A call to all wims to challenge registered charities who claim to be women’s services who include “transwomen”

Of course men however they should identify should have somewhere to turn - it's a shame TRA have spent so much time trying to colonise women's spaces and places rather than creating appropriate support for trans women including those fleeing domestic abuse but that's on them.

women's charities are for women

The analogies don't quite work, and I think you know that.
Someone who identifies as having sight loss but can see perfectly well cannot access blind services because the services wouldn't help them. They'd gain nothing. An adult identifying as a child to access children's services is safeguarding concern with obvious predatory implications.
A trans woman fleeing domestic violence needs exactly what the refuge provides: safety, shelter, support. The service is relevant to her situation. She's not trying to access something she doesn't need.
But here's where I'll meet you partway. You're right that charities should be honest about who they serve. If a refuge has an inclusive policy, that should be clear in their materials and funding applications. Women who need single sex provision should be able to find it. The lack of transparency is a legitimate complaint.
What I'm pushing back on is the framing that any inclusion of trans women is automatically fraudulent, that there's no possible reading of "women's services" that could include them in good faith. Plenty of refuges have included trans women for years, openly, with the knowledge of funders and the Charity Commission. That's not deception. It's a different interpretation of who the service is for.
You say you didn't start this fight. I believe you feel that way. But from where I sit, my daughter didn't start it either. She just exists. And campaigns specifically designed to exclude her from services if she ever needs them feel less like boundary setting and more like making her life as difficult as possible.
If the goal is more single sex services for women who need them, I'll support that campaign. If the goal is ensuring trans women have nowhere to turn, we're not going to agree.

How about charities set up to provide support to people with sight loss @sarahd89 ? Would it be ok if they offered support to people who have perfectly good eyesight who identify as having sight loss? What about charities set to to support children? Would it be ok for them to support adults because some adults identify as children?

there is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring charities to comply with the law and their charitable objectives and support the people "beneficiaries"that their charity was set up to support. If women's charities want to change their charitable objectives to include men then they can and they can be honest about what they're doing. What they can't do is claim to support women and girls, get funding on that basis, promote themselves on that basis - and then include some men with special lady feelings

I strongly suspect that if we were challenging the donkey sanctuary for example because it suddenly started running programmes to support wombats, no one would give a fuck but the moment women insist women's charities are for women suddenly that's beyond the pale

bollocks to that! Blame the TRA and their supporters who won't let women have anything for themselves. We didn't start this bloody fight and we didn't want it but as they brought it, then they need to deal with the consequences

I notice this is quite different from concerns about policy wording or safety questions. This is a coordinated campaign to remove trans women from support services entirely.
I have to be honest with you. When I read "pull the ruddy rug on them," I think about who actually uses these services. Women fleeing violence. Women in crisis. Trans women face disproportionately high rates of domestic abuse and sexual violence. Where exactly should they go?
You're framing this as a technical legal matter about charity governance. But the practical outcome you're seeking is that vulnerable people lose access to help. That's not a neutral administrative correction.
I also think this strategy may backfire. Charities can and do update their governing documents. Many were founded when these questions simply weren't considered, and clarifying their scope to be inclusive isn't automatically unlawful. The Charity Commission has dealt with similar complaints before and hasn't found inclusion policies to be the clear cut violations this post assumes.
But beyond the legal question, I'd ask you to sit with this for a moment. Is this really how you want to spend your energy? Coordinating complaints designed to strip services from some of the most vulnerable women in society?
If your concern is that women need more single sex spaces, I'd be happy to discuss campaigning for additional services. But shutting down what exists helps no one except those who'd rather these women had nowhere to turn.

Speaking their branes, as the saying goes.

I'm not on LinkedIn, so couldn't see much of that, but I see Maya is on the case. Likely to be a lone voice there, though?

That kind of eagerly shared feckwittery is how so many employers & orgs have wound up on the wrong side of expensive legal cases.

Raphael Lemkin's family were not approached by the self-styled "Institute" when the founders decided to appropriate his name in order to camouflage their antisemitism. The family's lawyers wrote to them last September objecting to the use of his name & suggesting inter alia that "it falls afoul of the Commonwealth’s Solicitation of Funds for Charitable Purposes Act, along with other prohibitions against identity theft, “unauthorized use of name or likeness, and violation of the ‘false endorsement’ and Anti Cyber-Squatting Consumer Protection Act sections of the Lanham Act.” The founder's response seems to run along the lines of "shan't & you can't make me, nyah nyah". I am keeping popcorn to hand.

Edited to restore the Commonwealth's capitalisation

Things that have not happened
for ten
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7432440806222950400/?originTrackingId=B4ESc4vafMYhcPqvGVUUvg%3D%3D

Interesting that commenters cannot see that their version of "inclusion" is actually "exclusive" and prevents some charities meeting their required objects (the WI and Girlguiding spring to mind)

Ooh, my Linkedin had glitched !

He's still there and he's replied to it asking for more comments.

My favourite reply is the one advising that people just opt out of using the legal definition of women. Problem solved, now the law doesn't apply to you!

"The defence to this assault is very simple, you make a policy stating that the term women in all policies applies to the charity’s terminology and not the equality act

If any segregation is deemed necessary then they will specifically use the terms of the sex assigned at birth"

Brave Kevin has deleted the post.
Bless.

Kevin & Co have taken - not unusually - an extreme angle on this.
Nobody wants services that are for women shut down. Nobody wants services that are for men shut down. Heck, if transpeople even got their act together and organised services for transpeople, we wouldn't want those shut down either.

It's just about organisations doing what it says on the tin: if they advertise themselves as being for women and girls, they should be for women and girls.
And the Supreme Court has clarified what that means: biological women and girls, not trans identifying males.

They don't have to shut down, they just have to do the job they were set up to do, in compliance with the law. Not a huge ask.

But there's another angle: many of the women working in these women and girls' organisations have been there since before the trans juggernaut rolled into town. They chose to work there precisely because they wanted to support women and girls.

They've been having to bite their lip while the original mission of the organisation was turned on its head, while they had to obey irrational rules about using the wrong pronouns, while they saw women in need of their support alienated by men as clients or even as workers, while Stonewall Law was applied instead of the actual law...
They may even have been disciplined for raising even the mildest objection to the direction their organisation had taken.

Kevin & Co. may not have been following current affairs, but several of these women have bravely stood up to their organisations and been vindicated.

So there's a good chance that women working in organisations which are currently misrepresenting themselves as being 'for women and girls' would welcome a campaign to return them to their original mission.

Snigger

His little bubble of supporters has no reach.

genocide - god these ppl are such utter dickheads

dear Kevin, your endless transperbole is why ppl are no longer listening. Women's charities are for for women, you know the boring cunty type of women. Trans ppl - rightly- have their own charities. Women want their stuff back

There is less than zero evidence of a 'gEn-Oh-ciDe' of trans people, in fact, they have the lowest rates of murder out of any group. The evidence seriously proves that transwomen are far more likely to commit murder, than be murdered. That's what the stats bear out, despite what the trans activist deceitful and denounced 'lemikins institute' says.

Oh little Kevvy in his mother's basement jerking himself of to Andrew Tate videos like the sad little woman-hating incel that he is. How DARE women have a space to ourselves. You can only wonder what the mothers of these men think. I would be ashamed if I gave birth to such a backward, hate-filled, femphobic misogynist bigot who wanted naked males in female spaces. What went wrong with his upbringing I wonder.

There seems to be a very small team now - complete with the obligatory pronouns. These mean they are to be taken Very Seriously. Their backgrounds are worth a read, if you're up for a giggle.