Can we get a list of who is a TERF and who is a trans ally? (2 Viewers)

She had VERY STRONG FEELINGS about Sebastian Coe not winning the IOC Presidency :eyes:
 
Sorry but someone “talking about someone in a way that implied they had sympathy for those who agreed with something they said” is not enough for me to stop listening or to put them in the TERF category.
 
The fact Marina said 'gender critical' - ie what the transphobes call themselves - without any question said enough for me :eyes:
 
Obviously not news, but always lovely to hear someone saying it loud

 
Finn said:
The fact Marina said 'gender critical' - ie what the transphobes call themselves - without any question said enough for me :eyes:
Click to expand...
Oh no I’d probably put Marina in the TERF pile because there’s other evidence piling up for her but it’s flimsy at best for Osman.
 
I believe Osman has spoken in favour of trans rights before.

I suspect they chose to remain neutral on most culture wars issues on the podcast. Still yet to see direct evidence of Hyde's view either way, which does bring up suspicion.
 
Just reviewing the original list, which contains Jodie Marsh. I googled it and we're the top source.

I know I created the original list, but I think we need to careful about false accusations. It may well be one of the most comprehensive lists online, so we should be smarter about triangulating sources rather than just basing it on a single comment.
 
Interestingly they've said "with a heavy heart" and "this is a decision we would have preferred not to make".

Which doesn't make it stink any less.

But does very much infer they've been forced into this by external forces. I daresay they will have had a lot of "concerned parents" shouting loudly :manson:
 
Following April’s Supreme Court decision relating to sex and gender, we wanted to give you an update. Many organisations across the country have been facing complex decisions about what it means for girls and women and for the wider communities affected, including Girlguiding.

Girlguiding’s governing charity documents set out that the membership and people who benefit from our organisation are girls and women. In April the Supreme Court ruled that girls and women are defined in the Equality Act 2010 by their biological sex at birth.

Following detailed considerations, expert legal advice and input from senior members, young members and our Council, Girlguiding’s Board of Trustees has made the difficult decision that Girlguiding must change following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

From today, 2 December 2025, it is with a heavy heart that we are announcing trans girls and young women will no longer be able to join Girlguiding. This is a decision we would have preferred not to make, and we know that this may be upsetting for members of our community.

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

Most adult roles, including unit helpers, district helpers and administrative support, are already open to all so we are confident that no volunteers will have to leave the organisation.

Girlguiding believes strongly in our value of inclusion, and we will continue to support young people and adults in marginalised groups. Over the next few months, we will explore opportunities to champion this value and actively support young people who need us.

You can find our full statement and updated policy on our website.

A new taskforce will explore ways to support everyone and create new opportunities. Members of all ages are encouraged to contribute to this taskforce to help us shape a future organisation that is inclusive. We’ll be sharing more information about this in the coming months.

Girlguiding is proud to be the UK’s largest youth organisation dedicated to girls and is focused on creating an equal world for girls and young women. For over 100 years, we have been a welcoming space for all girls to have new experiences, support their communities, build friendships and grow their confidence.

We want to thank you for everything you bring to Girlguiding. While Girlguiding may feel a little different going forward, our core aims and principles will always be the same. We remain committed to treating everyone with dignity and respect, particularly those from marginalised groups that have felt the biggest impact of this decision.
 
I'm just reading some on the comments on Facebook, so many leaders are upset about this. But it seems off the back of the law change they were stuck. I genuinely believe it's always been an inclusive organisation and this is not what they want. Such a shame :( I still wear my badge with pride.

1000093548.jpg
 
Yep, that whole statement is essentially their pleading "PEOPLE, THIS GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING WE STAND FOR". Very sad. Fuck the Supreme Court.
 
Jacqui from Hobbycraft (at Christmas) said:
The fact Marina said 'gender critical' - ie what the transphobes call themselves - without any question said enough for me :eyes:
Click to expand...
I don't think this is fair. While i'm not convinced Marina is an ally, unfortunately while 'gender critical' started out as the TERFS inventing a new socially acceptable name for their position, it has long since entered into mainstream media parlance to describe people with those views. She's hardly going to say 'TERF', is she?
 
