Lesbian social group under attack

[thatdamnwoman]

I occasionally attend a lesbian social group that meets at a couple of local venues each month. It was started a few years ago by a woman who invited a group of friends and acquaintances and has grown to several hundred women. Maybe 20-50 meet at any one time and it's mainly word of mouth or the occasional 'How about meeting at XX? on Thursday?' type stuff via FB.

So far it seems, barring one odd encounter, to have been lesbian and bi women only, with the odd attention-seeker asserting themselves as non-binary and being tolerated with a lot of eye-rolling. Now a couple of those who attend once in a blue moon have gone on the attack and demanded that transpeople not only be permitted to attend but that the woman who started the group and administers the FB page add T to the description of the group and add a statement welcoming transpeople.

You're here on Feminism Chat, so you can imagine how it's going. Three lesbian TRAs telling everyone who doesn't agree that they are stupid and terfs, half-a-dozen non-feminist women saying 'Let's just be lovely and welcome anyone/everyone who turns up to our lesbian event' versus a couple of older radfems with nothing much to lose saying what we say on here every day. And then 300+ lesbian women sitting at home watching this play out in dismay and wondering whether they next time they turn up for an evening with the lezzers at the pub they're going to have to sit next to someone with a beard who wants to talk about their new life as a woman.

The TRAs are saying it's illegal under the Equalities law for lesbian women in a friendship group that meets in public places to exclude transpeople. I am sure it isn't but when I turned to a couple of people who I thought knew more than me, they started saying 'Ah, well... it's a grey area' and then seem to tie themselves into knots.

Is it? Is there any reason a bunch of self-selecting people who use the title* 'Xtown Lesbian and Bi women's social group' and meet voluntarily in public places are legally required to add T to their title?

This felt very VERY familiar.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3659984-TW-in-lesbian-social-group

I'm wondering if it's the same group? If not might find some useful replies.

Also you're not running a public organization you are a group of friends. Friends are naturally discriminating, against a million different factors. But fuck it if you want to make yourself extremely clear call your self "Vagina havers who love other Vagina havers" Surely no one can argue with that

I do find it fascinating that lesbians can fall for this.

"Would you suck her penis Karen, would you? Would you really Karen?"

they're going to have to sit next to someone with a beard who wants to talk about their new life as a woman

I don’t know anything about the law on this, but surely as a private group, its founder invites who she likes? Why the hell should any of you have to accommodate those who don’t meet the defining criteria? If I go to my yoga class and some blow in rocks up and insist we study his stamp collection instead? Nope. It’s so fricking rude!

Proper chortled at 'study his stamp collection instead', Bovary.

I may have to use that on many future occasions.

I'm not entirely sure what the definition of a club is, but I'm pretty sure it would have to have things like elected committees.
The protection in the Equalities act is gender reassignment not gender identity.
Basically you are perfectly entitled to exclude transgender people.

Example
It is lawful to have a private club for
women, for people from Australia, for
transsexual people or for people who
are HIV positive.
However, it is still unlawful for a private club that
restricts its membership to people who share
particular protected characteristics to discriminate
against members, associates, or guests because of
other protected characteristics.
Example
Ahmed is a Muslim gay man and would
like to join a city choir specifically for
gay men. The choir can restrict its
membership based on the protected
characteristics of sex and sexual
orientation, but cannot discriminate
against Ahmed because of his religion.
Therefore the choir cannot refuse
membership to Ahmed, or treat him less
favourably, because he is a Muslim.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85047/private-clubs.pdf

They’re talking bollocks - and they know it which is why they go down the shrieking, aggressive route to silence people. There is no equality law that demands you centre other people’s beliefs , they need to set up trans groups and learn to respect boundaries.
Imagine if atheists joined religious groups so they can bang on about how God doesn’t exist or footballers joined rugby teams and demanded its against the law to not then play football. They would quite rightly be ignored fur being a sandwich short of a picnic. The same should apply in this case.

Presumably the TRAs are welcome to meet with their own friends and socialise however they want, in which case I think your group organiser should bin them from the FB group.

I’d strongly recommend looking at the thread a PP linked to... it’s a very familiar scenario.

And anyway - it’s anything like the lesbian group here then trans people are not excluded - only male people (including TW).

Need to call Germaine.

I am no expert (to say the least) in this area but what you are experiencing is why the Fair Cop campaign is so important. I will say what I think the position is and am happy to be corrected because I am as confused as anybody.

of course it's not illegal to refuse to add 't' to the title of a group. I do not know of any law that exists that would make it so.

On the other hand, if someone posted on facebook or wrote (or perhaps even just says) to someone who identifies as a transgender woman to say that they are not welcome at such a meeting because in your opinion they are a man and therefore cannot be a lesbian then this could be deemed as a hate crime.

