Is anyone else surprised that so-called feminists still think that TWAW?

I agree.

i think for women who genuinely believe TWAW, then having a TW join their female book group might not make a difference to them, but for GC women who don’t personally view that person as a woman like any other but as a biological male, it’s really stressful to have to keep up the pretence, and the change in dynamic is obvious to those women.

I agree.

i think for women who genuinely believe TWAW, then having a TW join their female book group might not make a difference to them, but for GC women who don’t personally view that person as a woman like any other but as a biological male, it’s really stressful to have to keep up the pretence, and the change in dynamic is obvious to those women.

I think it does affect the dynamics though.
There are plenty of women who just enjoy being in a female group and will actively look for one that is advertised as a women's group.
Like the WI now including males. OK if they have decided to do that, but they can't call it the WI, they will have to change the name.
I seem to remember some years ago when TW began to take over knitting and crafting groups and they became rather unpleasant places for women.

No one takes their clothes off in a book club. It is not a contact sport. No medical procedures.

So if I belonged to one, I could not care less who attends. Whereas were I to play hockey or cricket or rugby, it does matter.

I follow a feminist book club (as in that is it's specific focus, the name is literally X feminist bookclub), which today posted that, while they want to be as inclusive as possible, women who don't stand in solidarity with their trans 'sisters' cannot be part of the club.

I wouldn't have minded if they'd said 'trans women will still be welcome at the book club so if you are unhappy with their presence/can't be courteous and respectful please don't attend,' (as far as I understand it the ruling means transwomen CAN be excluded from female-only places if it is a relevant exemption under the EA, not that every single place, event, organisation etc. aimed at women MUST exclude them) - but going as far to say that if you don't completely agree with us that TWAW, no ifs and buts, no debate, you aren't welcome, regardless of whether any trans women are there or not, seems quite extreme.

To have a female-focussed group deciding that they would prefer to exclude biological women in order to include men, is...a choice

Never underestimate how blinded people can be by groupthink. I was going to say never underestimate how stupid people can be, but it's not that, they're just not starting to engage critical thinking, they're blinded by mantras.

You must all be very proud to share the same viewpoint as Trump's supporters.

@Hamabeed Here’s some useful info.

The data is clear. Women are vastly more at risk in mixed sex facilities. The majority of assaults happen there, rather than in single sex spaces.

When people advocate for men to be in women’s single sex spaces, what they are saying is they don’t care if more women are raped or assaulted because of this, they think the men’s feelings are more important. They’re happy for women to be harmed if it means the men get what they want.

Of course, lots of people are unaware of the stats when they first parrot the TWAW crap, but once they are told it, they’re then in a position where they have to either accept they don’t care about women, or change their mind. Online, people just go quiet and fail to answer the question. IRL, I’ve found people initially sometimes double down and are disbelieving, but have to accept the evidence once they see it. At that point, I’ve found it helpful not to crow or be too pushy, so they have space to amend their views without losing too much face.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/unisex-changing-rooms-put-women-in-danger/

https://sex-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Single-sex-services-30-minute-read.pdf

ONS data for sex offending shows 99% prevalence male perpetration in the most recent figures, in previous years it has sometimes been quoted as 98%, it tends to hover somewhere between the two figures

I follow a feminist book club (as in that is it's specific focus, the name is literally X feminist bookclub), which today posted that, while they want to be as inclusive as possible, women who don't stand in solidarity with their trans 'sisters' cannot be part of the club.

I wouldn't have minded if they'd said 'trans women will still be welcome at the book club so if you are unhappy with their presence/can't be courteous and respectful please don't attend,' (as far as I understand it the ruling means transwomen CAN be excluded from female-only places if it is a relevant exemption under the EA, not that every single place, event, organisation etc. aimed at women MUST exclude them) - but going as far to say that if you don't completely agree with us that TWAW, no ifs and buts, no debate, you aren't welcome, regardless of whether any trans women are there or not, seems quite extreme.

To have a female-focussed group deciding that they would prefer to exclude biological women in order to include men, is...a choice

I follow a feminist book club (as in that is it's specific focus, the name is literally X feminist bookclub), which today posted that, while they want to be as inclusive as possible, women who don't stand in solidarity with their trans 'sisters' cannot be part of the club.

I wouldn't have minded if they'd said 'trans women will still be welcome at the book club so if you are unhappy with their presence/can't be courteous and respectful please don't attend,' (as far as I understand it the ruling means transwomen CAN be excluded from female-only places if it is a relevant exemption under the EA, not that every single place, event, organisation etc. aimed at women MUST exclude them) - but going as far to say that if you don't completely agree with us that TWAW, no ifs and buts, no debate, you aren't welcome, regardless of whether any trans women are there or not, seems quite extreme.

To have a female-focussed group deciding that they would prefer to exclude biological women in order to include men, is...a choice

I've not discussed this at all with my daughter. She's big on feminism, has been studying feminist art, is also probably lesbian. But her friendship group features a lot of 'trans' or 'non-binary' identities for whom she faithfully uses their preferred pronouns and made-up names. I don't want to argue with her about this stuff so am keeping quiet. She's not commented on the ruling.

The patronising won’t wash either. It’s the kind of debating tactic that teenagers use.

I don’t need to read the Mail, as I’m capable of interpreting basic stats.

99% of sex offenders are male. Women are 14 times more likely to be sexually assaulted in mixed sex changing facilities than they are in single sex ones. So you advocating for men to be In women’s spaces is you saying that you are happy for more women to be raped than would otherwise be. That men’s feelings are more important to you - and should be more important to society - than women’s safety.

Why do you think that women should be raped so men’s feelings aren’t hurt? Please explain.

I've not discussed this at all with my daughter. She's big on feminism, has been studying feminist art, is also probably lesbian. But her friendship group features a lot of 'trans' or 'non-binary' identities for whom she faithfully uses their preferred pronouns and made-up names. I don't want to argue with her about this stuff so am keeping quiet. She's not commented on the ruling.

I'm not surprised. SO not surprised I'm not really disappointed.

For a lot of women being a feminist is really just part of identifying as a good person, they think being on the left politically is about being a good person, and that feminism is part of being on the left. What can you expect from people who think those on the right actually intend to be evil? With that level of political sophistication you can't expect much.

Especially for the younger ones, they learned little about questioning all narrative in school. What they learned is that people who don't accept political progressivism are bigots and that is the worst possible thing, except for being Not Nice.

And for many of these people, their model now is identity politics, and TWAW is kind of the highest expression of identity politics. Their feminism is in the form of id politics too.

I wonder how many of these "knowledgeable posters" have ever even spoken to a trans person in depth or got to know them to try and better understand their experience instead of just reading about them in the Daily Mail.

This is why safeguarding exists.

Children are vulnerable so we don't give all adults access to children in case some wish to do them harm

Women are vulnerable therefore we don't give all men access to women in case some wish to do them harm

The argument of 'well not all trans women are sexual offenders therefore we shouldn't ban trans women from access to vulnerable women' could be extended to 'well not all adults are paedophiles therefore if a kids nursery is held in a church hall we should let any adult in to spend time with them as they may just like playing with kids'

And for those who say 'well there is a difference between real trans women and fake trans women who put on a dress in order to get access to women'- I am sure there is but unfortunately there is no way of telling the difference as they look the same. Good men stay out so bad men stand out.

A lot of this going on in a women & girls Facebook group I'm in (am I allowed to mention the group name?). It sure has quickly turned into being all about TWAW on there this week. The mention of bio women is increasingly getting shit down already. It's so exhausting!