Last edited:
Don't Shoat Me Santa said:
Yep, that whole statement is essentially their pleading "PEOPLE, THIS GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING WE STAND FOR". Very sad. Fuck the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Yes - this is the tone I get. As much as I think there probably were some, I actually *don't* think this comes down to complaining parents... the law has forced their hand. Given that the final EHRC code of practice hasn't been given the rubber stamp by government or been officially made public yet, you could argue they're jumping the gun... but apparently the CROOKED EHRC has stated that organisations should press ahead based on the previous drafts (perhaps something to do with the fact that it has been reported that the Minister has sought clarifications on some aspects of the guidance with the suggestion that it has interpreted the ruling too rigidly).

I was optimistic upon hearing that Baroness Falkner's term as EHRC Chair was coming to an end - but of course the government have appointed another MASSIVE TERF as her replacement. I thought they might have the sense to go for someone a bit more balanced.

One of my biggest issues with the guidance is the fact that it doesn't offer organisations or associations the option to be inclusive - it essentially forces them to exclude or face the consequences of the law. This is essentially what has happened with Girlguiding.
 
Tetris-Rock said:
I don't think this is fair. While i'm not convinced Marina is an ally, unfortunately while 'gender critical' started out as the TERFS inventing a new socially acceptable name for their position, it has long since entered into mainstream media parlance to describe people with those views. She's hardly going to say 'TERF', is she?
Click to expand...

Moderator please add Tetris-Rock to the LIST OF TERFS
 
The Girl Guides (and WI) situation isn’t even primarily about complaints from parents/members.

It’s the same tiny, wealthy and extremely litigious group of zealots who are engaging in lawfare on any organisation that doesn’t bend to their will.

They make it virtually impossible because even if you think you can beat them in court, the legal costs just become insurmountable.
 
The law has definitely forced their hand, but when you read the comments on any social media the only people who are happy about it seem to be parents who think their girls are in danger :zombie: Leaders, ambassadors etc are all upset at the decision. I feel sad GG are getting a bad rap over this because I don't feel like they had any other choice after the law changes :( Girlguiding and Scouting is full of LGBTQ+ people, they genuinely are very inclusive.
 
If girls can join the scouts then why does gender have anything to do with the girl guides?
 
I think there absolutely should be safe spaces for women and girls, including Girlguides. As there should be for all oppressed, marginalised and/or minority groups. In a world and country in which violence against women and girls is epidemic, it absolutely is different from girls joining Scouts.

I feel that trans women and girls should be included in that space however.
 
Goose Fat Roe-st Potato 🥔🌳 said:
I think there absolutely should be safe spaces for women and girls, including Girlguides. As there should be for all oppressed, marginalised and/or minority groups. In a world and country in which violence against women and girls is epidemic, it absolutely is different from girls joining Scouts.

I feel that trans women and girls should be included in that space however.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, and it's hard to articulate this without sounding like Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson, but I fear that in the absolutely necessary pursuit of creating these spaces, we're raising generations of men who feel lonely and isolated.

Yes, I know the patriarchy needs to be smashed, and I'm all for it, but it's impossible to ignore that there is a masculinity crisis that isn't getting better. I think Tate and his ilk exist because we've focused so hard on one side that the other is now missing out.

Perhaps it's my perspective as the Dad of a boy, but honestly, my biggest fear as a parent is my child getting sucked into that bullshit. It's something I check in on with him frequently, and so I often wonder how we got here.

Maybe the answer isn't to create segregated spaces but to create inclusive ones for all?
 
but we can have inclusive spaces for all alongside inclusive spaces for some. every space - society at large - is theoretically "for all", but straight white men tend to dominate. it's natural to create safe spaces for women and girls that men cannot be a part of - I don't see that as being at all linked with (or even tangentially responsible for) the disturbing rise in right wing noise that's targeting young men and boys. you would not say we don't need spaces for LGBTQ+ because straight people might miss out.
 
big non-denominational winter festival said:
I agree with you, and it's hard to articulate this without sounding like Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson, but I fear that in the absolutely necessary pursuit of creating these spaces, we're raising generations of men who feel lonely and isolated.

Yes, I know the patriarchy needs to be smashed, and I'm all for it, but it's impossible to ignore that there is a masculinity crisis that isn't getting better. I think Tate and his ilk exist because we've focused so hard on one side that the other is now missing out.