This is taken from the CPS's site
----
In England and Wales the monitored strands of hate crime are:

racially and religiously aggravated;
homophobic, biphobic and transphobic; and
disability hate crime.
These strands are covered by legislation (sections 28-32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003) which allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of a hate crime.

The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
----

But to prove a hate crime you have to show that the 'perpetrator' is motivated by hostility due to your 'category' characteristics.

And, for it to be a crime it has to include physical assault, verbal abuse or incitement to hatred.

But not all hate incidents are crimes - verbal abuse has never been a crime in my experience.

The problem is that the legislation shifts the emphasis to the 'victim's perception - if they FEEL abused etc.

It then has to be fought on a case by case basis which leaves everyone confused, suspicious and wary.

This is why Harry the Owl has taken Humberside to judicial review because this drags the police into investigating cases of alleged hurt feelings and enables them to intimidate people where no crime has been committed.

The law is a mess and open to abuse.

Basic bullying. You have every right to congregate with whom you chose to. They need to F**k off.

I've seen women's support groups for health conditions that only happen in female bodies driven underground like this by a few TRAs attacking demanding that it all redefine itself to 'this health condition can happen to women and men', change all their language, open themselves up to T membership (all TW, not TM incidentally, who would have been welcome anyway) and mostly what the TRAs wanted to do was take leadership and centre all discussion around TW medical issues, ie ending the purpose and function of the original group and it being any use to the women who set it up. Group schismed, the original group went underground and made sure no one could find them or realise they were a women's group.

It's a lesbian group, not an LGBT+ group: the definition of lesbian is still female homosexual and the EQA does provide for exemptions even if you're providing a public service as opposed to a social group where I don't think there's much legal constraint of any kind. This is really about: TRAs resenting that 'lesbian' is being defined as female only and wanting to forcibly redefine it, and biologically male people who identify as female/lesbian wishing to have it confirmed that they are lesbians and can go to lesbian only groups, and facilitate relationships and dating.

It will probably need to involve a schism. Lesbians happy to include biologically male people who identify as lesbian women with the changes to dynamic and group that will bring; and lesbians who would like the group to continue unchanged. That group will be harassed because they by existence are creating a boundary.

Why would anyone want to be where they are clearly not wanted?
It can only be about power, bullying and intimidation. What is that about?

You cannot force someone to love you, or even to accept you......

The group needs to clarify, with specific reference to the example in the PDF linked to by @Imnobody4 above, that this is a group for people with the protected characteristic of their sex being female and the protected characteristic of their sexuality being homosexual. Make it very clear that Transmen who have both these characteristics are very very welcome so you are not being trans-exclusionary

There's nothing about the legal situation though. Notice that that thread was about a closed FB group and they were still infiltrated which is depressing. There are groups like these in every town and city and I imagine what happened there and is happening here is pretty common.

I think for the huge majority of quietly GC women this may mean they'll walk away from this group. We'll probably have to try and organise an under-the-radar GC lesbian group. A closed FB group is the obvious way to do it but it's depressing to see that even that doesn't mean you won't get TWs turning up...

But my question is still hanging. Is it legal for a group of women who meet in an informal and voluntary way to seek to exclude people who say they are women, even though we don't regard them as as such?

Narcissism

Proper chortled at 'study his stamp collection instead', Bovary

Dodo,

If I understand the OP correctly, is it not possible to have a group exclusively for lesbians which is restricted to the dictionary definition?

There are gay clubs and social groups which clearly state they are not open to trans men. The gay men who administrate these don’t seem to get attacked and accused of acting illegally. If you are a volunteer social group you can administrate it however you like.

A calm response that the group is not appropriate for TW and they could look to set something up that meets their own needs? If you are continually pressed, then block. State that harassment is not tolerated by the group.

This has sadly happened to almost every “lesbian” group on Reddit sadly.

But my question is still hanging. Is it legal for a group of women who meet in an informal and voluntary way to seek to exclude people who say they are women, even though we don't regard them as as such

No.
Would it be illegal for a playgroup for six year olds to exclude a 40 year old man who identifies as a six year old in his spare time? Dressing up is not reality no matter how on trend it is.

But my question is still hanging. Is it legal for a group of women who meet in an informal and voluntary way to seek to exclude people who say they are women, even though we don't regard them as as such?

I don't think you're required to add the "T" to the group but I wonder if potentially a person could say they had been discriminated against if they had a GRC? But then you can't actually ask to see one right?

Would it be illegal for a playgroup for six year olds to exclude a 40 year old man who identifies as a six year old in his spare time?

No, but what if the 40 year old had a certificate that for at least legal purposes made him 6 year old?

It is legal. You will be encouraged to believe it isn't.

I'm not a lawyer but it seems like TRAs seem to be making up the law as they go along and getting official bodies to accept their interpretation of existing laws.

This is so depressing and demonstrates why I would love to educate women on how to deal with people like this.
I'm afraid you either stand up to them or let them take over, and everyone has to be be strong enough to say no, and keep saying no, despite the threats.