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.

You can say all are welcome. But you need to not call it a women's group. Easy.

And the OP can set up a women's group. For actual women.

Because a woman should be able to attend a group for women without men. If it was a unisex group then both sexes should be welcome. But it's not.
Women shouldn't be forced to accept men into a group intended for women only regardless of how those men identify or dress.
If a member started bringing her husband to the women's group, id imagine the women would not be happy as it changes the dynamics of the group, why is that acceptable but if the husband decides he now wants to be a woman and wear a dress, then it's offensive to turn him away and the women opposed are 'knuckle draggers'?

Just for context - I wasn't the one who suggested the 'all is welcome' - IMO that is a risky interpretation for a trans-person, as it's obvious by this thread there are a LOT of people who would be very unwelcoming.

If I were trans, I would be very dubious in attempting to join a group if they were not clear I was going to be welcomed or referred to as "those people".

It doesn't make you a knuckle dragger to know that men and women are biologically different, regardless of whether they wear clothes generally worn by the other sex.

Ok - so now we're just assuming transwomen are just cross-dressers then.

Yeah, sorry - but that's thick as shit if people can't even grasp the concept of trans not being the same as your husband throwing on a dress.

To make it clearer, think of it as a women's group that just happens to knit, rather than a knitting group that just happens to have women in it.

Sure. And there are plenty of views I'd have no interest in hearing. If you're a Trump supporter, I'd rather chew off my own arm than sit and knit and listen to you expound. But I also wouldn't claim to be someone who 'loves to hear other's views' while starting a thread in which I couldn't remember if I don't want any men or only trans and/or non-binary people.

The whole things seems almost too perfect a vehicle to bring the FWR frothing to AIBU.

I was giving reasons why your comparisons were not valid, at least in law. You may feel that morally disabled vs able-bodied (etc) are comparable to trans-identifying/not, but Parliament thought differently to you when it drafted the Equality Act 2010.

I said the husband now decides he wants to be a woman and wear a dress. Is that not what a trans woman is, a biological man who wants to be a woman and tries to present as one?
What does the word transwoman mean in your definition vs the word woman. Because both these words exist but they mean 2 different things. Transwomen and men have the same physical abilities to threaten women and women should be allowed their separate spaces away from them. It isn't thick as shit for women to be allowed to choose

But it's AIBU not AIBTL (am I breaking the law) thread.

She wouldn't be breaking the law leaving the group if a disabled person joined either - but the opinion of the thread would likely be very different.
Now if she decided to make it political and protest - THEN of course there is the possible hate crime territory depending on how she went about it - but she can decide to leave for any reason she wants and not be prosecuted.

It's exactly the same, no surgery required, just I identify as. For any specific occasion. Doesn't even need to be all the time, Pips Bunce is a good example of that.

If you say you are, you are, those are the rules according to he trans community as far as I've read it. So DP needn't even put on a frock, he could just choose to identify as a woman. Of course I'd laugh him out of the house and I don't think he could maintain a straight face through the full sentence. But apparently he would be for that moment.

I'm not here to do your homework or do the mental labour for you - especially as I don't think you'd actually care enough to read anything I sent you.

Let's just say a man wearing a dress ≠ trans.

Oh I like hearing other peoples’ views (why else are we here?) but I’ve also been bored shitless by performance virtue signallers from any wing banging on about their cause of the day.

Having been born the distaff side of class, sex and race my boredom threshold for this nonsense is very low. That would be because I’ve rarely seen it turn into anything other than virtue signalling or clictivism for change which only affects other people whilst leaving them in their nice little bubble.

I think you’re confusing criminal law with civil torts. The EA2010 doesn’t establish any criminal offences.

You also seem to be saying that it’s unreasonable (in the AIBU sense) to comply with the intention of parliament.

And we'd all like that to be the case, wear what you want, just don't claim to be something you're not.

But op isn't objected to any exclusion of any biological woman being in the group, disabled, trans men , non binary but biologically female, black etc etc. she just wants the group made for women to stay open to only women. And if it is opened to trans women, then that is no longer a group that is based on women, it also accepts men who identify themselves as women but still excludes other men. She has already stated if they want to expand the group beyond women then she would rather it go the full hog and be open to all men too.
What is the issue with this?

I would indeed read it. Whether I would agree with you is a different matter potentially. Personally I would suggest you are avoiding the questions because the mental hoops you need to jump through are too uncomfortable. But that's okay

I'm not confusing criminal with civil tort, because the essence of the thread is NOT the legality.
If there was an AIBU about how I blocked in your (empty) drive, I would 100% expected to be called the A, even though it was perfectly legal for me to do so.

I'm not sure how else to describe it other than what I already have.

Cool, glad you're interested in learning more and correcting some misconceptions. I'm not avoiding the question, and it's not uncomfortable for me. But it is ridiculous arguing with someone that thinks their husband one day deciding to wear a dress is trans. I mean even trans people in the drag queen community are in the minority - so that just highlights how ridiculous a comparision the 'throwing on a dress statement'

You can start here if you wish: https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people

Literally just start googling reputable resources, because I can't be spoon-feeding.

I said husband decided he was a woman and wearing a dress, again I didn't just say a man wearing a dress was a tranwoman. Some men are happy to be considered men and dress in traditionally female stereotypical ways, some women also wear stereotypically male clothing it doesn't make them a transman if they are happy to consider themselves women
Again. Would you not agree that a trans woman is a biological man who wants to be a woman and tries to present as one?
I'm not asking for spoon feeding or what you call reputable sources, it's a simple question.

Popping on a dress doesn't make you trans, we agree. Deciding you apparently are, dress or not, does, according to many many transpeople, check the uk reddit forum for that. It's enlightening. Not in a good way.

Men's Shed welcome women members.

Also, trans people have the right not to be discriminated against in terms of employment, housing etc etc, as is right. But no one has to believe they are what they claim to be, because the Forstater judgement proved that GC views are WORIADS. And the Supreme Court judgement clarified that in terms of single sex, it means sex, not gender or feels.

*edited for unfortunate typo where means went to mens, which is faintly amusing as those are the boundary pushers.

Yeah, I don't think it works like that - that you just "decide" you're trans. Just like you don't "decide" you're gay.

For me it is about stopping men from crossing protected sex-based boundaries that women have fought for and won.

There was a time that there were no public loos for women at all, they used the men's or nothing. Using the men's facilities was dangerous so women usually stayed closer to home (the urinary leash).

Male humans are a danger to female humans and always have been; they are stronger, larger and more aggressive (especially those that masquerade as the opposite sex, in my experience the aggression quickly comes out when a woman challenges them "no you are a man").

Single sex services, and spaces are good for men too, they deserve privacy and dignity but for women, safety is also essential.

For a women's knitting group, it is expected that women of all ages and cultures attend secure in the knowledge that men are not present. If the knitting group is open to both sexes, that means everyone expects both sexes will be present.