How do we resist institutional attacks on trans people?
Louise
Epiphanies Host
So the Girl Guides and Women's Institute have caved and are excluding trans women as members - blaming the Supreme Court ruling.
Thousands sign petition urging Girlguiding UK to reverse trans ban
Women's Institute bans trans women
There are ways this could be fought in court, but the problem is that due to fears of legal costs and well-funded lawfare people are 'obeying in advance' and caving, not fighting.
Both institutions have made clear they are doing this under protest - they dont want to - and are doing some things to mitigate it ( eg. not applying it to adult volunteers, having informal 'sisterhood groups')
Personally I can't help feeling that an organisation which, when fascists come for their members, sells them out and excludes them has failed morally.
I really fear where this is going. That we are living in a society where fascist level scapegoating of minorities is being reinforced by law and government and it won't be long before we have 'yellow star' type scenarios. Scapegoating and segregating are already ramping up and there is a good chance of a further ratchet to fascism at the next election - with people of colour, Muslims, trans people and disabled people being the main targets. The modern day fascists are deeply antisemitic too but disguise it with support for the Israeli far right government.
So what on earth do we do? And how should members of organisations which cave resist? And what plans should inclusive organisations and churches make for when the well-funded persecution groups come for their trans members? Because they will - they have bottomless legal funds and are picking off inclusive organisations one after another with court cases and threats of court cases.
Once again, as a cis woman this is absolutely not in my name. I despise and utterly reject these anti-trans views and the sickening pose by those who put them forward that they are in any way protecting women. These people attack women's organisations and are never to be seen when vital women's rights and welfare issues are at stake. I think it's important that cis women who reject these views and the feminist cosplay of their proponents speak up agsinst them whenever we can
Thousands sign petition urging Girlguiding UK to reverse trans ban
Women's Institute bans trans women
There are ways this could be fought in court, but the problem is that due to fears of legal costs and well-funded lawfare people are 'obeying in advance' and caving, not fighting.
Both institutions have made clear they are doing this under protest - they dont want to - and are doing some things to mitigate it ( eg. not applying it to adult volunteers, having informal 'sisterhood groups')
Personally I can't help feeling that an organisation which, when fascists come for their members, sells them out and excludes them has failed morally.
I really fear where this is going. That we are living in a society where fascist level scapegoating of minorities is being reinforced by law and government and it won't be long before we have 'yellow star' type scenarios. Scapegoating and segregating are already ramping up and there is a good chance of a further ratchet to fascism at the next election - with people of colour, Muslims, trans people and disabled people being the main targets. The modern day fascists are deeply antisemitic too but disguise it with support for the Israeli far right government.
So what on earth do we do? And how should members of organisations which cave resist? And what plans should inclusive organisations and churches make for when the well-funded persecution groups come for their trans members? Because they will - they have bottomless legal funds and are picking off inclusive organisations one after another with court cases and threats of court cases.
Once again, as a cis woman this is absolutely not in my name. I despise and utterly reject these anti-trans views and the sickening pose by those who put them forward that they are in any way protecting women. These people attack women's organisations and are never to be seen when vital women's rights and welfare issues are at stake. I think it's important that cis women who reject these views and the feminist cosplay of their proponents speak up agsinst them whenever we can
Comments
But discrimination and segregation is often made legal and enforced or encouraged by law eg. racism in apartheid South Africa, antisemitism in Nazi Germany, eugenics in various countries. It doesn't make immoral persecution into something moral that it can claim legal backing - it exacts a high persecutory price for doing the right thing and standing up to it, but sometimes that price has to be paid to eventually stop the persecution and turn the tide.
My question is given we are now in a position where trans people and allies can't look to the law for much beyond expensive persecution how do we resist and protest 'lawfare'? And what should organisations do when supporters of legalised persecution come for their trans members?
Caving in the face of expensive law suits is one option - but costly civil disobedience / resistance is another. What ideally do people think these organisations should do?
I belong to a church which officially affirms trans people- I'm sure there's all kinds of failings but I thank goodness for knowing we officially said that. If the church went back on that and started official discrimination I would feel I had to leave.
The Church of Scotland is very cash strapped and in a crisis and so would be very vulnerable financially being sued if the persecutors found something to sue over but I can't see how we could go on morally if we caved. We can't keep praising the example of Jane Haining who died with her pupils in the Holocaust and then say when we're asked to stand with the new targets of persecutors - 'but we're awfy feart of being sued'.
