Latest Girlguiding email this evening

[clementina25]

I have just received a new email from Girlguiding. They are planning on setting up a task force - 'Today, we're launching a taskforce to explore new opportunities for trans girls, trans young women and trans women. You can help us by sharing your ideas and/or expressing an interest in contributing to our taskforce. '
I'm thinking that it's really important that sex realists are included on this task force as I think that there will be pressure from the Trans handmaidens to change Girlguiding to a mixed sex organisation. Is there anyone else who has received this email and would be keen to collaborate?

Here is the correct link:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4271810-Girlguides-is-it-a-lost-cause

I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure would fall somewhere under sexual offenses. Definitely flashing, maybe voyerism.

I would think actually, in order to protect sex based rights for 99% of the population, 'stealthing' is going to end up on the statute books. It's being specifically mentioned in court cases and has played a part in a number of sex by deception cases. But yes, to intentionally breach policy and safeguarding practice in order to insert a boy among girls in a dormitory? Naomi and Ben would have lots of ideas on where to take that.

I was just reading a thread on Twitter/X by Dr Lucy Hunter Blackburn (she is one third of MurrayBlackburnMacKenzie, which focuses on women's sex-based rights in Scotland).

She had some things to say about the Girl Guides. She linked to two stories, the current one about the most recent announcement and then also a story from eight years ago, almost to the day, that was reported in the Sunday Times 25 March 2018:

'Gender-swap boys spark Guides revolt'

https://archive.ph/WBW6S

There were also some threads about this at the time, including this one:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3204066-remember-the-girlguides-thread-we-have-our-first-success

"A few weeks ago I posted here and in AIBU about Girlguiding UK and their transgender policy - I'm a leader ... We now have a story published in today's Sunday Times! This couldn't have happened without your support, input and encouragement. I'm grateful to everyone."

.

This is the thread on Twitter/X:

8 years between these stories almost to the day.
We'll never know how many girls have been used as - deliberately targeted to be - props in confusing an unknown number of boys, and for adult male validation. Mixed-sex Scouts was always available.

As @ prof_curiosity1 keeps pointing out, treating a little boy as a girl has no basis in decades and decades of careful child development literature. A parent deliberately choosing a girls' organisation for their male child was asking guide leaders and girls in membership to/

become involved in a complex psychological intervention none of them were qualified for for that child, on top of removing the rights of girls to a properly single-sex organisation, and safeguarding issues round males of all ages. An organisation for children failed to see that

The alarm bells should have rung when parents of little boys started turning up at their door. The failure of all the children involved here is yet to be properly reckoned with.

I will always wonder how many parents who could not cope with having an effeminate little boy who they were afraid might be gay sought, and found, help from guiding in reinforcing a family project rooted in homophobia.

Bear in mind that if you put a child into Scouts, he can just stay there with his friends, if/when he is no longer wanting to go along with being called a girl. Put him into Brownies or Guides and you create an absolute social loss for him at that point./

Guiding should have understood that and not let itself - its child-age members, it volunteers - be used in this way. It involved girls who just wanted a girls-only thing to do in all that.

https://x.com/LucyHunterB/status/2036474916845891850?s=20

Voyeurism offences require the purpose of observing someone to have been for sexual gratification, or, for some specific offences, to humiliate or distress the victim. Exposure is similarly constructed.

I think they would both be difficult to make out for the scenario you describe. I also cannot see there being any appetite to legislate to criminalise children for adults putting them in those spaces and situations. (Especially bearing in mind the government has been sitting on the statutory guidance.)

I am not saying that it is right that boys have been in these spaces, I am just commenting on the hypothetical posed about criminal prosecution.

You're talking about holding the adults to account, rather than prosecuting the child (who many would consider to also be a victim of the adults)?

The government won't even lay the draft EHRC guidance before parliament. I cannot see them bringing forward legislation to protect sex-based rights - certainly not criminal legislation.

I agree that "stealthing" is a problem that needs to be addressed. That may happen at least partially through case law as we are already seeing.

