This week's ban on trans girls guides is not all it seems. Here's the proof we are completely lost - Renee Hoenderkamp

The decision was dragged out of them following the UK Supreme Court ruling clarifying that "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex rather than gender identity. It was so dragged that they issued sobby press releases with heavy hearts and ambassadors for Girls Guides, think Ashley James, resigned. This is how lost we are. And so lost are Girl Guides that they are only applying the ban to new members and do not appear to be asking existing boys who say that they are girls to leave.

Moreover, they are not asking men who identify as women and currently hold a leadership position to leave. So my daughter, if I allowed her to be a member, would have to accept a woman who is really a biological male as a leader and potentially could be on overnight trips with them and a current boy member could share her tent. This is not acceptable to me. At the very least it’s confusing, it’s asking little girls to buy in to the lie that men can become women and it is eroding the very foundation of GIRL Guiding. At very worst it is dangerous.

Anyway, back to the women who care more about the boys and men who say they are female than the little girl’s right to their own space is peculiar to me, it isn’t kind and it isn’t admirable. Women letting girls down is shameful. This move by Girl Guides however, is still a pivotal moment in reclaiming single-sex spaces for girls whatever the silly women at the top feel.

Preserving the foundational purpose of Girl Guides as a safe, empowering environment tailored to biological females is to be applauded. Anyone with a brain knows that allowing boys and men into these girls' spaces undermines safety, equity, and developmental needs.

Biological differences matter: girls navigate puberty, body image issues, and societal pressures differently than boys. In a single-sex setting, they can discuss sensitive topics like menstruation, sexual health, or gender-based discrimination without self-censorship or discomfort. Forcing them to do that in front of boys who claim to be girls is a gross invasion of privacy and safety.

Without such boundaries, the space loses its protective essence, potentially leading to conflicts over resources, activities, or even basic facilities like changing rooms. This isn't about discrimination but about preserving a sanctuary where girls can thrive unencumbered. As a mother of a girl and a boy it’s really simple; permitting boys and men in to girls' spaces is inherently wrong and compromises safety, privacy, and fairness. Historical precedents show that mixed-gender environments can inadvertently expose girls to risks, including harassment or unequal dynamics. Let us not forget where single sexed toilets came from.

When women were moved from the home kitchen into factories they stopped going to the toilet in the work day or only went in groups because they quickly realised that shared toilet space was a dangerous place for a woman to be alone. Privacy is paramount: girls deserve spaces free from the male gaze during vulnerable moments.

Transgender rights are important, but they cannot override the rights of biological females to sex-segregated space. They are not more important that women’s rights. It isn’t for girls, nor women, to find their solution for them by giving up their rights to single sex spaces which is what the trans movement expects. The UK ban reflects a growing recognition that conflating sex and gender identity can harm the very groups these organisations aim to uplift.

So small steps from Girl Guides have to be welcomed.

And it was a busy week of organisations slamming themselves in to reverse. The National Federation of Women's Institutes (NFWI) announced that it too will cease offering formal membership to men, defined as those not recorded female at birth, from April 2026.

While the WI has apparently ‘welcomed transgender women for over 40 years’, this policy shift is still unequivocally the right one. It reaffirms the organisation's century-old mission as a haven for biological women to foster empowerment, community, and advocacy. Allowing men, however they identify, into these spaces erodes their foundational purpose, compromising safety, privacy, and equity of women.

I would like to say that the WI's ban is a principled stand to protect a space crafted exclusively for women's voices and experience, but like the Girl Guides, they too have been dragged to this position, have refused to implement it immediately and they won’t confirm what happens to the men already in there.

Critics decry exclusion, but without the WI's "regretful" decision, it
risks becoming a diluted forum, where male perspectives could overshadow women's, mirroring the dilution seen in co-ed settings that stifle female leadership.

Permitting boys and men in women's spaces is profoundly wrong, as it jeopardises the very safety and autonomy these organisations were built to provide. Historical and contemporary evidence abounds: mixed environments often amplify power imbalances, with biological males' physical presence, advantages in strength and stature, potentially intimidating participants during vulnerable discussions or activities.

Sex-based protections aren't bigotry but essential equity. By extension, this logic urges reciprocal measures, such as excluding women from traditionally male domains like certain men's sheds or clubs, Scouts and mens clubs to ensure boys and men retain their spaces and I fully support such moves. Men, for different, but no less valid reasons, need their own spaces and as a woman I am not threatened by that and have no desire to barge my way in. I am secure enough in my own sex and value.

Lets just all accept that men and women are different and both groups need space to call their own and share with their own sex. I accept that this is tricky of the group of people that are uncomfortable in their body and want to identify as a different sex but why can’t they form their own organisations, their own space with their own that does not need to destroy the spaces and safety of others? Why are they so determined to insist on their presence in women’s hard won single sex places?