That's your call.

I'm not asking about "passing". That's actually irrelevant when it comes to the question of how it can be justified that some men are "really" women (although your mind going to physical appearance is quite telling).

And to be crystal clear, the issue is not "a bloke in a frock" either. I'm all for blokes in frocks as long as they recognise they are still blokes!

The issue is a bloke who believes something in his mind makes him a woman (or makes him entitled to be treated as if he is a woman).

Frock or not, I would find that as offensive as turning up to a book club to find one of the blokes is wearing a T shirt with a sexist joke on.

It's belittling and disempowering. It puts women in the unenviable position of having to be "the one who makes a fuss about something silly" or to smile and pretend that being reduced to a chariacture is just fine.

It's an exercise in power. It's no different to all the times we smile weakly instead of making a fuss when a man makes a sexist demeaning joke at our expense, and he knows it.

Women's spaces aren't just about who sees us unclothed and whether we have suffered enough trauma to justify saying no to men. They are also about having conversations abour our own thoughts and experiences without men feeling entitled to reframe them for us, a space to experience being just us and how we are when men are not around, to help us see more clearly the subconscious patterns society lays out for us.

I mean, it's true in this case that OP has no rights. If a friend hosts for example a mums group and chooses to have her childless sister or husband or next door neighbour there, you have no right to say how dare you this isn't as advertised, all you can say is I'm not comfortable talking about personal things with this guy here, count me out.
Unless the book group is advertised as a service or is massive with formal membership, it's just a bunch of friends meeting up.

It isn't anything about the EA or who was there first.

It is about honesty.

If the book clud is happy to include men then they should have no problem correctly advertising that their book club is for biological females and men who identify as women.

Not to do this is dishonest and rude.

As said right at the beginning of this thread, just contact the organiser and say what is your policy.

If it includes TW then point out the name of their group is misleading.

Amazing that on a feminist forum so many think the OP should just slink of silently accept she has not rights, and her views shouldn't be respected. And certainly should say them out loud.

With this level of appeasement is it any wonder that the TRAs think they rule the world.

The OP doesn't sound certain it's a man/trans woman so we don't know either.

With apologies to all genuine users who have AdjectiveColourNoun pattern nns - do look out for that pattern.

I make no comment on how well TW do or don't pass. What I am saying is there are some circumstances where there should be absolutely no men, like prison, refuges, women's sports etc. But places like book groups designated for women, where no one is undressing, there is no physicality element and no competition, I am just never going to get that exorcised if a bloke in a frick turns up.

Most book clubs are just a group of friends who meet up, and can call themselves what they like. If it's bigger and established on a more formal footing then they might have issues under the EA rules for associations.

On the whole I think if I'd chosen a female-only group I'd probably not be keen on including a man who could only think he belonged due to having a sexist view of what women are. I have happily participated in a mixed sex book group, but surely the point of a women only one would be to get a female perspective.

Well if that's the case then it's gross. And you'd think the leader or the others already there would ban the trans woman. I am not defending it but I just wouldn't be enraged. Unless it was obvious the TW was a perv or making everyone uncomfortable.

I didn't tell anyone to fuck off. I just said it's not a hill I'd want to die on. I also said it's reasonable to politely tell the leader why you're leaving.

This is what I would do.
I wouldn't stay and I'd tell them why but I would leave it at that.

I suspect this post is a troll.

OP only said they think one of the attendees is a TW. If she wasn't certain then presumably other people there coulsd also be uncertain and how on earth you police this in a book club is beyond me!

Other posters have said that adding a man to a bookclub changes the dynamic however OP hasn't said if this person was dominating the chat, mansplaining, interrupting or doing anything else that changed the dynamic of the group or if her opinion this may have been a TW was based on physical appearance alone.

I think this is written thread is as a gotcha to get people to sound transphobic and irrational!

That said, I actually agree OP should just walk away from this one. But I disagree that is because it doesn't matter. It all matters. It's just because I think she won't get anywhere.

This "too far" - how far is it reasonable to agree a particular man is more like a woman than other men are please? Where is that reasonable line and what criteria should be used?

Personally I think any statement than some men are objectively more like women than other men relies on sexist ideas of the differences between women and men, and as such I think the reasonable line is right at the start where it's just our body sex that differentiates us.

