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 you could ask questions about the policy, like 'what happens if no one from those groups is available, is the place offered to another women?'
And you could raise the point made by JustGotHere, why aren't mothers or carers included, and would suitable childcare or respite care be funded?

I see a certain someone on twitter is over this like a rash, puffing out her cheeks with all her might and blowing her dog whistle to rally her team together.

@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?

"Would you complain if it were a disabled person?"

A disabled woman is definitely a woman.

But I agree the T person has the right as they're in the group and fit the LGBT category.

Are you sure there are no women who fit the BAME, LGBT, or disabled categories who could be persuaded to put their name forward to go?

I don't know, it feels wrong to try to stop T person, thems the rules. I couldn't lie, and I'd feel people could see through the motives, even if it could be accurate like not "identifying" with any "gender" bollox.

Do you know there are genders like "Astralgender is a xenogender that feels connected to space, stars and the universe. Similar identities include stargender, galaxxin, genderspace, and many other astronomique genders."
lgbta.wikia.org/wiki/Astralgender

imagine if you put that or one like that.

"Xenogender is a nonbinary gender identity and umbrella term that defines gender identities which “cannot be contained by human understandings of gender.”

Is this for real ... optimistminds.com/xenogender/

"Arithemegender
A number gender. Numbers can vary from negative, positive, decimals, infinite, square roots, etc. "

Are people taking that seriously? Surely not.

I could be on the queer spectrum.

46 sexualities ...Maybe you can find something suitable there... Or maybe you are "Questioning", OP www.healthline.com/health/different-types-of-sexuality?c=638486765592#a-c

Can’t 2 people just be nominated then have a vote.

She's funny.

Man taking up place in woman's group - stunning and brave.

Woman taking up place in woman's group - white, privileged, cis-het, Karen.

Brilliant. [waves]

In answer to why this person was able to join: According to the 'rules' of the organisation as a whole, TWAW and therefore are allowed to, so there was no way of saying 'no' as far as I'm aware. It really has been something imposed - so women only things are open to 'women and those who identify as women. There are many quiet and not so quiet rumblings about the issue.

I've seen some men (albeit with regard to other organisations) wryly post along the lines of 'I'm a man who doesn't identify as a woman - why can't I join the women's group, when a man who identifies as a woman is allowed to? That's discrimination.'

The whole thing is bonkers.

Anyway, thanks for your contributions. I am actually going to tackle this, in a calm, measured and possibly faux naiave manner. Will write my thoughts down beforehand. At the end of the day, I don't actually have anything to lose so because I CAN speak out I feel I should. I'm hoping that it will be discussed in a mutually respectful manner - wish me luck!

Oh and BTW, read the full thread Helen - I wouldn't be taking the place of anyone BAME, disabled or LGB if they weren't actually interested in going anyway, would I now?! Your point is moot.
Anyway wasn't she the one who failed miserably in her attempt to actually sue a transexual person?

Was the TWAW mantra voted on? Did members agree to let makes who identify as women in? Sounds like the history needs looking at, but also sounds like you may have outgrown that group. You should never have been put in this position. If transwomen were transwomen we wouldn't be in this ridiculous situation. When did that mantra and brainwashing start?

@GoddessOfHellfire

Oh and BTW, read the full thread Helen - I wouldn't be taking the place of anyone BAME, disabled or LGB if they weren't actually interested in going anyway, would I now?! Your point is moot. Anyway wasn't she the one who failed miserably in her attempt to actually sue a transexual person?

Yep, that's her.

Good luck!

The problem is those two designations are not categories so much as ragbags of cobbled together ill defined characteristics so that it's impossible to know who qualifies and who doesn't.
I would propose that for the future the two representatives be selected by election - individual ballot by the whole group - as the two other designations are vague and ill defined - I could qualify myself on a couple of grounds but prefer not to disclose private matters - the rule is arbitrary and not necessarily representative (excludes other considerations and designations) and in the meantime I would like to go forward as the second representative as I am well qualified to represent the group and wish to advocate on matters affecting women and girls.
If they question this, well I'm a woman (I have daughter(s) and...) and I am concerned about the whole gamut of issues affecting women and girls and I'm an experienced, longstanding committed member of this women's group, which should not be disregarded or overlooked as lesser than other statuses or designations) and what could be more qualification than that for a woman's group meeting?

