Because, they have rowed back on their previous, welcoming policy, and are now directly discriminating against people who are transgender.
Which is why they now don’t know what to do with the existing trans members, if they chuck them out, then they will be doing so because of a protected characteristic, which the Supreme Court reaffirmed they cannot do.
All good news for Scouting I suppose…
Isnt age a protected characteristic?
Third sector does get very shades of grey when it comes to protection of characteristics.
For example - am I correct that RAFAC policy still requires a cadet who is pregnant to leave until after the pregnancy (albeit they can then rejoin is still under 18)?
There is no evidence that girl guides are requiring people to leave only a bar on joining. The implication that they are asking transgender to leave or are chucking them out is, at this stage, speculation & extrapolation.
The simplistic solution would be to just to allow those very small number who this affects to leave through natural wastage.
no not necessarily - but the RAF/MOD decided/recognised the differences and so offered a female equivalent so it appears the same even if it is not, that was my point.
Workable? We can’t get enought accomodation for camps as it is. My biggest fear is that people will keep pushing this (either way, parents for, parents against, campaign groups for and against etc) and in the end the only policy will be single en-suite rooms for all cadets. Hence no more cadet foreces as that’s just not possible.
Will the lower courts not be bound by the decision in the SC?
The SC judgment will be the key weapon against these decisions, because it keeps being misinterpreted.
The Women’s Institute have announced today that they are in effect being forced to exclude trans women, despite being very clear about not warning to. It’s miserable.
I wonder what is different in their charter / protocols that makes the decision different from Girl Guides?
Scouting also stated that they would have to check on things based on the Supreme Court ruling:
Their governing doc is listed here
Quite some time ago, Scouting stopped being exclusively for boys and therefore rulings on sex versus gender are irrelevant: whereas Guiding remains a single sex space for girls, and therefore the legal definition of single sex becomes relevant.
Only because they have chosen not to make changes to the wording of their rules/charter.
As you say, Scouts made a change.
Scouts isn’t single sex. Guides wants to carry on being so, and that is up to them.
It’s not necessarily a choice - changing a Royal charter is a lengthy process & needs approval from the privy council & the monarch.
It would open a whole political can of worms which the government wouldn’t like & probably cause more harm to the the small number of individuals it effects.
Scouts made the change in 1976 to cease being singled sex following up in 1991 & 2007 similar to the ATC in 1982.
Guides didn’t make a change & so it appears have been bounced into this policy change.
Oh look, the SC Judgment being used against transgender exclusionary arguments:
I think that’s stretching it a bit. The defence seems to be that another single sex facility was available.
Some people will go insane when they find out most new schools being built just have gender-neutral toilets… Terrifying I say!
Sure, but according to Sex Matters, and the EHRC it’s the trans people who have to use those, this seems at first blush like a very sensible judgment.
Just 68 pages to digest…
If we’re talking about the single lockable rooms with loos and basins in them, what would the complaint be?
