All women/women and transwomen. How do the dynamics change?

[waterwitch]

I’m in a local women’s charity group. There has been a suggestion that we should consider allowing transwomen (realistically a transwoman) to join. Just wondering if anyone would like to relate their experiences of this situation. I do have an idea of how the dynamics might play out, but would prefer to base this on actuality than my personal stereotyping iyswim

It stops being a women's group but how that affects the group will depend on the person's character and actions, like any other new person joining a group.

Maybe it’s worth thinking about it like this- your women’s charity wants to allow a man to join. What benefit is it to the women in the charity to allow men to join?

Ask yourself - why does a man want to join a women's group? What is he getting out of it?

Would the women in the group prefer not to have men in the group ? There may be historical offences against them and your group is a safe space for them.

Women only should be women only imo, but it probably depends on the individual wanting to join, the feelings of everyone involved - accepting that even 1 person uncomfortable means it’s a no.

IME introducing a man to a woman only group changes the whole dynamic, women behave differently, conversation is less relaxed, even the way they sit change. If this group is at all about letting women spend time together to chat, share experiences, support each other, I’d be very wary to introduce a man (yet to meet a TW who doesn’t behave like a man) to it for fear that it spoils it for the women there.

What is the purpose of the group?

It didn’t work for my branch of the WI ( though the TW was a ‘visitor’)

The bloke mooned ( actually that should be moaned but it’s too good to correct) on at us and preached at us and lectured us ( more or less for being ‘cis’ ie born and and existing).

group does not exist now.

If the charity is subject to discrimination law, wouldn't letting in a man who identifies as a woman mean you then have to let in men who don't identify as women?

Because, as far as I know, it has been established that the comparator to see whether or not you are discriminating will be another man, not a woman.

So you can't treat a man who identifies as a woman differently to any other man. Let one in, they all come in.

You can, however, completely legally, have a female only organisation, by using the same same exceptions in the equality act.

Well first the women will probably gradually start being quieter for fear of offending and the transwoman if they are very self absorbed will start dictating the discussions and complaining that everything is ciscentric and expect you to use language that will complicate discussions. Women will gradually stop showing up because it’s not about them anymore.

I have experienced a man in a women’s group and the women’s behaviour changes. It becomes a male-dominated group, he gets ‘honorary’ status given to him. Women will hang on his every word more than he deserves, be deferent, overly-appreciative, they’ll subtly change everything to accommodate him - and they won’t even realise they are doing it. Female socialisation. That’s without even factoring his male socialisation and probable male entitlement.

The question I think you really need to ask is this:

Why, when there are so many groups out there, has this man specifically sought out a women’s group to join?

Think about it.

Why?

What is the purpose of the group?

This is the key point. If the group is for women to attend, then admitting men undermines the whole point.

If there's some more specific purpose, such as maybe being some women-centred political thing, like this board or SfW/WPUK/Sex Matters, then letting men in is no issue.

As Datun got to before me, the problem will be to justify why you would treat other men differently. There has yet to be a test case for that though.

Another point worth bearing in mind is that in 2023, letting a "trans" person of either sex in will be far more inherently disruptive than maybe 30 or 40 years ago. 40 years ago admitting a transwoman in was largely only admitting an individual man. It would affect the tone of the group but probably no more than any other man.

Now it's likely to be admitting a male religious zealot, who sees himself as a missionary bringing you his religion. Even a transman can be quite disruptive to a woman's group, due to this zealotry. (There was quite a long thread recently discussing tactics for handling a transman in a women's group.)

If you have a women only group, then it needs to stay that way. You could always open a mixed sex group up in addition?

puttingdownroots we raise money for a small local charity. It’s very informal, I’d be surprised if it could be subject to any legal control - I suspect it would quickly melt away if there were issues. I think the main purpose is just that we like to get together!
Thank you to those who related experiences of how behaviours change. I guess this is in line with what I’d expected

How did the male trans person find out about the group?

If it's a group who rely on the public to fund it, it loses my funding instantly & forever.
Even if they 'change their mind' I'm not putting money or time into a group who might change their mind again.

If it's a group that relies on women volunteers or donations they drop.

You immediately permanently exclude women from faiths or cultures where they cannot share space with the opposite sex.
You also exclude women who are just not comfortable in the prescence of men for their own personal reasons.
Even if it's just being expected to share the toilets with a bloke, the damage is done.

People are scared to complain because TRAs are so vicious & aggressive, so they just drift away quietly & the unisex group dies.

Nobody talks about it much but I've seen it happen to half a dozen groups that were for women/by women, even small ones with only half a dozen people in them.

By letting in this man, you exclude women who sought out a safe space without men in it & take away their voices.

Women sought out that charity because it was women only.
You let in a man, it loses the USP that made them join it & no longer serves it's purpose.

There might be a few handmaidens who keep it going for a while, but it's a death knell long term.

Good question.

I hate to think it, but I bet it is a current (maybe new) member who feels uncomfortable with the lack of male energy and wants her mate in.

It would be so predictable.

Absolutely. The dynamic changes as soon as a man arrives. And that does not happen differently just because they don't identify as a man.

Plus, a man who believes in gender stereotyping and that inhabiting those gender stereotypes should give him access to women only spaces, will be even more entitled than your average Joe.

A man will never understand any of this. A man cannot understand how women's behaviour changes when he walks in, as he's not privy to it beforehand.

And will completely unconsciously expect women to be socialised to treat him as a man. And when it happens, he won't even notice.

I hate to think it, but I bet it is a current (maybe new) member who feels uncomfortable with the lack of male energy and wants her mate in.

This is so often the start.

Brokendaughter we just get together informally to raise money for a small local charity. The charity is completely separate, and we’re not their only source of funding.
while that is what we do, I think the main (unspoken) purpose is just that we enjoy getting together. It’s a very varied group, women I probably wouldn’t have met in other circumstances. I like that.
I do think those pp who’ve asked how the TW found out have a point. It might have been through the charity, but more likely through someone newish in the group.
I tend to agree that by keeping it single sex we are offering a safe place to socialise for some women, and it’s worthwhile protecting that.
Thankyou everyone for your thoughts

I'd be quitting the group if I were part of it, women only means just that.

Men who want access to a group of women from which other men are excluded make me particularly uncomfortable. Especially given the new census data which reveals that men who identify as women are 5-7 times more likely than ordinary men to be sex offenders.

If there's no reason to keep it women only then there's no reason to not let any interested man join.

There are lots of feminine men / gentle men / quiet men / gender non-comforming men, or whatever other criteria you feel means you should consider admitting this particular subset of male people.

Either a group is mixed sex or it's not - I see no reason why you would segregate by "gender".

And from personal experience (book group), the male member did change the way we discussed things.

He clearly hated it when we talked about our female lived experience and so, without actually talking about it we gradually stopped doing that.

Is it specifically a women only group OP, or do all the members just happen to be female?

Bear in mind too, that if you allow one specific male to join on the basis that "X knows them and they're really nice" or whatever - that then sets a precedent, and you will no longer have grounds to refuse any other male who wants to join, even if they are not vouched for in the same way and not "really nice".

It'll probably completely change the dynamic of the group, as I think everyone has already pointed out.

I suppose the issue is how you go about making the decision and communicating it. Its possible a refusal may also affect the dynamic of the group, and things may change whether or not you accept them.

Bit of a tricky situation that would be avoided if we all accepted that women can have their own spaces, without question.