Tuesday's Women's Hour ( yes, I am behind the curve) had an interview with someone from a really interesting housing organisation which only rents to women. The women can have male live in partners, but the tenancy holder is only ever the woman. It was set up in recognition of the fact that women are more likely to be in a dire housing situation at relationship breakup. The housing was fitted in consultation with women and so has features which take into account women's shorter height etc. So anyway, the interviewee took quite a long time to describe their analysis of why this housing security is needed for women and how the housing is designed around women's bodies and needs. Then asked, ' What about transwomen?' ' Oh yes', was the reply, ' we recognise transwomen as women so they can be housed there.' To which some other interviewee piped up ;' Oh I am so glad to hear that you recognise transwomen.'
Absolutely no push back from the women's hour presenter.
I just don't understand the levels of cognitive dissonance that must be required by women from these ' women's' organisations who can present the evidence, data, and analysis relating to women and female bodies and then also include males in their solutions for women, without pausing to think 'hang on, but these males don't factor in my data and analysis, so why should they be taking up resources from women in my solution?' How can you do an analysis around females and then think its ok for males to colonise your solutions for females?
Just ranting I know, but seriously, why bother having an analysis to justify your project and then just throw that all out of the window with your incoherent criteria for entry into the solution? That's a resource taken from women, who your own analysis has shown really needs that resource!