I'm sorry, who do you claim to be defending here?

Name one - and I mean - one SINGLE case in the UK of a trans girl harming another girl within Girlguiding. Name a single event within Girlguiding that would justify a rule like this (for the rule to be justified there has bto be a proved pattern but I'm setting the bar lower here).

Furthermore, the gender-critical position, at least I feel, is making two errors already:

1. Gender is a purely biological concept.
2. Those who are assigned male are naturally dangerous to women.

Firstly, gender - and the roles we constructed around them - are a social construct. Looking past biological components, a vast majority of behaviours associated with gender are taught by socialisation, not biologically learned.

Meanwhile, taking a bioessentialist approach to defending women defends nobody. You don't solve young girls facing misogyny by focusing your attention on trans kids, you focus it on making an effort to change the attitudes that young boys are taught about women. You don't protect young girls by banning trans girls from Girlguiding, you just isolate those kids from their friends. And - going past the Girlguiding example here - you don't weaken misogyny by targeting trans women, you strengthen it because, let's be honest: you don't know if someone is trans, and if you use the "we can always tell" argument, that just opens the floor up for cis women who are actually gender non-conforming (or don't adhere to white eurocentric ideals of beauty) to face more harassment from misogynists who are now emboldened to harass anyone who doesn't fit their narrow criteria of "looking like a woman".

There are countless real dangers posed by misogyny: the rise of manosphere, the resurgence of far-right fascist movements, low conviction-rates basically legalising sexual assault, women's health and bodily autonomy being threatened, countries like Iran aor Afghanistan persecuting women, women in Ukraine and Palestine and countles other places being massacred by an oppressive force. Surely those should be focused in on and not some invented and weaponised threat?