That's not to day there's not plenty of value in book clubs or whatever for people of either sex who enjoy traditionally feminine coded interests and ways of interacting, or even just want to get away from traditionally male-coded ways of interacting.

But we shouldn't be mixing those things up with actually being women, and we shouldn't be assuming that the negative social consequences on women of mixed sex environments are just the ones that result in severe trauma and abuse. There's also the slow and steady drag of fighting to be yourself and use all your abilities in a world that wants you to be less than that.

What people do in their private social groups is nothing to do with the state.

My understanding from the OP is that it was advertised to the public.

It might not therefore be a "private social group" in the same way as a group of friends deciding to meet up in each other's houses as an informal "Book Club".

If there are over 24 members then it is an Association as defined by the Equality Act 2010. If it calls itself a "Women's Book Club" but includes TW then it cannot legally call on the Single Sex Exemption to exclude other men. I am not sure how meeting in someone's house could change that but it seems unlikely that a Book Club with over 24 members would be meeting in someone's house.

Allowed by who OP?

Me neither, but I would most definitely highlight and publicise its hypocrisy and nonsense.

Agree.

Its the two approaches of TRA. They force men into heavily controlled spaces like prisons and into small, informal groups like book groups,to show that these spaces can exist as mixed sex, but still be called women only.

It relies on not many people being aware, thinking that the control is so tight no problems can occur, or that these spaces arent safespaces so needn't be single sex anyway.

Women learn to expect 'women only' to be permitted in narrower and narrower situations. While we are expected to tolerate men dressed as women, because?

For me the hills I will die on all boil down to why reserving certain spaces for only women is important. Safety first for me, that is prisons, refuges, changing rooms, any places where women are likely to be vulnerable or in a state of undress. Fairness second. That is sport and women only short lists.

For book clubs fairness and safety dont come into it. The example of women of particular religions have been mentioned. In terms of women's rights I would have much more concern for any religious practice that bans women from being in a book club with males and I certainly would fight to prop up that practice. No where near a hill I would choose to die on.

So, in terms of rationale, it's really all about personal preference. And I agree. It is nice to have spaces free of men. The presence of a male would absolutely change the dynamic. Would I go to the barricades to keep TW out of a women's book group? Nope.

🎯

Yeah it's fair to politely say that you are looking for a club for bio women only and to part ways. But I wouldn't go in all guns blazing and quoting equality act etc. or try and say the TW should be excluded.

By ignoring things like this, gender ideology was able to creep in and influence many organisations.

Hard agree. It's as if some people on this thread are either:

• completely unaware of how the invasion of all women's spaces started, ie. with "nice-doormat-women" and "right-on-peace-sisters-women" welcoming these men into women-only gatherings just like this "Women's (sic) Bookclub"
• very well aware of how this all started and are part of the stealthy roll-back of what we have achieved so far.

All this pearl-clutching about a "backlash" is manipulative, fear-mongering bullshit IMHO.

This is the issue.

Im sure the organisers think they are kind and inclusive, but by not making it clear that they are including men, they are putting women in, at best, a difficult position.

They are probably aware. Im guessing more than one women has attended once and decided it not for them. Its inconvenient for the women and disruptive for the group. So the best thing to do would be to make it clear that men can attend.

But offending men is difficult for a lot of women. Best pretend its not happening, or its no big deal.

I've seen this sort of advert myself - in a very multi-racial but 'progressive' trendy area of my city. An advert for 'women only' yoga sessions - but with a disclaimer beneath saying it is "open to anyone who identifies as a woman or who is non binary". So, it's basically a mixed sex group pretending to be a women only group.

The irony is that those attending this group will inevitably be the dungaree wearing hipsters and general self regarding 'good people' and 'equality' seekers - but not m/any of the marginalised women in that community who may genuinely appreciate a women only space or session. Sitting around being virtuous and showing "solidarity" with 'marginalised groups' - just not with actual marginalised women.

I agree with this approach. No drama, no over-explaining, definitely no apologising.

But pointing out the cynical manipulation involved in being 'right on' and using double speak to reinforce tribal group values is valid.

Some women will go along expecting for it to be be a women only group, to find out that it really isn't - but everyone is pretending it is. Strange times!