AIBU to consider leaving our knitting group over its new policy?

[Solentseeker]

I’m in a women’s knitting group. It started as just a group of friends and extended from there. We meet twice weekly in an hall that has to be booked and paid for and go on trips etc so it has become more formal over time and has a treasurer, secretary, social secretary etc. I and two other friends were founder members but we take a back seat in the organisation now. We attract lots of younger members (30-somethings!) which is great. I (early 60s) love socialising with people, hearing their views etc.

The new chairman (woman) has recently decided that we should announce that we are ‘trans friendly’ and try to attract trans women and non-binary people. Apart from the fact that I don’t know what non-binary people are other than people who don’t sign up to gender stereotypes (most of the women currently in the group don’t go in for nails / make up / fake tan etc anyway so what’s the difference?) I don’t want men in the group, trans identifying or otherwise. I’ve been sexually assaulted a few times in my lifetime, as has another of the founder members. We’ve also always appreciated having a space away from the male gaze and voice, where women can have their voice centre stage for once. I know a number of the current members are also extremely concerned about this new push and would feel pushed out too if any men join.

I have no desire to ‘out’ myself as a ‘TERF’ by complaining or pushing back as it would in their eyes make me a ‘bad’ person and I always try to do good by everyone. I just disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that men should be treated as women because they say so. It seems so seething misogynistic. I’m deeply sad about the whole situation and think I’m going to have to leave the club, because the current chairman seems to stand for things that I don’t. I appreciate women’s rights and they don’t seem to give a fig. What do politics have to do with knitting? Do I just leave? Do I wait and see whether any men try to join before leaving? I can’t be arsed to fight back even though I would have a LOT of (currently silent) supporters.

How come this wasn't a group decision? You have officers and a bank account so you must have a constitution. What does it say about decisions making?

Propose the following that instead of encouraging trans women and non binary you open it up to everyone (like you said you can go back to having a small group of friends at your house for a knit and natter anyway) be interesting see how she responds if she is just grandstanding for politics she will double down and bleat the drum about trans women are women this is a women's group etc etc but if she actually WANTS to be inclusive she will do it

Also remember even if you just include trans women your no longer allowed to call yourself a women's group

She sounds irritating anyway I would use it as an excuse to reset to a small group with friends go around the houses no one should mix politics with leisure activities go create a political discussion group instead of intruding on relaxing hobbies

So men should have been able to keep women out of their golf clubs?

You’d be surprised just how performative knitting group can in all sorts of be kind situations.

They are hotbeds of the TWAW movement in the US.

I hope it all works out for you. It’s a horrible position to be put in. Why this woman feels the need to ruin something that obviously works is beyond me

I agree. I am in a sewing group which is not specifically for women and, in 10 years, we have had one teenage boy come with his dad to make one thing and one man who identified as a women who wanted to alter something, ruined it, and never came back. I dont think allowing men, trans or otherwise, will affect OP's knitting group much.

Request that big decisions like this are put to a ballot. Don't accept a show of hands vote as it's too sensitive. Insist political decisions go to a ballot, in this instance with a yes/no card to tick and put in a box for anonymity.

That’s some odd 🧦

This isn't right I think. It's legal to open a group to two sets of protected characteristics (sex plus gender reassignment) otherwise LGBT groups wouldn't be allowed (sexuality plus gender reassignment).

Because the chairman does not have the right to make decisions on her own. Taking a vote is the exact opposite of mob rule.

Well, no, because he’s a gay man, not non-binary or trans, which is what the post is about…

My understanding is that a group with a membership of over a certain number (30?) can be single sex legally or it can be open to men and women. It can’t be legally open to women and some men (trans women). This was what the WI wanted to do and after the clarification of the Equality Act in the Supreme Court they had to change their policy. So it’s not about whether trans women should be admitted to membership it’s about whether legally it’s allowed to include some men but not others. I think the chair should be made aware that the proposal is not legally compliant.

Then it can be a plain vanilla mixed space. Not a knitting group for people who think they're "cute girlies".

You've got two choices: speak up or re-start your original group.

You might have to do b) as a consequence of a) so I would firstly check carefully what the club constitution says about decisions on changes, AND put out feelers to find out who'd (re)join a home based group.

If you just passively stand by you will end up getting what you don't want anyway.

It's not comfortable standing up but sometimes you have to.

The Chair may back down, or may lose interest completely if challenged.

Why don’t you suggest that the group do a vote (ideally anonymous) and go with majority

OP you will find there are men pretending to be women here and also students who think it's funny to make stuff up. Then we have the dick panderers who think any man should always get exactly what they want and women should always be ignored. You could, of course, be one of the students.

You have a chair and a constitution. If the chair wants change it needs to go to a whole group vote and it should be a secret ballot as it's a contentious issue. Just tell her that. If the ballot is secret then you'll probably find the men stay out. Dick panderers are a very noisy and violent minority, you need to use the rules of the club.

I think I’d just say:

’well of course we can encourage transmen & female NB people to join, they’d be very welcome. Not male people though unless you mean ANY male people, not just trans ones; the law is clear as the WI & GG have recently found out.

’So either we stay all female or we agree that everyone is welcome.

’FWIW when X, Y & I set up this group z many years ago, we always intended it to be for women. My personal preference would be to keep it that way.

’But obviously things evolve. If the majority of us would now prefer a mixed sex group than that’s fair enough!

’So what we should do is put it to the vote - anonymously so no one feels pressured one way or the other - & we agree to abide by the majority decision.

’Whoever disagrees with the result - whichever way it goes - is free to set up their own group, no hard feelings, or stay & see how things pan out.

‘That sounds fairest to me, what does everyone else think? Shall we vote on it?’

That way you’re not getting drawn in to a slanging match, just setting out the options & a potential solution. The Chair will doubtless think you’re a big terf meanie, but tough shit - your opinion is WORIADS & you’re correct on the legal position.

Set up a new group where this policy won’t exist. Tell the other members they’re welcome to join your new group instead. Oh, and undercut the membership fees of the existing group to attract even more memberd

YANBU. The new Chair is virtue signalling without thinking through the social and legal implications.

As I understand current equalities legislation pertaining to sex, sex means biological sex, not acquired gender. And if it's a group of 25 or more, that advertises itself as a women's group ie single sex, then it is legally permitted to exclude trans-identifed men.

The enbys can sort themselves out according to sex: they're usually women who consider themselves speshul, and superior to your common-or-garden woman, like their mum.

It doesn't matter if no trans women turn up, the group will have ceased to be a women's group and become mixed sex. And this is a can of worms btw, because the SC judgement does not allow a single sex group to be single sex for women and trans women, so any man would have the right to join (and there are male knitters). Phillipson seems to have tried to get round this problem by getting the guidance to say that you can have a trans + group - but the law says you cannot unless the group is mixed sex (so men and women can join) and the law trumps guidance i.e. if the OP's group admits transwomen then it must also admit non-trans men (it can admit trans men i.e. women anyway).

Insist on it being put to the vote.

it’s very likely than many others quietly agree with you.

that will hopefully put an end to it.

ask how she’s going to get around EHRC guidance without opening it up to all men as well?

if that fails go back to inviting your friends to your house.

The chance of a non binary or trans person ever coming is vvv unlikely

so id not fret pet snd crock on

I'm not talking legality. I'm saying: why would you bother opening it to only some men? You may as well let them all in. Either go unisex, or keep it to actual women only.

I think this would be the best idea. Open it up to all men. I doubt there would be many takers anyway.