The point I took away from the 'never again' I learned about in school, is to fight this stuff when and where it starts - when the persecution, exclusion and segregation get into society. Not to wait for it to become mass exile or mass murder and then say 'sorry, we'll have a crimes against humanity trial'.
Hence my unease when I see social institutions cave to the persecutors...
‐
(awfy feart = Scots for very afraid)
If I were a member of a liberal church that could do another program, I'd talk about sponsoring a troop, and then as above.
Where it's possible to be something other than a single-sex space or organisation then that would be a relatively simple step to maintaining trans-inclusivity without facing legal action. I'd expect most churches wouldn't have a problem there, with no segregation of membership by sex, or either restrictions on women in leadership or programmes to try to promote more women into leadership, those issues won't apply. There would be a need to reorganise any Women's Guild (or similar) or Men's Fellowship (or similar) into groups that are not aimed at specific sexes - at my former church the Guild had been established back when most women didn't work as a space for fellowship during the day when they would otherwise be at home, and a few years before numbers became too small to be sustainable reorganised into a Guild for anyone who wasn't working and at home most of the day. My current church has, for a few years longer than I've been there, removed single-sex toilets by changing the signs into "toilet with urinal" and "toilet without urinals".
But, it's very difficult for organisations that have an identity that's strongly associated with being single-sex spaces to adapt that way. Would Guides and Brownies (and, Scouts and Cubs) lose something if the two organisations merged and were single groups for all children within the appropriate age-range? Would WIs becoming open to all to join change their identity too much? Organisations that exist to protect the rights of minority groups or support members of minority groups to gain equality are in an impossible position where the law says that some members of those minority groups must be excluded - they either fold in face of legal pressure, or go down fighting knowing that even if they win they'll have had to give up their purpose in doing so (no organisation can continue to provide support and protection to all women to the same level if most of their time, energy and finances are diverted to years of fighting legal battles).
It's a really sad time. I know there are campaigns asking people to write to their MPs over the Guides, and probably for the WI too. But, are there enough MPs with the principles and determination to fight the government and courts to get a new Equality Act through that will explicitly avoid the legal fiction of "biological sex"?
Girl Scouts USA does allow trans girls.
Seems like a progressive church can organize its own youth organization and set the parameters. However, it does take money.
Possible groups to check out, at least in the USA
Community Connections--a Unitarian group.
GayChurch.org
Forward Together
For the benefit of those not familiar, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), now Scouting America, and the Girl Scouts of the USA historically operate very differently. BSA/Scouting America packs and troops are officially sponsored by “chartering organizations”—churches, fraternal and civic groups, community groups or others. These chartering organizations share responsibility for the pack or troop. This means that a chartering organization will have to comfortable with and willing to implement Scouting America’s policies.
By contrast, churches or other community or civic groups may provide meeting space or other support to a Brownie or Girl Scout troop, but those troops typically are not “chartered” to the church or community/civic group, and the church or other group has no leadership responsibility.
For a long time, the BSA was the official LDS youth program for boys. Pretty much every ward was a chartering organization for a Boy Scout troop. (And for a long time, many in the BSA were uncomfortable with the influence that the LDS Church had in the BSA.) The LDS Church ended that relationship in 2018; the move to allowing girls to join was part of the reason, but so was changing the policy on Scouts and leaders who identify as gay. Also in the 2010s, many other conservative churches broke ties with the BSA and began sponsoring groups like Trail Life USA.
As for US government support for Scouting America, I think that’s mainly coming from Hegseth, not from Trump—at least not directly. So far as I’m aware, the main support the US government provides to Scouting is through the military, particularly in the form of logistical and other support at large gatherings like jamborees, allowing scouts to meet or camp on military bases, and things like providing military recruitment incentives for Eagle Scouts.
I had a long conversation this past summer with an acquaintance who is very high up in the leadership of Scouting America. One of the things he told me in that conversation is that their research indicates that there are lots (as in hundreds of thousands) of young people interested in joining Scouting, but not enough adults willing to serve as leaders.
If the Women's Institute members weren't consulted then the transphobes may be in for a nasty surprise. It's not just about making jam and cakes, you know...
And don't criticize what you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
'Cause the times, they are a-changin'
Bob Dylan "The Times, They are a Changing." 1963
I would imagine that given the religious background of the Boys' and Girls' Brigades, the Girls' Brigade was already not accepting trans girls anyway.
It's all very disappointing to see people so commmitted to effectively bullying trans girls (who are children) out of doing things with their cis peers.
