comply with Equality law to allow boys. These people might not stay quiet and even if they don’t want to put their heads above the parapet there will be whistleblowers.

Even if there is no central database that accurately records sex individual unit leaders will absolutely know who the boys are.

Their statement yesterday was an “with immediate effect” for joining. I think they were under a time crunch to get a statement out due to impending legal action. They now need to work out how to remove the boys and that does need to be done with some care and might need a few days to iron out the strategy.

I suspect that the notified legal action will remain a significant pressure point to ensure that GG will have to act to either remove male children immediately or put in place safeguarding protocols to deal with these male children until subs time.

I cannot see there being a situation where they can simply leave a group of male children in the groups without changing safeguarding at this stage. And they cannot simply allow them to remain to age out of their current groups.

I believe WI said that from April all members renewing would have to confirm they were female “at birth”. Since membership renews annually (my presumption), that would spell the end for openly trans-identifying male members.

I hope you're right and renewal time will provide an opportunity to remove existing male members, but I'm going to make a prediction that this is going to rumble on and, just like the Supreme Court ruling itself, not immediately precipitate the decisive changes that sensible people expect.

The proposal to consult suggests to me that it will be all about how to deal with current members/ removal and will guilt trip people into accepting that it would be too cruel to remove existing members. Then GG and WI will argue in court that their consultations suggest the majority are happy, that members have been unable to consistently identify members who may be male, there is no way to definitively determine which members are male ("I mean what do you nasty transphobes expect us to do - inspect children's genitals??")

I think the push from Willoughby, Webberley etc to redefine 'biological female' to include trans identifying males is designed exactly to support this type of purpose (they're women inside their brains so they are biologically women apparently 🙄).

And then we'll have the "do you really expect people to produce birth certificates to join a club/ how do you ensure it is the right child's birth cert if children don't have ID/ community based clubs can't be expected to test chromosomes/ etc etc" bullshit arguments to obfuscate and bully, just as this movement has always done.

Sorry to be so cynical, but as long as people with power and influence continue to either out and out champion trans ideology, or poo poo it as 'not a big deal/ a side issue within the bigger challenges around diversity etc' this is not going to end.

On the radio 2 discussion, many leaders contacted to say they would continue to admit boys, and that GG would never be able to find out

Isn't that basically announcing in public that you are asking to be sued? Would GG themselves be liable in such a case or the individual group leaders if they don't follow the GG national policy?

I think GG have 3 options to let them see out: the term, the academic year, or the stage.
If they see out the stage that could be up to 4 years which is (clearly) too long.

I think a fair compromise could be to let them stay until the summer but also say unfortunately they can't do any overnight camps and not use female toilets during meetings.

They would if a parent complained.

I think it would be surprising if others didn't find out, either from knowing the family before, or a via a sibling or school. It only takes one parent of another member to know and report it.

I suspect that this has been a heavily resented move that has been made purely to avoid an expensive court case and financial ruin, and I suspect that still needs to happen because they clearly are intending to continue to missapply the ruling.

Then they’re going against GG rules and should be thrown out.

I can imagine that all current GGs will have to complete a new application form which will require them to tick a box to say their sex is female. They might even require sight of the child’s birth certificate or passport. Any parent who refuses to complete this will have their child’s membership rescinded. The fault lies fairly and squarely on the parents who tell their son that he can now be their daughter.

Whilst I can see easily how that can work, they’d be fucked when it comes to insurance. Dodgy ground. But I know units that have done whatever they wanted anyway and GG would never know. It would have to take a complaint from a parent.

They’re just happy to take the subs. Shit clique place to work for as well.

I think it will run and run. Same with WI. I posted this on a different thread-
So, while we can always tell…
If someone joins and doesn’t talk about being trans, doesn’t mention being male… what will they do? Will someone need to challenge them? Make discreet enquiries?
I mean, vanishingly unlikely given most men talk a lot about being a man, or say that they are fragile in a ‘I know you’ll be surprised but I’m trans..’ kind of way.
Where’s the ‘man here’ meme when you want it?

Like IamSarah in Brighton. They capitulated but haven’t actually done anything.

Agree. The brownie leader rings in at 26.20 'Sarah' not her real name, but she believes in it enough to ring in and be recorded.

Rough transcript, errors my own as don't have my computer so couldn't type just had to input on the phone keyboard which is much harder (for me anyway)

Sarah 'you can choose a gender, if a biological male decides he wants to be identifying as a female- Go For It! You are more than welcome to come to my club and will be fully included, it is a safe space for everybody...'

JV- ' The supreme court ruled that single sex organisations can exclude members on the basis of biological sex, do you disagree?'

Sarah- 'Yes, I do disagree, how are you going to police it? Please tell me are you going to go to all these little local groups, how are you going to police all of us..'

JV- ' so you think people will just let it trans members if they want to?'

Sarah- 'I personally would'

Then Sarah claims her granny was fighting for inclusivity including the trans issue 40 or 50 years ago.

So full included- so sharing tents, sleepovers everything.

All about inclusivity, but not for one moment thinking that this does not include girls in this inclusivity.

Leaders can not be allowed to go against the rules and GG needs to get to grips with this- because rules are not optional. The whole organisation will become unsafe if leaders feel they can make their own rules.

I wonder how many boys there actually are in GG? I honestly think the answer is very very few. Does anyone on here actually know of one in real life, not 'I heard that.....'

Yeah, some of you are missing the point here. Pro trans people are going to move the fight to 'how can we be expected to tell for sure if Ginny is a boy or a girl?'

I suspect I will be flamed for this post!

Hopefully, we are on a pathway to bring back single sex provision. My vision is that for provision such as GG, there will be similar male only and mixed sex provision so there is something for everyone.

In the meantime, there is an almighty mess to fix. I have empathy for leaders who have vulnerable young boys in their packs. Some of these young boys will be very vulnerable and the leaders will know them and their vulnerabilities well. It may be the case that some have emotionally based school non attendance issues, self harm or eating issues, and GG is a positive factor in helping them overcome these. I think leaders and guides will find it very upsetting to see these boys removed from their pack.

Its possible to believe that GG should not include males, that existing males need to be excluded, and also recognise that this will be difficult for the leaders, the boys, and some of the girls who are friends with the boys. I can understand them having a strong emotional reaction when discovering the policy change.

As others have pointed out, the problem was making GG mixed sex. The ideology that drove this has been nothing but damaging.

It’s only disingenuous people who make this claim, and I don’t think the majority of the public sign up to the idea that sex is a spectrum.

Parents are the ones that pay subs/ membership fees. GG could easily send a message out with the next invoice stating that membership is dependant on being female and if their child has ‘male’ recorded on their birth certificate, they are no longer eligible.

I don’t think many parents would be willing to go stealth as the repercussion for their child are too great. There is a significant difference from officially being included and dealing with fears of ‘outing’ and knowing that being included is dependent on lying. With the former, you can work with the organisation to address any rumours or hostility (e.g. a response of Jackie is a welcome member of the pack, your behaviour is the problem). With the latter, especially where the community knew Jack before he changed his name to Jackie, the parent paying the subs (who likely has enough anxiety arising from having a child with significant needs) is unlikely to want to have to negotiate the issues arising.