University gym "womxn only sessions"

[adulthumanfemalemum]

Went into local uni sports centre today. Posters everywhere advertising their special gym sessions only for "womxn and non-binary." Lots of blah about how important it is for "womxn" to feel comfortable using the gym. At the bottom in small print an explanation that "womxn is an inclusive term which includes people previously excluded from white feminist discourse, such as women of colour and trans women." FFS. So it's okay to use the word woman to describe trans women but not to describe actual women. And these special sessions are in fact open to anyone who says they are non-binary or a woman. So not remotely a safe single sex space. I'm so cross. I was there with 15 year old DD who is super woke with lots of trans and non binary friends. I really wanted to talk to her about it but didn't want to spoil a rare activity together by arguing.

Remember when you thought intersectionality was a good idea and you were inside the tent pissing out onto white men and Christians?

The cycle in this movement is 'chase, own and destroy, look for next target'.

Woman has been emptied of meaning now it often means a mixed sex group. Women shrugged and said 'fine, we're all women, and I'm an adult human female'. Now watch female at the 'own and destroy' stage. Unfortunately biologically male people cannot cross the boundary into being a biologically female person whatever they do. There are always going to be words and actions and natural groupings based on sex, however you mess about with language.

It's been said since very, very early on, if women said 'fine, but biologically female women are blups', we'd have biological males identifying as blups by tea time.

A local gym to where I lived before had women only sessions, female instructors only on duty, very popular with Asian women then they got told it was discriminatory against men! Trans wasn't even involved ... those women stopped going

Rather interesting link thinking about it, to the article on the other thread by the medic with serious concerns about research into medical transition.

His hypothesis is that harm is created when a child is told that yes, they are right to feel that there is something wrong with their body, and yes, things can be done to fix it. And then a cascade starts of the next step to transition and then the next step becomes the target which will result in feeling satisfied and better, and then when that is achieved without the wanted feelings, the next step becomes the target. Where had there been a firm boundary of no, it's about learning to live with and accept the body you have, the focus would not have been on 'there is an escape you have to keep running towards, and we thought it was this but no it must be the next step'.

This is the same chase after words to try and trap womanhood into something that can be entirely owned, subsuming reality.

Addictive behaviour works in much the same way as this incidentally.

"It is better for vulnerable and minority women to be excluded from society, than that men have to feel miffed'.

Love how they're "including women of colour" by including men, thus preventing, say, muslim women from attending. Five stars geniusing.

So we all (and it will take all of us) say "ok, you're woman, you can have that word all to yourselves, we're going to use womxn now". Within a week I predict that they'll have abandoned the word entirely, and we can take it back, clean it up and restore it to It's former glory. Truth is, they only want it BECAUSE it's ours.

I think this is what happened with the word “womxn” though! This poster is 2019 retro - the word was in fashion a few years ago and then dropped out of use rapidly.

I think the biggest reason is that normies started hearing the word and thought it was stupid (so the trans movement tried blaming TERFs for inventing it.)

But also, TERFs had started using the word sarcastically to refer to non-women who identify as women. I think there was a kind of collective realisation that the trans movement endorsing the word might mean that they would be stuck with it and they wouldn’t get “woman.”

It is discrimination but it is perfectly legal.

Society NEEDS discrimination to work.

I keep saying this, I want murderers in prison, I don't want children and blind adults driving, I don't want to be on a plane with a pilot who doesn't know how to fly.

Horribly racist! I’d complain about that because it’s revolting. As for the ‘womxn’ crap, I despair. So regressive and idiotic.

Indeed. They introduce a racist policy that excludes some groups of women of colour and then have the nerve to say they're doing it for anti-racist reasons.

@sashh we all agree with discrimination against murderers and Nazis - indeed this is built into the Equality Act with the idea of beliefs that are worthy of respect in a democratic society, hence the importance of the Forstater judgment.

Unfortunately this action does not discriminate against murderers. It discriminates against Muslims, Orthodox Jews, victims of sexual assault and, frankly, anyone who would like to exercise in a penis free space.

Given that, a defence of discrimination in this context citing murderers is irrelevant and more than a little disingenuous.

I think you missed my point. My point is that some discrimination is legal and provideing a women only gym session does discriminate against men - but is perfectly legal.

I used to teach an 'Equality and diversity' unit and I would start by asking the class if discrimination is a good or a bad thing.

I would incidentally be absolutely fine with society using the words 'women' and 'womxn' as labels for resources. One meaning exclusively biologically female and the other would mean mixed sex.

And yes, totally, to the 'exclusion is necessary' point. Absolutely right. I have recently seen transactivists trying the line about 'sometimes you have to exclude to include' by which they mean deprive some women of all resources and access to provide biologically male people with freedom of choice and validation of identity. If it's ok to exclude women sometimes then it's ok to exclude males sometimes: however equality law is a shield to prevent powerful groups ending up with everything and leaving some in society with nothing.

I haven’t seen the term ‚womxn‘ in ages and thought it wasn’t in use anymore.
It never made sense to me, precisely because of its ‚inclusivity‘.
The word ‚dog‘ would loose its meaning if it also included cats, jellyfish and whoever else might want to identify as a dog.
What’s the point of gym sessions for ‚womxn‘ only if anyone can identify into ‚womxnhood‘?

That wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Im not really a fan of single sex classes really. I like everyone to have the same opportunities.

@sashh apologies - agree with the general point. In this instance I don't think it's a good thing

Oh for pete's sake.

Do you like women who cannot use mixed sex provisions to have the same opportunities as women who don't?

Or did you only mean 'people like me' when you said 'everyone'?

It has been a very conscious stategy to conflate gender isues with issues of race - but as is clear - this betrays not only deeply misogynistic impulses, but also deeply racist impulses too. That black women ( like any other woman) are somehow just a sub category of their own sex.

Presumably there are other classes which are (advertised as) mixed?
Womxn only essentially is the same as mixed.....so a woman wanting a single sex class doesn't have a choice.

...and massive cynicism too, the dishonest fuckers.

Single sex spaces are there to permit the inclusion and participation of women, by enabling the preservation of dignity and privacy of sex.

I've seen this. My friend works at the uni. He said he can lose his job if he talks about it. They've got security on the door to 'check'.

I'm angry at the segregation towards people of colour, like my mixed race daughter and labelling her as a sub category of human. She won't be a womxn, she will be a woman. FFS.

I wanted to write to them and say "I thought we weren't supposed to get our ideas off the internet at uni", but I haven't had the time.

That’s the root of this inclusion bollocks, it does exclude.

all this kind women and men Who want everyone to pee in peace, don’t realise how intrusive it is to women that for whatever reason (religion, trauma, dignity, privacy, safety, disability etc) need single sex spaces to remain biological single sex. With no men allowed whatever their disguise.

I have a theory that the sort of males likely to turn up to "women/womxn-only" events if they're allowed to are especially likely to be weird pervs. It's not just inviting men (which is bad enough anyway), it's inviting a particularly unpleasant sort of man.

Is there a special support group for women of colour who keep getting mistaken for people with penises? I want to donate!