Not from within Scouting, there isn't. There is a minority that wishes that Scouting America was the boys-only program that they grew up with. The thing is, it can be.
Scouting America allowed girls to form troops in February 2019, about a generation after most of the rest of the world. From that point until now, girl and boy troops have (at least theoretically) existed as separate entities. The girls and boys do all the same things, earn the same ranks and badges, and meet the same standards, but do it in separate troops.
Mixed sex troops have just been approved (following a year of a limited pilot program), and it will now be possible for troops to choose to accept both girls and boys. That doesn't mean that all troops must accept both girls and boys. Some troops will choose to be mixed sex, some will choose to maintain sibling troops that are chartered by the same organization and may do some joint activities but operate as separate units, and some will choose just to have a boy troop and not to have girls at all. All of these choices are acceptable - it's up to the troop and its chartering organization. There's probably a girl-only troop somewhere that doesn't have a sibling boy troop. They can stay girls-only if they like.
So if a particular troop wants to run as boys only, they can. Scouts and their families will vote with their feet, and join the single-sex troop if that's their preference, and join one of the others if they prefer a mixed sex experience.
For what it's worth, I know a handful of trans scouts and a larger number of nonbinary scouts. Scouting America doesn't actually allow you to register as nonbinary: you(r parents) have to fill out a form declaring you a girl or a boy, and that's what governs what troops you're eligible for, what gender you are for buddy pair / tenting purposes*, and so on. So all the enby kids are registering with their birth-assigned gender and asking their troops to use their preferred name and pronouns. Trans kids have to have their parents fill out a form with their gender indicated. If you're a trans boy whose parents are not supportive and insist that you are a girl called Melissa (or whatever), you're not going to be able to join a boy troop because your parents won't fill out an application form declaring that you are a boy.
There are certainly some troops that would not be welcoming of LGBTQ+ scouts, but the organization as a whole, and IME the majority of troops, are.
*all of the trans kids I have known have preferred to tent alone, so "tenting purposes" is somewhat moot.
Anyway, one way or another, it seems likely women will be leaving the WI over this, it's only a question of which group of women it will be.
It also seems strange that these two organisations have decided to act before the EHRC's official code of practice has been published. The EHRC submitted it to the Government for approval in September, but the Government have yet to respond. (Can't think why!) The EHRC currently appear to be arguing with the Government about submitting additional information.
It's also worth noting that the EHRC has removed the controversial interim guidance that they originally published shortly after the Supreme Court's ruling in April, this interim guidance currently being under judicial review. That means there's currently no advice from the EHRC about what organisations are supposed to do about the Supreme Court ruling, other than "take legal advice", which I suppose is what the Girl Guides and WI have done.
I would be careful to reduce my legal risks and then do it anyway. Doing it ethically means taking risks.
It was also extremely likely that the LDS would have broken with the BSA (and the Canadian equivalent among others) even without any BSA changes since there was a strong desire on their part to have a single youth program for their male youth worldwide instead of multiple national programs (some affiliated with Scouting some not). It is notable that the break happened shortly after the previous LDS prophet, Thomas Monson, an avid supporter of Scouting, died and was replaced by Russell Nelson who was not.
Or you could redefine yourself as single-gender rather than single sex.
At present it seems that it's possible for organisations to designate themselves as being for "all who include 'woman' as part of their identity", certainly within the Scottish Greens we've not yet been told that our Women's Network which has used that description for more than a decade needs to redefine themselves. Though, it may depend on how open such a group is - a group within a larger organisation like a political party could easily be treated differently to one that exists on it's own. But, a group that exists "to meet together without men" is going to run into the restrictions placed on them by the SC ruling if they welcome "all who include 'woman' as part of their identity" because that will mean that according to the SC legal fiction they will be including "men".
As I wrote above In other words, they could put to all their members the proposition that they explicitly accept trans women into full membership, and (probably - depending on legal advice) change their name to the Women's and trans Women's Institute (the WWI). From the point of view of the Equality Act & Supreme Court ruling, they would no longer be a single-sex organisation. I don't know how it would seem to them, but changing their name in this way would, to my eyes, explicitly make the statement that, in the words of the CEO, the WI is and highlight the absurdity of the ruling for any group that wishes to maintain You earlier wrote: The point I'm making is that the leadership of the WI made a unilateral decision to go down the path of least resistance without asking their membership if that's what they want to do. The WI member I spoke to on Wednesday and again on Thursday thinks they should have been asked, and is going to ask why they weren't.
It may well be more difficult to go down this route, but that's primarily for the women in the WI to decide.