Scared to approach this. Advice needed from the wise women of the Feminist board

[GoddessOfHellfire]

I'll try to keep this simple.

We must choose two people from our women's group to attend a women's event to 'represent' us.
One person has been chosen and agreed unanimously, as she is the best person for the job.
The other person MUST be selected from the categories of disabled, BAME or LGBT.

There is a male member of the women's group. This person, who falls under 'T' in the permitted categories, wishes to attend. There is little interest from the few people in our group who fall into the other categories.

I might like to attend, as would - I imagine - other women in the group who also do not fall into the above categories.

So, we are at the point where a male sexed person is given the opportunity to attend a women's event, while a female sexed person is excluded from attending this women's event.

I know I need to bring this up. I know I need to keep it calm and factual while also expressing the absurdity of the situation.

I don't wish to be accused of transphobia or create a scene, but I really do feel that the point needs to be made.

Does anyone have any advice?

I think possibly the only thing you can do is make your case rationally and politely. It may be that a lot of women have quietly been thinking what you're thinking and you may have to have a difficult discussion on why a man has been allowed to join a women's group. If it gets difficult, resign and suggest that if there's anyone who agrees with your position they let you know privately and together you can create a new women's group that isn't open to male-sexed people.

This is what has happened in my lesbian circles. Some women decided it was appropriate to admit male-sexed people into some lesbian groups, resulting in breakaway female-sex-only groups — which, once all the fuss and accusations of terfery died down, seem to be thriving as more and more women realise they've been duped.

As a boring, white, married (to a man) mother, I might just have to 'out' myself as bisexual I suppose. It just seems like the coward's way of dealing with the issue and I'd much rather have a proper discussion.

I could also be considered non binary or agender I suppose - have short hair and like to wear jeans, combats and boots. Although I don't actually consider myself as having a gender (because I think it's nonsense), I'm just a woman!

The people who attend are invited to speak about issues that affect women and policy within the wider organisation.

I wonder if this happens in the women institute? Or the national housewives register, if it still exists? Our actual women’s group had many productive interactions in the 70s with members of those groups. No men included then but I suspect things have changed ..

@yetanotherusernameAgain

But you say that no one else in the permitted categories is interested in attending. Does that mean if it wasn't for the T person, only one person from your group would be allowed to attend? If so, the T person isn't taking a place from anyone else.

I think you will appear churlish if you complain. If a T person us allowed to join the group itself, then of course they are eligible to put themselves forward under the LGBT category. Would you complain if it were a disabled person?

But other women wish to attend. It seems like the rules may be been deliberately crafted to create this situation. I wonder what the reasoning is for specifying people with certain pcs - are these pcs relevant to the event at all? Why are all pcs not included?

maybe you identifying could be the start of a wider conversation?

Could you table something about a recent news topic (the labour MP against single sex spaces, the treatment of Joanna Cherry, the Kiera Bell case) and raise some of the issues they bring up?

@Sulkywoman

I wonder if this happens in the women institute? Or the national housewives register, if it still exists? Our actual women’s group had many productive interactions in the 70s with members of those groups. No men included then but I suspect things have changed ..

The WI accepts the type of trans people that wouldn’t have been accepted if they weren’t trans.

One person has been chosen and agreed unanimously, as she is the best person for the job.
The other person MUST be selected from the categories of disabled, BAME or LGBT.

I see these two rules are both discriminatory, it means that who ever wrote the rule thinks that the most qualified will always be white and able bodied.

I thought the same.
If none of the women are interested, I would put myself forward without identifying as anything I am not. Can you do that OP - just say you would like to attend if at all possible? If the others say that you don't qualify and instead choose someone who isn't even a woman, then so be it.

You don't consider yourself as having a gender, therefore are agender. Put yourself forward on the basis of your ability to speak on the issues that will discussed, as a reasonable reflection of the group's membership and say you also represent a minority under the LGBTQ+ umbrella.

I’d have to out myself as (genuinely) bi in those circumstances. Long time married so it isn’t relevant to my day to day life right now and apart from one adult child as it came up when discussing sexuality pretty much no one else in my life is aware.
I also (again genuinely) have two invisible disabilities that I’d prefer to not go public with at work although both cause me different problems I have to work around

I’d be a bit peed off with them that I had to go public for any of these for such a stupid reason and I think I would flag invisible disability but invoke right to not have to disclose medical info

Is the event one at which there will be representatives from other groups, eg groups representing disabled people, LGBT etc?

Do you have to say why you meet the criteria? Can you just say that you do (because you do)?

The very premise of the rules are discriminatory - so you're a white heterosexual woman and you can't go as you don't fit into these categories?

If there were several women interested in going could they join together to speak up? If that second spot has to be occupied by someone who has to match that criteria it excludes these women/members and is therefore discriminatory.

