New Trans thread as requested by HQs.

Hully, I see your point.

But if a transwoman considers herself to be a woman, the existence of another group of women with another set of characteristics isn't necessarily what she wants to become.

I do see your point though. There are people who have complained about abortion being discussed as a woman's issue or a woman's reproductive issue because that implies wombs are somehow connected to women as a group. They would rather we didn't associate what used to be called the female body with any group of women.

The problem with that is that we can't neatly separate out the body from the gender there. Because society does associate wombs with women, and many people hold anti-abortion views because they are sexist towards women. It is almost impossible to separate out social attiudes to women and social attidues to people who have what used to be called female bodies.

So I don't know how we resolve that. I don't really know how to talk about women's rights without talking about pregnancy, infertility and so on. The two are connected to me.

The religion thing is interesting too - scouts have solved it by running separate groups that are linked by religion where cultural expectations differ (they have different rules wrt camps etc as well), but the guides haven't addressed it. If you believe what mn says, guides is for Christians anyway, as the uk still hasn't got rid of the faith based stuff in the promise. (we have here - and have changed the wording to taps etc to be more inclusive)

T be honest, I find it really interesting that the uk seems to be holding on to the traditional segregation in guiding, whereas most countries are looking to change it. Particularly with the uk being the home, etc etc.

Competitive physical activities aren't a part of either scouts or guides unless you choose to take part in external regional or national activities based on the same - completely anathema to the focus of 'do your (individual) best. To claim that competition is an intrinsic part of either is a complete fallacy. It is utterly wrong.

I can't even go anywhere near that rationale. I have kids with all sorts of social communication and physical difficulties in my groups, and competition between their members is the very last thing that either in satin promotes. It's about teamwork.

Yy, wrt to puberty. I think that's really interesting though - and I am always interested that so many institutions feel the need to instruct. Schools, all youth groups, parents. I like that puberty isn't secretive and everyone is involved, and it does provide a relaxed environment where different things can be brought up openly, but to claim it as necessary is interesting. I think you could have the same discussions at any point really.

There is of course also the issue of some religious guides, who couldn't attend if it wasn't single sex.

The reason we have separate guides is because:

a. Of the reasons madwoman has said. Female issues and female voices often get sidelined because of the way society currently is. So girls like being a segregated environment for 2 hours a week. Once we get rid of a male dominated world, we can get rid of the 2 hours a week. But it has to happen that way around.

That means the girls get a chance to socialise in a different way and it means that we can focus on certain activities that are about women - charities for homeless girls and so on.

b. Males and females have different bodies and so it is harder to do competitive physical activities in mixed groups. We did a lot of this kind of stuff because the main guide leader was trained in a lot of this kind of sport.

c. We talk about things that are particular to female bodies, although this is maybe only a few times a year so is not as much of an issue as a and b. But guides ages are over the puberty years.

Scouts is integrated. Some people are not happy with this. I have a DS, and he went to cubs with girls. It hasn't been an issue to me, but I haven't thought that much about it, so wouldn't dismiss the concerns of other parents necessarily.

what terrible typing

the problem with that analogy

See, if someone is utterly uttrly 100% convinced that they are the other sex, then being told they can't be part of a group for that sex (because of an accident of birth) must be heartbreaking and enraging. No?

Well, to be honest, Annie, largely they do now. Scouting is open to girls, so there is a joint option . Guides is resolutely female, which at the mo they deem necessary to protect the interests of girls who might become invisible in joint surroundings. - although if you look at schools, it seems to be the opposite. Realistically it's because no boys would join guides as it's beneath them. It's for girls, after all. Whereas go getting girls join cubs or scouts to take part on an equal footing in what can be more adventurous activities.

The insurance for the two groups differs slightly and it is easier to get authority to do more adventurous stuff in scouts, although it is possible with guides, you just need go getting leaders.

Scouts and guides as organisations drive me potty, though. They really need to liaise at the top levels, there are rididiculous differences on costs etc that need to be ironed out.

The problem with ananlogy is that the lesbians didn't want to BE gay men.

MtF or FtM feel strongly that they ARE the other sex. (Wrongly, in your view)

I don't see why it can't work Hully.

In much the same way as my example of gay men. In some ways they have more privilege than gay women. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to have their own group if they feel like it, and their own services. My place of work used to be connected to a service for 'men who have sex with men.' All my lesbian colleagues did not spend their whole time glitter bombing the service and insist it be shut down just because it didn't include them.

Exactly! It is all entirely gender based, and that is the problem. Get rid of it.

Don't tell me what I can and can't do because I am a woman. Don't tell me what I can and can't do because I am a man. Don't tell me what I can and can't do because of any gender I inhabit. Treat me as a human being.

So why not just merge scouts 'n' guides?

No, I know. Neither did we. But that's the point. The reason that we did the same activities, but separately, is because of the gendered behaviours that have become entrenched because of expectations that men are more important and deserve more face time, more action time, and the women have to simpler and watch. The problem is gendered expectations. That is what needs to be changed.

