is this legal

Whilst the category Trans contains all sorts, a common factor is a fixation with their gender identity.

Some of the difference you describe fits with differences between those whose narratives evidence persistent rumination and others whose narratives reflect self-aggrandisement.

What @illinivich said.

Remember that humiliation is part of the appeal. Telling stories about how badly they are treated or going to be treated is not only a ploy to get sympathy.

has me wondering if genuine cognitive distortion is happening, whereby their logical reasoning and critical thinking skills are inaccessible to them because their heightened emotion blocks access to the prefrontal cortex (reasoning area of the brain), or if they knowingly try and present this false narrative to maintain the little ground they are clinging on to.

i've wondered that, too. Because, sometimes I believe I can see a bit of both, which means there's a distinction.

i've wondered if it's due to puberty blockers, or cross sex hormones, to be honest.

We've had men on here writing bloody reams of self-centred, self pitying word salad, coupled, weirdly, with a load of hubris.

The lack of awareness of both how they come across, and of anyone else, is extraordinary.

I mean, who does these protests, writes these posts, or fill bottles with piss, in the genuine belief that it is helping a cause of anything at all?

Probably got their quota of gender chat with the MP in court.

Despite the topic of a Bedfordshire nature walk allowing trans people to come along becoming somewhat high profile and talked about, I see none of the far-right tabloids are touching this one. I wonder why? Even the Daily Mail can see this is daft?

There are endless false comparisons and false equivalence drawn by TRAs. To be fair, this is commonplace across several emotive and contentious areas.

Today’s TRA gotcha of ‘imagine hating trans people so much you would want to stop them going on a nature walk’ has me wondering if genuine cognitive distortion is happening, whereby their logical reasoning and critical thinking skills are inaccessible to them because their heightened emotion blocks access to the prefrontal cortex (reasoning area of the brain), or if they knowingly try and present this false narrative to maintain the little ground they are clinging on to.

It’s grim that TRAs work at trying to convince the world that people who don’t hate trans people and do want them to feel happy and safe, wish them harm. It really isn’t hard to understand that women who want female only services do not wish to exclude males from accessing any services /provision other than those for females only. Whilst it’s not hard to understand, it’s impossible to accept whilst maintaining TWAW.

Maybe the RSPB will respond by doing more walks like this, where they organise a walk for a Group Booking, ie. rather than inviting individuals to join a planned walk?

https://events.rspb.org.uk/events/108311

If they did, it would mean having to organise a group yourself and then making a Group Booking for up to 30 people.

Such Groups would not be covered by the EA2010 even if they had 25 or more members, as long as they are "informal groups" where access to membership of the group is NOT controlled by rules and does NOT involve a genuine selection process based on personal criteria. Such as being a woman.

Which means that if you wanted it to be women-only then you would have to set out at the start to cap the group size at 24.

Up to 24 women could get together to make a Group Booking and they could choose to include and exclude who the hell they like. As long as someone was willing to organise it, pay for the booking and collect contributions she wants to split the cost. Or they could take it in turns to book walks. Or do other things together to share costs. Whatever.

However, if it turned out that Group Bookings were the only arrangement offered by the RSPB and it became obvious that the Group Booking Service discriminated against women, they might have to provide women-only walks anyway.

Much better for the RSPB to take a short cut and restrict their "Nature Walks for Women" to actual women.

The RSPB is a multi million pound organisation with on tap legal advice.
They have no excuse to have not read and implemented a ruling that is now over two months old.

If they want to encourage more female members
(the founders were women after all)
then GOOD
but do it properly

People and organisations are going to continue to play this 'inclusive' game for a while yet: the one in which we are supposed to pretend that males are actually females.....but by this time next year I'm pretty certain there will be a lot less of it. Once the bigger institutions and organisations have started to fully implement the ruling, then others will inevitably follow.

There is, of course, no compulsion for the RSPB to have women only sessions........but if they do then that is what they should be. Why bother to advertise a group as being for women only.....but then make it open to men too. It is clearly a ridiculous virtue signalling pretension.

Exactly.

But we have been told TW blend seamlessly in and no one can tell. However, Chris seems to think the attendees would have known?

How would any attendees have known if any transwomen were there? 🤔

Any update now the walk has taken place?

Did anyone here attend? Were there any trans women there also? Did everything run smoothly? All that aside any interesting wildlife photos to share?

Interestingly I've been looking at rspb women's events and some do make it clear transwomen are included, some don't. It seems to depend on the actual site rather than a top down edict

lol.

Which ever spiral you're going down Chris, I don't think it's a healthy one.

I actually think there will be more consideration of when sex segregation is necessary, but I don't think that is a bad thing. Women have spent enough time campaigning to have access to men only things like voting!

In this case, talkinpeace has explained the rationale for a women only event, but the RSPB version as it stands always seemed a bit supspect. It was basically 'women and men who we don't think are that manly, but only those who are happy to claim a non-male identity'.

@javyd glad you can now post on your thread again.

I would expect RSPB to be getting legal advice and that can take time.
I would give them a week at least.

I know with email etc. we get used to instantaneous responses but not all organisations are staffed with that capacity.

No.

On the contrary, the RSPB are currently trying to advertise the walk in a way that could lead them open to a discrimination case, but I am suggesting a way for them to achieve their aims within the law.

The thing these people have in common is their feminine gender identity.

Anyone can have one of those, so, it seems perfectly legal.

So polite letter writing and posts warning that there is a problem and that an event will potentially leave them open to a case to defend in court is now ‘harassment’ ?

RBPS is not an activist for gender identity. They have made an error and people are alerting them. Not trying to get the charity closed down.

The bunny charity is being threatened with a potentially bankrupting case all because it refused to unfollow people who have followed them. A completely common social media engagement growth strategy. There is no chance at all the Charities Commission will take a complaint seriously.

Again, the poster is trying to convince people the two situations have any symmetry at all. The only thing they share in common is that they have a social media presence.