Regardless of whether the rules are discriminatory, it's absolutely wrong that someone should have to declare a disability, sexuality, gender or racial identity that they might not have otherwise wanted to disclose in order to meet this requirement.

Can you (or anyone) put yourself forward as belonging to one of the groups but not wanting to disclose which and how?

I'm actually incredibly angry about it to be fair. The audacity of this person to enter our group and demand blind acceptance, knowing full well that there's little us middle aged feminists can do about it - it's supremely arrogant IMO. It means that there seem to be so many things off the table for discussion, simply by dint of this person's presence.

That's why transactivists do this type of thing.

Regardless of whether the rules are discriminatory, it's absolutely wrong that someone should have to declare a disability, sexuality, gender or racial identity that they might not have otherwise wanted to disclose in order to meet this requirement.

I agree and would maybe make this point.

@TheFnozwhowasmirage

If it were me,I'd announce that I identify as one of the remaining groups to be chosen from. If a man can identify as a woman,and the group has no issue with that,they can hardly refuse you the same courtesy. But I'm middle aged,angry and don't have the patience for this shit,so wouldn't care about the consequences. It might not be the same for everyone.

This. I wouldn't try to argue against the principle (you will lose), I would try to subvert it to beat them at their own game.

I don't actually consider myself as having a gender (because I think it's nonsense)

Aha! You’re in, Hellfire: you’re genderfree, nonbinary, agender, whatever one of the 100 genders we’re now allowed to claim. Seriously, do state that, if you want to go to the event.

But like others here, I wouldn’t stay in a “women’s” group that includes males. Shame if the group is important to you, but it’s not standing up for women.

The member who is t was allowed to join the group. I don't think they can then be treated as a second class member who's not allowed to represent the group when they do meat the criteria.

The issue is with the basic principle of the group - for women, or for woman identified people? Was that the case from the beginning, has it changed, was that discussed with the membership & did they consent? Those seem to be the issues that have to be aired. Not so much what happens at one event. You identifying as pangender or whatever won't address that, it'll reinforce it in a way.

How is the group using the EA exemptions? My understanding is that a group could choose to be female sexed only, excluding those who are male sex with the p/c of gender reassignment, but in that case has chosen not to. But there is little case law on this & lawyers disagree. The ehrc guidence on this is being challenged (hopefully if Ann sinnott is given a judicial review).

Is the rule about the delegates your own group's rule, or the event's rule?

I doubt if I would be brave enough to raise this, but you may be!

I would flag invisible disability but invoke right to not have to disclose medical info

Even better. I’d do this.

You sound agender, non binary , gender free or whatever you like (I’m sure I’m technically one of those under the enormous umbrella because I wear trousers!) plus what about your Jewish grandmother, and Anglo Indian great grandfather in your family tree ? (All of these are nobody else’s business ) .

Just say you’re under the LGBT umbrella but you’d rather not discuss it as it makes you uncomfortable. (I am also middle aged and angry with it all )

I agree if they’re allowed in the group they should be treated as a second class citizen and not allowed to represent the group. But nor should they be given priority at the expense of others. Why can’t a woman represent a woman’s group? Why do they have to be lgbt or disabled?

Maybe it should just be names out a hat?

You say you have a male member of a women's group.

That could cause problems.

Oh! It has!

That's really shit OP and I completely appreciate your dilemma - either play a false game of self-ID in order to go to the event; OR refuse to play and watch a man go instead. As others have pointed out - the real issue here is the group you're involved in and the decisions they've made. You're already on the backfoot because a man has entered the group. It's a mess.

Having said that, I also get that staying in and seeing if you can make changes feels like the better option at this point. This is what I would do.

The immediate problem is the 'qualification' needed by one of those representing the group at this event. I would claim such a qualification in very vague terms - a hidden disability that you don't want to disclose; or something under the LGBTQ umbrella (I mean you're a woman with short hair ffs. Obviously that makes you something very special - agender/ pansexual/ queer/ non-binary/ demi-queer - probably some really complex combination of the above). And then say - you felt really uncomfortable having to disclose private information in order to represent the group and that that requirement is really problematic, no longer fit for purpose etc. Don't underestimate the number of other women who will be also be secretly sickened at the thought of a man taking the second spot and who'll be pleased to support you. But either way, how all of this plays out will really tell you a lot about whether there's any future for you with the group.

Obviously - if you can sort this one, it still leaves the larger problem you have. But come back at that stage - the wise women will still be here!!

participation in many things is often physically difficult for disabled people

I know that this comment was meant well but disability does not always equal mobility difficulties.

Someone who is deaf will not necessarily have problems as someone with a visual impairment.

People on the spectrum, like me, will have different issues from people who have sensory or mobility impairments.

Maybe, for a women’s group, it might be more important for the second person to be required to have gone through pregnancy, abortion, menopause, or childbirth. Especially since the goal seems to be discussing policy issues that affect women. Probably too late to make this change.