Possibly more likely 'outraging public decency' or 'breach of the peace'. Voyeurism and exposure are awfully hard to prosecute as they rely on proving intent. The Wi Spa chap got off with it because his semi erect penis wasnt considered conclusive evidence (not sure his history of voyeurism while masturbating was taken into account)

Sandie Peggie's case involved allegations of harassment, a different thing in an ET than a criminal charge

Given that scouts do mixed sex camping, I think it would be hard to claim that a boy in a tent with girls in an inherently criminal act, even if the girls were unaware that he was a boy.

Scouts has mixed sex camps, but does it have mixed sex tents?

Do the Scouts allow boys and girls to share tents?

I suspect you'd find that there are policies and procedures specifically relating to safeguarding and providing SSS when running a mixed sex group.

The issue is running a mixed sex group while pretending that it is not. Which involves ignoring your own policies and safeguarding procedures, invalidating them in fact, and doing this to service your own political beliefs (using the children in fact, while in a position of trust) and thereby benefit a boy at the expense of the girl children in your care. So sex based discrimination is popping along too for the ride, among other things.

Generally no. It's only if other alternative arrangements are not available. Safeguarding still remains relevant to whether it happens. (Eg they will generally decide that it's better than a girl camping alone - it has to be a justified reason and all parties comfortable with it - and safeguarding still considered).

Yes they do! See image below.
Done in my local area, usually in larger sleeping tents ~ 8 children in a tent, sleeping in pajamas in sleeping bags on seperate groundsheets. They get changed in the toilets not the tents, so there is no nudity going on.

There is a world of difference to children being in a mixed sex environment and both they and their parents being aware of this, and knowing the safeguarding arrangements around it, and being lied to and it being done by stealth and without consent.

It's like the difference between loaning your car to someone with full knowledge that they've taken it and you've agreed to it and it being stolen.

I'm surprised that there hasn't been a court case yet where a parent has been deceived in this way. It's a serious and deliberate safeguarding failure.

So I am very interested in this as my youngest DD is about to go on first beaver sleepover, and I’ve asked questions about the mixed sex sleeping arrangements. On this occasion it’s like it a big hall so I said I assumed they would separate by sex if tents but asked how they would manage it in this situation.

Shocked that the response that they don’t even do single sex tents. I reconciled with myself that these are 6-8year olds but I can’t yet bring myself to ask the question at what age they will separate by sex, in case they say they don’t. DD loves beavers but that is a safeguarding disaster.

Is this for tents or sleeping halls where an adult can see what is happening please?

From personal experience, them being 6-8 doesn't make it safe.

Wow, that was a frustrating listen.

Well yes I agree and I’m very sorry that you have cause to know that. I’m comfortable enough (just about) with what they’ve told me for this big hall arrangement and supervision but I’m not sure I could let her participate in mixed sex tents. It’s wild that they assess that to be acceptable.

Big hall and supervision definitely improves matters considerably. I'd not be bothered by that. It's small groups, like a tent, where 'they're just children' can't be relied on.

agree.

If I remember in Guides we had a teenaged sub leader in the tent with the Guides.

Hall sleeping is different to tent sleeping.

In the scout group my daughters are attending, sleeping in tents is separated by sex (from cubs onwards, neither of them attended beavers).

DH's group would separate if they have two or more girls. If they have a single girl the risk assessment would be they would be better to put a lone girl in with boys because the risk is higher if a girl is on her own. (The risk is more likely from adults than children particularly for Beaver age).

Thank you that is helpful. This group has a lot of girls, I’d guess around 30% so I’ve no idea why they wouldn’t. She’s only been there a few months so I’ll scope it out and ask more questions if a further camp comes up. My main worry is that they have teenaged boys as helpers (Explorers) as well as both male and female leaders, agree this is a bigger risk and tbh it still freaks me out a bit with this big hall thing, but I believe the risks are sensibly managed in this case. Big sigh if I have another battle of trying to argue for basic safeguarding, on the horizon. Or if DD can’t participate. Older DD has been in brownies/guides and I’m delighted for her to go out into the world like this without me where it is single sex (except when GG is not!). I hate that I’m feeling anxious in this case. Anyway I am derailing, thanks for this aside.