But incidentally, you should have seen the uproar when I made my cubs vacuum and sew on their own badge, and iron their neckerchief. And ice fishing with the guides had to be carried out in secret because of the animal cruelty complications.

Guiding isn't about personality traits.

Your argument seems to be topsy turvey. Transgender is clearly about reinforcing personality traits because it is (currently) based on the idea that there is a 'male feeling' and a female 'feeling' in people's head which are different from each other.

Guiding has nothing to do with gender based differences in people's heads.

I respect and understand how you feel Sea.

And I respect and understand how Trans feel.

It's making it all work together that intersts me.

We didn't do different activities at the guides than the scouts did. We didn''t do more crafting and less activity than the scouts.

The reason I like guiding as a single sex activity is because at this moment it is necessary because of the binary and gendered expectations - so boys/ men feel they have to dominate, speak over, and be 'better' at any given activity than girls/ women. In a society where gendered behaviours weren't the norm, where boys and men were able to share nicely and play an equal and not dominating part in the proceedings, guiding wouldn't be a necessity.

So, single sex spaces at the mo are largely required because of the binary system and gendered expectations about male/ female behaviour. Quiet, slender and thoughtful boys lose out as well.

Reinforcing this flawed notion is bizarre. I don't want it reinforced. I want gendered expectations to be outcast, and people to be free to exhibit whatever personality traits they happen to have, and to be free to share them with like minded people. So if guiding becomes 'craft club' and scouting becomes 'adventure club' ( or the other way round) and the groups are attended by kids who like similar stuff and can treat each other in a humane way, that would be great. I'd still be nostalgic for the good old days, but I'd also remember the ludicrousness of a dad not being allowed to help with his dauhgter's group because he had a penis...

(should add I'm well involved in guiding, and have been a scout leader as well in the interests of disclosure. The recent decision to get miss Canada to speak at a seminar on girl greatness to prepubescent and pubescent girls on behalf of GGC was one that made me query whether I was in the right place)

What is there to discuss at a women's group then that men couldn't engage in?

Annie, in that case, the argument also holds true for men, doesn't it? Not transmen, just men in general.

If women feel uncomfortable having to share changing rooms, showers or wards with all men, then that is analagous to white people feeling uncomfortable sharing changing rooms, showers or wards with black people. We can understand that discomfort, but there is no reason to pander to it. So there is no reason to have gender segregation at all, under any circumstances.

And by your argument about badminton, should I be able to turn up at a closed transwomen group even though I am not trans but just happen to be interested?

But unless you do narrow it down to cervix level, there's very little a women's discussion group would be discussing that a trans woman couldn't meaningfully engage in.

OHM, I think that is part of the issue. It shouldn't have to be called a weekly cervix discussion group because there should be a name for the group that used to be called women. We would then use that name for the group.

OHM, I have been in various women only groups. Some were specifically for women only and some ended up that way When I was younger, I was in women only feminist groups and as an adult I was a guide leader. Part of the reason I chose guiding over other forms of volunteering was because I like being in all female situations because I feel it is a different dynamic and because we can do things in a different way than we could do if it wasn't women only.

I have also been in other situations that have happened to be all female - playgroups and so on. Although I've enjoyed that, it wasn't an issue when people who weren't female turned up, as that was never the point of the group.

Mm, I'm not saying your putative badminton discussion group should be shut down, I'm just putting it to you that if someone comes in saying "actually I play tennis but I'd be really interested in learning about badminton", they shouldn't be told to push off.

I am not claiming that the legal situation of transgender citizens is analogous to that of racial minorities in the UK. I don't mean it isn't, either, but that wasn't the angle I was coming from. I am saying that the argument that you don't feel comfortable sharing facilities or chat groups with transgender members is analogous to the discomfort some people feel about sharing their facilities etc with people of a different colour. It may be how you feel but that doesn't mean it can or should be pandered to.

Yes, Annie. There are things that all men and woman have in common. So we have groups that both sexes go to.

There are things that only women have in common. SO all women can go to those groups, including transwomen, ciswomen and all other women.

There are things that only transwomen have in common. So transwomen can go to those groups.

There are things that only women who are not trans have in common. So women who are not trans go to those groups.

Why are people fine with the first three and not the latter?

And again, I will say that I am only using the term 'women who are not trans' because every name for that group seems to be offensive to somebody.

Also, the fact that you don't want to talk about a particular topic. So what? I don't want to talk about or participate in badminton. I don't object to the existence of women's badminton or insist that there group is shut down just because it doesn't interst me.

SeaHouses - indeed. If I were a MTF transwoman and saw a notice advertising a weekly cervix discussion group, I might well conclude that joining might be a bit pointless. Personally I probably would too, despite being the proud owner of my very own cervix. But then (with the possible exception of survivors' support and group therapy type situations) I don't really see the appeal of special 'spaces' anyway.

I'd be interested in hearing a bit more from someone who does use women-only 'space' as to what, personally, makes it so important for them, as it's clearly something that a few people feel very strongly about but that I just don't get.