Nottingham Women's Centre events are for all self-identifying women

[testing987654321]

This event was shared with me recently. I just can't fathom the kind of feminism which not only includes 'self-identifying women' but actually places them ahead of just women. I mean, actual women don't self-identify as women do they? This looks like they are actually just asking for men to turn up.

www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/power-to-the-women-campaigning-and-activism-workshops-3-tickets-70917234357?fbclid=IwAR35kH99B2yueRhRn6v4eW6NKIysIANJ1bRhhjoMghtvdOH2sQRGSTbbIHs

Not another one...

You'd think they'd learn

I used to have lesbian friends who were closely involved in Nottingham Women's Centre back in the 90s and early 2000s and I think they were infiltrated by transwomen very early early on. Since then it's been a hub of woke liberal feminism, ie not feminist at all. My friends, who are lesbians, walked away once it became clear it was no longer a women's centre except in (misleading) name.

There was a thread about this centre earlier this year

Nottingham Womens Centre apologises for asking what sex people were born

which probably goes some way to explaining their stance.

Yep they’re inviting men to learn how to set up digital campaigns. I wonder exactly who it is these type of men will campaign to silence and shut down.
Plonkers.

Oh yes - I have emailed them and asked them who they think the centre is for. The reply was:

firstly - women only
Nottingham Women’s Centre is a women-only space. Maintaining a women-only service is important because women face significant inequality in society, face violence and abuse (the vast majority of which is perpetrated by men) and have needs that are distinct from the needs of men. We know that some women will not access a service provided in a mixed-gender setting. We are open to everyone who was assigned female at birth.

but then, they can't stand firm on what a woman is, because legal reasons apparently.
The Equality Act 2010 protects any trans person who 'intends to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment', which means that trans women who have taken any steps to move towards living as women are covered by the legislation. Nottingham Women’s Centre’s services are open to all self-identifying women who have, or are taking steps towards living as women, in line with the provisions of the Equality Act.

then - not including 'most' cross dressers, or transmen (otherwise known as women)
In most cases, Nottingham Women’s Centre’s services will not be open to male crossdressers (people who dress in “women’s” clothes but identify as/live as men) or Trans men.

and then it just gets very confusing as to what they do with either men or women who are 'non-binary', it was a whole paragraph of whether they suffered oppression as women, felt they had to present as women, were read as women.
person-centred and case-by-case approach to the inclusion of non-binary people

If only they had stuck to a biological definition of woman. Transmen would be included and transwomen wouldn't. They wouldn't be discriminating against trans people, as transmen are trans but women, and they wouldn't be discriminating against transwomen as despite identifying as women they are in fact men, so excluded in the same way as all other men.

I just feel they should be publicly held accountable for this each time they use ridiculous language like "self-identifying women" when they do mean to include women.

We are open to everyone who was assigned female at birth.

does not fit with not being open to Trans men.

More word-twisting and general bollocks.

I find it mind boggling that women are conniving at the eradication of their own rights. Lib fems should hang their heads in shame at elevating AGP men over natal born women. Ffs.

We are open to everyone who was assigned female at birth.

That's awfully tolerant of them 🙄

In most cases, Nottingham Women’s Centre’s services will not be open to male crossdressers (people who dress in “women’s” clothes but identify as/live as men) or Trans men.

No crossdressers? Then they're going to get slammed as TERFs for not following the Acceptance without Exception malarkey.

No crossdressers if they identify as men or live as men. I assume you can only gain entry after quite a long discussion at the door.

They have always has somewhat "interesting" judgement...

There was a thread on MN about this^ at the time but I can't find it.

I think relevant to mention that the facilitator of that workshop was a TW.

All self-identifying women who want to create positive change through campaigning are warmly welcomed to join us. No previous experience necessary. Yeah, sounds like only trans are welcome. I don't self identify as a woman, I just am one, so obviously not the demographic they're after.

