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

But op isn't objected to any exclusion of any biological woman being in the group, disabled, trans men , non binary but biologically female, black etc etc. she just wants the group made for women to stay open to only women. And if it is opened to trans women, then that is no longer a group that is based on women, it also accepts men who identify themselves as women but still excludes other men. She has already stated if they want to expand the group beyond women then she would rather it go the full hog and be open to all men too.
What is the issue with this?

And we'd all like that to be the case, wear what you want, just don't claim to be something you're not.

I think you’re confusing criminal law with civil torts. The EA2010 doesn’t establish any criminal offences.

You also seem to be saying that it’s unreasonable (in the AIBU sense) to comply with the intention of parliament.

Oh I like hearing other peoples’ views (why else are we here?) but I’ve also been bored shitless by performance virtue signallers from any wing banging on about their cause of the day.

Having been born the distaff side of class, sex and race my boredom threshold for this nonsense is very low. That would be because I’ve rarely seen it turn into anything other than virtue signalling or clictivism for change which only affects other people whilst leaving them in their nice little bubble.

I'm not here to do your homework or do the mental labour for you - especially as I don't think you'd actually care enough to read anything I sent you.

Let's just say a man wearing a dress ≠ trans.

It's exactly the same, no surgery required, just I identify as. For any specific occasion. Doesn't even need to be all the time, Pips Bunce is a good example of that.

If you say you are, you are, those are the rules according to he trans community as far as I've read it. So DP needn't even put on a frock, he could just choose to identify as a woman. Of course I'd laugh him out of the house and I don't think he could maintain a straight face through the full sentence. But apparently he would be for that moment.

But it's AIBU not AIBTL (am I breaking the law) thread.

She wouldn't be breaking the law leaving the group if a disabled person joined either - but the opinion of the thread would likely be very different.
Now if she decided to make it political and protest - THEN of course there is the possible hate crime territory depending on how she went about it - but she can decide to leave for any reason she wants and not be prosecuted.

I said the husband now decides he wants to be a woman and wear a dress. Is that not what a trans woman is, a biological man who wants to be a woman and tries to present as one?
What does the word transwoman mean in your definition vs the word woman. Because both these words exist but they mean 2 different things. Transwomen and men have the same physical abilities to threaten women and women should be allowed their separate spaces away from them. It isn't thick as shit for women to be allowed to choose

I was giving reasons why your comparisons were not valid, at least in law. You may feel that morally disabled vs able-bodied (etc) are comparable to trans-identifying/not, but Parliament thought differently to you when it drafted the Equality Act 2010.

Sure. And there are plenty of views I'd have no interest in hearing. If you're a Trump supporter, I'd rather chew off my own arm than sit and knit and listen to you expound. But I also wouldn't claim to be someone who 'loves to hear other's views' while starting a thread in which I couldn't remember if I don't want any men or only trans and/or non-binary people.

The whole things seems almost too perfect a vehicle to bring the FWR frothing to AIBU.

To make it clearer, think of it as a women's group that just happens to knit, rather than a knitting group that just happens to have women in it.

Ok - so now we're just assuming transwomen are just cross-dressers then.

Yeah, sorry - but that's thick as shit if people can't even grasp the concept of trans not being the same as your husband throwing on a dress.

It doesn't make you a knuckle dragger to know that men and women are biologically different, regardless of whether they wear clothes generally worn by the other sex.

Just for context - I wasn't the one who suggested the 'all is welcome' - IMO that is a risky interpretation for a trans-person, as it's obvious by this thread there are a LOT of people who would be very unwelcoming.

If I were trans, I would be very dubious in attempting to join a group if they were not clear I was going to be welcomed or referred to as "those people".

Because a woman should be able to attend a group for women without men. If it was a unisex group then both sexes should be welcome. But it's not.
Women shouldn't be forced to accept men into a group intended for women only regardless of how those men identify or dress.
If a member started bringing her husband to the women's group, id imagine the women would not be happy as it changes the dynamics of the group, why is that acceptable but if the husband decides he now wants to be a woman and wear a dress, then it's offensive to turn him away and the women opposed are 'knuckle draggers'?

You can say all are welcome. But you need to not call it a women's group. Easy.

And the OP can set up a women's group. For actual women.

These comments are as ridiculous and hysterical as a man not wanting to join a certain gym in case a gay man tries to bum him against his will.

And people are still wondering why you can't just say ""all are welcome" when some of these knuckle-dragging opinions are still commonly and proudly held.

Gross comment.

But this group had been set up just for women!

Unless I missed something (possible - I haven't read through all 20+ pages) I don't believe OP was asking about the legality.

I encountered something recently on another thread about a friend recording another friend's conversation without her consent. Whether it's 'right' or 'AIBU' doesn't have to have any relation to criminal law or act of parliament.

Heh heh. Have you not seen these types? Go look at the one at Aberdeen uni that has been gleeful over what happened to Ann Widdecombe. He’s a typical example of the look.

Non-binary people come in 2 types (male and female, if you prefer that to men and women).

The female ones are 'presenting as women physically' because they are women and they are physically present.

If you mean 'But how can you possibly tell what sex they are if they're wearing trousers?' you're being ridiculous. I'm currently wearing jeans, a plain T-shirt, no makeup, no jewellery. Nobody would have any doubt whatsoever that I'm a woman. I'm not 'presenting' as one, I simply am one. People can tell. They're very good at it, for excellent evolutionary reasons.

Hand size -and build - because all "real" women are (or should be) dainty little things.
Apparently.

You may not be facetious, but you are definitely playing dumb.
I cannot believe that you really, really think it is not possible to tell someone's sex just by looking at them: face shape, gait, build, hand size, voice, etc. etc.

Humans have evolved to be able to tell the sex of someone at a glance (although there is some anecdotal evidence that women are better at this than men, for obvious evolutionary reasons)

No. No physical exam. Thanks. Because firstly in almost all cases it’s blatantly obvious. And secondly the attraction for some trans-identifying men to enter women’s facilities is about validation and being “welcomed”. Thirdly, if some men lie and get away with it, it speaks about them, and can’t be helped.