This would be a bold stating of your rightful claim as a woman and on behalf of women and girls. Would you do it and would it fly?

Arrgh, feel for you @GoddessOfHellfire that is a really difficult situation, and typical of the way we've all been 'captured.'

I've got two suggestions. You say here:

There are a few legal brains within the group (one of whom is full on TWAW) so I need to construct a clear, concise and logical argument.

If you can find the video-recording, Professor Rosa Freedman (together with Prof Kath Stock, and Prof Alice SUllivan) gave an amazing answer to the Parliamentary Equalities Group in evidence, when asked whether she thought that 'transwomen are women' (a nasty leading question if ever there was one.It was at te end of their evidence. If you could find that, and transcribe it, I think you'd be able to make a very legally-informed statement.

I'll see if I can find it.

My other idea is much more passive-aggressive "feminine" confrontation-averse: can you talk to a couple of other group members - particularly those who might fall into the LGBT disabled etc category - could you have a quiet word, and give one of the actual women a push?

I agree about the categories being organised in a rubbish way - as if it's a "normal" person plus an "other" person.

@GoddessOfHellfire if you want to raise the outing issue, be sure to quote Principle 6 of the Yogyakarta Principles.

yogyakartaprinciples.org/principle-6/

Here's the link - find Rosa Freedman's nearly last speech in the transcript or the vid:

committees.parliament.uk/event/2998/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

From the transcripts of 9th December, 2020. Really good stuff here:

Peter Gibson: Thank you for clarifying that no advantage was given to them. Could you each confirm for me your view as to whether a trans woman is a woman and whether a trans man is a man, please?

Professor Freedman: I will go down the law route because that is my expertise, and I think you would rather have my expertise than my personal opinion. In law, it says that a man is someone who is born male with biology in terms of chromosomes, gonads and genitalia, and a woman is someone who is born female with the same biological factors. Now, there is the legal fiction where a trans woman or a trans man may gain a gender recognition certificate that changes their legal sex but does not change their actual sex. Currently, in law, a trans woman is a trans woman unless she holds a GRC, in which case she is male, she is a trans woman, but, legally, she would be recognised as a woman for many but not all purposes.

That sounds complicated because the law is currently in a bit of a mess and that is why we need to change and streamline it. My opinion, therefore, changes depending on whether someone holds a GRC, but I stick in line with what the law currently says, which is that your sex is determined by biology.

Dr Stock: I think that we have two sexes, males and females. We have the human versions, the human males and females, and we have the adult and younger versions, adult and younger human males and females. We need a category to describe the adult human male and the adult human female because it aids communication about a vast range of things, given that we are a sexually dimorphic species that reproduces via heterosexuality. In other words, woman is adult human female and man is adult human male. That is the best understanding of those categories.

Professor Sullivan: I have been very clear. There is a distinction between sex and gender identity. Both of them are quite properly protected characteristics and we need to see them as distinct. The slogan “trans women are women” has been really unhelpful. Grown‑up, mature adults do not talk in slogans. We need to think about the fact that there might be contexts where we want to treat trans women as though they were women and trans men as though they were men. In other contexts, that may not be appropriate. For example, if we think about sporting categories, changing rooms or data collection, all sorts of different issues may come up and we need to have a sensible conversation about those different contexts.

@QueenoftheAir, thank you for that. Helpful, clear and concise.

Don't thank me, thank those 3 clear thinkers (I'm not any of those 3 incognito, alas!)

There are some excellent suggestions here. Will the conversation be held in private?

I'd be tempted to tearfully admit that I belong to the lgbt group, that I'm not quite ready to come out because I'm trying to be sure which category I fit in to- I mean, women are really gorgeous sexy creatures, but I've never had a relationship with one so can I really say that I'm bi? It's actually been a while since I've fancied sex so I may actually be asexual. And also, I'm definitely not cis- I'm still working out which gender best describes me. I have decided though that whatever gender I find out I am, I will be sticking with pronouns she/her, because that just makes it easier for everyone. I really believe that going to the women's conference will help me so much to come to terms with all this, so I can he,p other people too! Oh, and I actually have dyslexia...