A little girl wants to be a Girlguide (a Girlguide!) but can't because some isolated billionaire fell down a twitter silo. The level of sheer, pointless cruelty. And a government (a Labour one!) that won't do a thing about it.

10/
History will remember which youth organisation welcomed all girls with open arms,
and which one slammed the door shut on some of the most vulnerable girls in the UK.

9/
The Scouts continue to prove that inclusion is entirely workable, entirely lawful, and entirely consistent with youth safeguarding.

Girlguiding has shown that exclusion is a decision - not a requirement.

8/
When co-ed organisations manage inclusion better than single-sex ones, something has gone horribly, historically wrong.

Girlguiding was never legally compelled to exclude trans girls.
They chose a path the Scouts rejected.

7/
And think about the children at the centre of this:
A trans girl can join Cubs, Scouts, Explorers…
She can take part in mixed-gender adventure programmes…
She can camp, climb, lead, and learn beside other young people.

But she cannot join the organisation that is “for girls”.

The cruelty 🤬

6/
Girlguiding’s decision was not inevitable.
It was a choice.
A choice to retreat from equality while their closest sister organisation moves forward.

This is not a legal limitation.
It is a moral and leadership failure.

5/
Scouts’ inclusion policy is crystal clear:
young people and volunteers of all genders can join.

No doom, no panic, no moral hysteria.
Just a modern youth organisation doing what is right.

4/
If the law truly “forced” them to do this, as they claim, then:
Scouts would have had to exclude trans girls too.
Schools would have had to exclude trans girls from girls’ spaces.
Youth & sports clubs, and charities would be doing the same.

But they aren’t.
Because the law does *not* require it.

3/
So we now have a bizarre, heartbreaking situation where:
A co-educational youth organisation (Scouts) welcomes all girls.
A girls’ organisation (Girlguiding) is excluding some girls.

Let that sink in

2/
Meanwhile, Girlguiding just announced that trans girls are banned from joining - claiming they were “forced” by the Supreme Court.

They weren’t.
No court, no government body, and no law required them to do this.

I wrote to them, and included a copy of my BlueSky post…

bsky.app/profile/kirs...

And I stand by every word of it.

14/
History will not forget which organisations chose compassion - and which chose unnecessary exclusion dressed up as legal inevitability.

13/
The law didn’t force this.
The government didn’t force this.
The court didn’t force this.
Girlguiding forced this. Nobody else.

12/
Girlguiding’s values say they “believe strongly in inclusion”.
But inclusion means including girls who are trans.
You can’t claim inclusion while shutting the door on the children who need you most.

11/
This means the exclusion of trans girls is not “inevitable” or “mandated”.
It is a choice made at board level.
A choice that removes vulnerable girls from one of the few supportive youth spaces left in the UK.

10/
They could have defended their long-standing inclusive membership with:
1 existing Equality Act provisions
2 their own safeguarding track record
3 their charitable purpose
4 their lived experience of including trans girls safely for years

They simply *chose* not to.

9/
What actually happened?
Girlguiding’s leadership made a political risk-management decision, not a legal one.
They chose the most conservative reading of the law - not the only reading, not the required reading.

8/
If the ruling truly forced exclusion, then:
1 schools could not accept trans girls
2 youth groups could not accept trans girls
3 charities could not accept trans girls
4 social clubs could not accept trans girls

Yet all of these still can.
Because the law *allows* trans-inclusive practice.