No previous experience necessary

No previous experience of being a woman?

The Equality Act 2010 protects any trans person who 'intends to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment',

Is this true?

Yes the Equality Act does protect and trans person from discrimination because of gender reassignment. So a male who decides to undergo gender reassignment must be treated just like any other man and must not be discriminated against because of their gender reassignment. Equally a woman/female who identifies as a trans man must be accepted must not be discriminated against due to their gender reassignment but must be treated the same as other women eg by being provided with services by a ‘Women’s Centre’.

I think we need a lawyer to answer that. I think people are protected from discrimination due to being trans (from the point of intending to undergo gender reassignment), but does that mean a man has to be treated as a woman from that point onwards?

A man who previously wouldn't have been allowed into the Women's Centre isn't disadvantaged by not being allowed in after they say they want to transition, they are in exactly the same position as they were before.

I'd be really interested to know the answer to this.

If it is the case then we already have self ID.

Any person can just say “I intend to work towards a GRC” and they are entitled to be treated as the other sex.

But that is the bit that isn't clear - are they entitled to be treated as the member of the opposite sex or a member of the same sex?

Nottingham WC has been trans inclusive for years. Depressing as their CE / Manager identifies as a lesbian, maybe IS as lesbian!

But what is worse is that a funded organisation does not know how the Equality Act operates, and that their local council hasn't pointed this out.

ie that even if a trans person is protected under the EA it does not take precedent over any other protected characteristic. This was pointed out earlier this year by whoever it was that was temporarily Women and Equalities Minister ie is a women's service validity is based on the fact that its service is appropriate only to those born female they are entitled to provide that service and not be challenged.

It is just pathetically inadequate that the WRC or whichever group has set itself up saying it represents women's services hasn't properly briefed women's groups.

Even though many are in receipt of public funding they cant all be that disconected from their actually purpose to not make this fact clear.

And of course this applies to refuges and rape crisis centres.

It is beginning to look depressingly that the indoctrination of students at university with queer politics choice agenda that women, so trained into not thinking themselves valid, are now working in places where they trot out this male rights agenda at the expense of women.

there should be compulsory consciousness raising of all women seeking to work and volunteer for women service providers. And if the basic function of providing women only services is by women only then they should work / volunteer elsewhere.

Because this indoctrination began in universities some decades ago I fear that we are past the tipping point and most of those now entering or recently entering the workforce dont have any other concept than the dogma from queer academics abusing their positions to proselytize their anti woman politics.

With that kind of language, they are basically targeting a certain subset of males, plus women who are fluent in queer theory. It's not inclusive to all women. They should be ashamed of themselves.

But that is the bit that isn't clear - are they entitled to be treated as the member of the opposite sex or a member of the same sex?

If they have legally changed sex, that is if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) they may be treated as the other sex unless sex-based exemptions are applied (which are opt-in).

If they are still legally male, that is they do not have a GRC, they must be treated as any other man.

Nottingham Women's Centre, by including men who are legally male but identify as trans but excluding men who do not identify as trans are breaking the law by unfairly and directly discriminating against the latter.

By excluding females who identify as trans from a women-only service they are also unfairly and directly discriminating against these females because they are being treated less favourably than all other females. They are being excluded because they identify as trans.

This means that this is a real case of discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. The way you work this out is by asking, if these females did not have that second protected characteristic (of gender reassignment), would they be allowed access. The answer is yes. So they are being excluded for being trans.

When deciding whether a person is being discriminated against in a single-sex setting, the comparator for the person discriminated against is always

firstly their legal sex (in a service that caters to those who are legally and/or biologically female, that is one where male GRC-holders are included with women) and

secondly their biological sex (in a service that is for biological females only).

any more than having the protected characteristic of disability gives you the rights and protections accorded to sexual orientation

Good point and it's even more clear if you say it the other way around - trying to claim that having the protected characteristic of sexual orientation should give you the rights and protections of being disabled.