Men allowed to say no to women members. Surely this is illegal these days?

[Wemaybebetterstrangers]

https://apple.news/AXXl9B8PWSRuuHhkn-BhRTw

Frankly I wouldn’t want to spend my time surrounded by these men. However women should have the choice..

Maybe if women self ID as men..

I don't see the problem. I belong to a women only spa. Sometimes I don't want men around.

I imagine men are the same.

Men are allowed in your women only spa. If they identify as women. No women only spaces are women only spaces any more.

I think it's fine to have separate spaces for men and women . My local church has a men's group . Sometimes men crave just other men's company just as women like to be alone and chat with other women .

I agree with you. It’s just that men are allowed in women’s spaces now. If the man says he is a woman - a ‘trans woman’. So we have no spaces for biological women only.

Bit like the man who identifies as a woman being in the best actress category of the Oscar’s.

I actually think it is interesting - and worrying - that it appears it is the younger members who voted no.

When misogynistic, incel commentators and sexist content is trending, especially amongst young men, comments in the article such as

“The Savile now seems to have an unfair share of young fogeys from the City and political consultancies who enjoy throwing their weight and cash around” and

"the Savile was “under attack from the woke mind virus”, one attender said. They argued that the “dynamics in the bar and the camaraderie” would be damaged by the arrival of female members."

is maybe something to pay attention to. Especially as many of these younger members are the CEOs, bosses and decision-makers of the future.

No

Are you really comparing women's desire to go to the toilet without male company to a male only club?

The problem with the "Men's clubs are always just the same as women wanting single-sex spaces" argument is that it ignores the power imbalance, which is at the heart of why many of us don't want pretendy women having access to things like women's peer group organisations and programmes. Yes there is always an argument for single-sex spaces for men, but not when the rationale is to exclude women from places where decisions are made/influence is exerted.

I bet he's 'man in the club room, lady in the powder room' though

@Wemaybebetterstrangers

What about women who identify as men ? Surely it works the other way around too ?I don't think there are many men who would identify as a woman to get into a woman's group for the sake of it .

Ive only seen this in sport , especially when there is prize money or glory attached to it .

Think I’m going to go against the grain here - but not sure, so happy to get challenged!

I think there should be single-sex provision where there is a biological or health-based need. So that would cover changing facilities, toilets, sports, services & support groups (Men in Sheds, rape crisis support etc). Also, I think that social groups should be allowed to form around a particular demographic (eg lesbians, men’s reading groups etc) and be able to exclude people who don’t meet those demographic criteria.

If a ‘club’ becomes so successful, or financially supported by its members or otherwise, that it has physical facilities, then it needs to be open to all without discrimination. This is getting a bit more complicated, but it should then be possible within the club to provide facilities (beyond the above) which are single-sex eg saunas, swimming pond… BUT there needs to be equivalent provision for each sex.

IMO sexism isn’t dead yet, and men have more economic power than women. It would be far too easy to slip back to a situation where deals and recruitment all happen in the men-only clubs & women are disadvantaged. Plus I am still bitter that Hampton Ladies Pond has to admit trans women, but the men’s can exclude trans men! What do you think?

Also a lot of the Saville membership is publishing related industries - so those spaces which are quite female heavy (although not always at CEO level) but also those industries with an absolute 'woke' (to use the Saville's word) agenda.

So it's interesting that these men are kicking against that in their leisure time. Why?

Also, there is a vast difference between a men's shed or a church-based group vs a place for men with power and privilege to gather. I don't doubt for a minute that any of these men could easily accommodate a men's based group in their own (first or second) homes if they are so opposed to women being in their spaces.

No, I was comparing legislation that allows for women (i.e. biological women, not single gender) to have access to a single sex social club to thecsane legislation allowing for men to do the same.

Some people agree, some people disagree. But can you have one without the other....

There are also equivalent womens clubs to the Saville club.

It’s just that men are allowed in women’s spaces now. If the man says he is a woman - a ‘trans woman’. So we have no spaces for biological women only.

AS said earlier this is a myth.

Wherer "proportionate" it is legal to have single sex (biological) spaces, services. etc..

It isn't that this cant be implement but many just cant be bothered, and worse still, too many women dont want to be "unkind" and so dont pressurise providers to provide women only.

The problem isn't the law, but so many people have been Stonewalled. It is these fellow travellors who are taking away women's rights.

Not to recognise this is to not to be able to campaign against it.

Its not just men imposing themselves on women, it is that too many women now think they should accommodate those who identify as men.

And as said so often, no other protected characteristic group would tolerate including someone who says they "indentify" as "Black" or "disabled" etc..

And unfortunately it seems they aren't impressed by those of us who are challenging this.

Well this is sort of true and I’m sure some people just can’t be bothered.

However you don’t mention Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs). It is not a myth.

Where a man has a GRC to say he’s a woman, that means he is now legally a woman. He can change his birth certificate, passport and enter any women’s spaces. He’s a woman after all.

Hence Starmer can ‘rightly’ say the equality act legally protects women’s spaces… Because some men are ‘legally women’ 🙄.

We also know that GRCs are going to become far easier to obtain.

‘Its not just men imposing themselves on women, it is that too many women now think they should accommodate those who identify as men.

And as said so often, no other protected characteristic group would tolerate including someone who says they "indentify" as "Black" or "disabled" etc..

And unfortunately it seems they aren't impressed by those of us who are challenging this.’

Yep. Agreed. 💯

(Of course women can do the same, become ‘legally a man. Good luck to any woman doing that).

Where a man has a GRC to say he’s a woman, that means he is now legally a woman. He can change his birth certificate, passport and enter any women’s spaces. He’s a woman after all.

He is what is called a "legal woman" and does NOT have the right to be in a space of service that it categorised under the Single Sex Exemptions.

This has always been the case.

What you have said is the Stonewall myth that too many are repeating as fact, including some Rape Crisis Centres.

This has been discussed over and over again on FWR and it is really important that we all discuss this actual fact.

The problem isn't that men with a GRC are allowed into some women only services (NB not those who self identify which isn't recognised in law) but the problem is those who actively encourage TW into so called women's spaces, and all those who still after years of discussion around SSE still dont understand.

So please dont repeat this as a fact but start asking why more people, specifically women's groups dont want to or cant be bothered to use the SSE.

Ok fair enough however that detail is not particularly relevant (sadly) as everyone ignores it.

A GRC will rarely if ever mean that the male holder cannot be excluded from single-sex spaces / services for women. It may impact the legal route to justify 🙄 his exclusion.

We can be idealistic but it won’t work. We’ve seen how the gender woo crap goes.

Women need single-sex spaces for reasons of privacy and safety. That’s because most violent attacks and almost all sexual assaults are carried out by men.

There is no equivalent risk from women to men.

as everyone ignores it.

That's the point, and was raised on another thread.

We can talk as much as we like on FWR about biological women needing shared spaces, but if nobody listens to us, what is the solution?

I agree male only spaces should be allowed- I am fine with men's sheds etc wanting to be men only if they prefer.
However this story is different as women can come if they're guests, signed in by a man who's a member. So it's not about men only spaces as a lot of the quotes imply. It's about women being allowed in as long as it's clear that they're second class citizens, only there on a man's say-so.
So my conclusion: they're twats.

PS sorry accidental quote

The government sorting it out is the only solution. The current lot don’t care about women, we will have to wait for Labour to leave the building.

It does have men

The government sorting it out is the only solution.

Well any day now we should hear the decision of the Supreme Court in relation to FWS judicial review.

If they find in favour of FWS then if fact the law with have sorted it.

Wonder if the did win whether Labour would try and challenge it in court?