Perhaps it's my perspective as the Dad of a boy, but honestly, my biggest fear as a parent is my child getting sucked into that bullshit. It's something I check in on with him frequently, and so I often wonder how we got here.

Maybe the answer isn't to create segregated spaces but to create inclusive ones for all?
Click to expand...
I get this, but I think spaces like men sheds, male sports teams etc have done great work on this. I think that with young people in particular the question is how it's facilitated by adults so it doesn't go down a certain route.

As someone who has never felt overly comfortable in all male spaces, it isn't for me, but I think we can push against binaries and have more mixed spaces whilst also maintaining spaces like women's groups, men sheds etc.

I don't think the crisis in young men exists because there are women's only spaces, because they're hardly new. I'm no expert, but I imagine it's more because as a society we encourage loneliness, and we need to place value on encouraging people to socialise and interact in person. But as money is removed from youth and community groups, third spaces etc, we're not helping things.
 
Mens sheds etc are solutions to the problem, not addressing the root cause.
 
True, but investment in spaces to encourage positive masculinity and/or positive relationships is better than nothing.

And I don't think what the specific root causes are, but I did listen to Ben Zand talking about the impact of growing equality for women and the consequent dismantling of what we'd think of as relationship norms (men as breadwinners, protectors etc), but surely if one of the root causes is increased equality and equity then the question is how to encourage people to adapt to this and move forward positively, rather than stalling the progress.
 
Like I say, I find this hard to articulate because it's something that I'm only vaguely aware of without knowing why it troubles me a little, but if I reframe it through my experience, perhaps it'll make more sense.

As a father of a boy, I've seen him attend a ton of extra-curricular clubs and activities. Music, cadets, football, badminton, dodgeball etc etc. All of them mixed, and I am happy with that. I have always been keen on him growing up in as diverse and inclusive an environment as possible, as I'm sure I've expressed here over the years with passion.

Equally, I grew up in a period where some spaces that were specifically male-only were opened up. Scouts, football and so on. Again, I don't have any issue with that.

However, I've just tentatively looked, and there are no male-only activities or clubs for him should he want them. We're here discussing that there needs to be protected spaces for other groups, yet by creating safe spaces for these groups, we've simultaneously taken them away from young men.

Now yes, it's all a bit WHAT ABOUT INTERNATIONAL MEN'S DAY, but it's not Ron Jr's fault his Grandad and Dad had it good as men in a world built for them. And I'm not claiming we have equality by any stretch, but in the pursuit of lifting others up, I worry the subconscious message to young men is they don't matter - and I'd argue suicide statistics and the rise of manosphere/incel cultures back that up to some extent.
 
big non-denominational winter festival said:
Like I say, I find this hard to articulate because it's something that I'm only vaguely aware of without knowing why it troubles me a little, but if I reframe it through my experience, perhaps it'll make more sense.

As a father of a boy, I've seen him attend a ton of extra-curricular clubs and activities. Music, cadets, football, badminton, dodgeball etc etc. All of them mixed, and I am happy with that. I have always been keen on him growing up in as diverse and inclusive an environment as possible, as I'm sure I've expressed here over the years with passion.

Equally, I grew up in a period where some spaces that were specifically male-only were opened up. Scouts, football and so on. Again, I don't have any issue with that.

However, I've just tentatively looked, and there are no male-only activities or clubs for him should he want them. We're here discussing that there needs to be protected spaces for other groups, yet by creating safe spaces for these groups, we've simultaneously taken them away from young men.

Now yes, it's all a bit WHAT ABOUT INTERNATIONAL MEN'S DAY, but it's not Ron Jr's fault his Grandad and Dad had it good as men in a world built for them. And I'm not claiming we have equality by any stretch, but in the pursuit of lifting others up, I worry the subconscious message to young men is they don't matter - and I'd argue suicide statistics and the rise of manosphere/incel cultures back that up to some extent.
Click to expand...

I think there's a strong argument for more spaces for men and boys, but often gender neutral spaces become male dominated spaces by default. There's research into parks, for example, that suggests that although they are gender neutral in theory, lots of women and girls don't feel welcome or safe and so they become spots dominated by men and boys. I think it's important that women have their own spaces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top Bottom