AIBU to consider leaving our knitting group over its new policy?

You seem happy to ignore women about being a woman means.

Yeah you're right - let's ignore the trans community on what trans means because some random MN says it's 'horseshit', and instead get Sheila from the local knitting circle to tell us instead.

Sounds about right.

Transmen - our sisters in feminism because of their female bodies. Mostly very young, mostly lesbians or survivors of sexual assault according to data Hannah Barnes got from the Tavistock.

Transwomen - part of the oppressor sex class, males, trying to force entry into provisions for women (female sex class)

Actually the transgenderUK reddit is a much more informative source, given that's where trans people talk, than a charity speaking for them.

I would read your definition but you failed to provide one. I'm not reading up on biased resources. You also failed to read any of my posts properly

No because GC see trans men as a subset of “women” and transwomen as a subset of “men”. A female only group would of course be open to trans men. Because they are female.

if you view a trans woman as a type of man, of course you’re going to view a trans man as a type of woman and in a women-only space, they’d be welcome.

Transmen are ultimately likely to be far more vulnerable than trans women due to being born female, you are likely to be smaller and physically less strong and less likely to be aggressive than men. The difference is transmen choosing to go into men's spaces are not a risk to men, they are more likely to be putting themselves at risk if they choose to ignore the single sex split of spaces. The opposite is true for transwomen

You need to refresh your page - I've actually wrote a number of further comments with links and definitions following that post.

And guess what? The person claiming they would "indeed read it" clearly didn't bother.

Then another poster decided that Reddit would be a better source of info rather than an official trans charity - LOL!

...probably because it's much more fun for a bored MN to argue on a forum rather than actually read something.

As per my PP, I have provided a link from transequality.org - because those of us on this thread (I'd guess thats probably all of us) aren't trans. The only community who can really define what trans is means and stands for is the trans community. I posted that in response of you saying "I would indeed read it" when I expressed my concern that me doing the emotional labour for your benefit would be a waste of effort. There's literally a full FAQ page there.

As I've already said, if people want to understand it (and not just ask as supposedly 'genuine' simple question for the purposes of a 'gotcha' moment) then they can take the time to read it. Or not. But at this stage it's a waste of time continuing to provide sources and definitions when someone demonstrates no interest in understanding.

That's because so called "gender critical" people see trans men as vulnerable, frail, lost little women without a mind of their own and frequently patronise them as a result
Trans men - lost victims
Trans women - sexual fetishists
I find that mindset disturbing more than I ever will people who b are trans just going about their business

You misunderstand- I meant if the chair wants to be “trans inclusive” in a female only group, so including people who are female but don’t identify as women, that would be perfectly legal as you are a single sex group, so trans men and NB female people would be welcome.

Apart from anything else, forcing the chair to face you can’t legally have a single gender group, only single sex or mixed sex, might be enough to put this idea to bed.

Seems a bit exclusionary to me. Why can’t men join?

And this comment ‘It’s the view that trans women are women and we should accept that or we’re freaks that’s gets to me’.

I’m not sure that by the group deciding to admit trans women they’re asking you to change your ideology. It seems more like they’re setting their own membership policy than requiring everyone else to agree with them or even discuss personal viewpoints.

And realistically, I imagine this probably isn’t an issue that’s going to come up very often.

calling it a female not womens group

Might still be on dodgy ground legally with the word female.
You could use the word 'feminine', or put an obvious flag in the name, like 'girly knitters group'.

@Solentseeker- I would go back to your new chair and say that you understand from the recent high court ruling, you can’t just have a single gender group that’s mixed sex, if she goes ahead and welcomes in transwomen, the group will be a mixed sex group that’s discriminating against male people who identify as men.

If she wants to make it a mixed sex group it has to be all or nothing, as the group can’t afford to break the law. Making it no longer female only should go to the wider group to vote on, but be clear to everyone in the group there’s no legal way to say cis women and transwomen only, it’s got to be fully mixed or single sex, not single gender.

That you’d welcome being trans inclusive by calling it a female not womens group, so trans men and non-binary female bodies people would feel welcome.

Then possibly add if you are going fully mixed sex you aren’t sure you’d want to continue to go, but if that’s what the majority want then of course it should happen.

I never asked for a source and I never said cross dressing made a man a trans woman. I asked for your definition of trans woman which you seem to be failing to give because its 'complex'

Drag queens know they are male, but present them selves as an over the top version of a stereotypical female for usually comedic purposes. That doesn't meet the want to be a woman criteria I specified.
I don't want to be a woman, I just am a woman and therefore that increases my risks of harm from men in a way that trans women aren't going to experience in the same way. I am biologically a woman and can be proven to be so with science. If I wanted to be a man and present as one, I would be a trans man, but also still very much a woman.
If you can't define what a trans woman is then how are we women meant to let them into our shared spaces and groups and make sure the men who aren't trans women aren't allowed in?
A trans woman doesn't cease to have the biological differences to women, those differences which increase their risk to women. Women should be allowed to choose to exclude men in certain scenarios for their own safety and wellbeing. Prisons, changing rooms toilets, groups etc
In the same way as I wouldn't want to undress in front of a man I don't know who says don't worry I'm gay, I wouldn't want to undress in front of a man who says don't worry I'm a woman. The common factor is they are biological men who pose a potential risk to women and we can't just take a man's word to mean they are no threat to us. If you feel otherwise then that's fine, but every woman shouldn't be forced to let themselves be at risk for the sake of not wanting to upset a man who thinks they are or feels like they are a woman. It's not our responsibility.
Either groups are uni sex or single sex.

Not according to the Stonewall umbrella.
Or has that been scrapped now?

Would you not agree that a trans woman is a biological man who wants to be a woman and tries to present as one"

This turns on the precise meaning you are giving to the word 'wants'.
Substitute 'believes', 'feels like', etc. This is just splitting hairs.

Interesting. If they "pass" we wouldn't know, would we, so there would not be an issue. Unfortunately, women are traditionally hardwired to detect a male body (whatever he is wearing) both at a distance and close up, our survival depends upon this finely honed skill.

If you're in a women's group there shouldn't be any men. In your position I would leave because I think other members will make accusations of bigotry towards anyone who thinks that men can't be women. It's sad though
YANBU

politics has nothing to do with knitting.
Agreed

Which is why being inclusive has nothing to do with politics.
Non sequitur.
Also, being 'inclusive' has everything to do with modern identity politics