Men in women’s groups.

[gingangirly]

Really unsure if I’m being unreasonable, but what do others think?

I belong to a FB group for women over 65 in my town. They have lots of get togethers, at least a couple a week. A few months ago there was a vote after a man requested to join. The overwhelming majority said no. If they want a similar group, start their own. Fair enough.

However there is a trans woman that has been welcomed with open arms. He would NOT pass as a woman, not quite a bloke in a wig but certainly you would know he was trans.

What do people think about this? Acceptable or not? I’m am totally the ‘live and let live’ but seems a bit disingenuous to ban men but not trans women?

Well I would tell people in the group what my thoughts were on the matter and then the group would take whatever action it wanted based on the law or in the case of under 25 members based on the majority opinion.

And what would do if the majority said we don’t want men and a transwoman wanted to join? Or the group was over 25 and a transwoman wanted to join? (Assuming in both cases the group was based in the uk)

I would go with what the majority wanted, but it wouldn't change my own personal opinion

And if there was more than 25 you’d either convert the group or ask the transwoman to leave?

No id act exactly the same, state my opinion but be happy to go with the majority or indeed the law. Not everyone with an opinion on something has to be disruptive and unreasonable and cause tension in a group. Some people are capable of having an opinion but not expecting the world to revolve around it. If i realised the values or outlook of the group I was a part of upset me then I could leave the group if I wished.

I’m not saying you’d be disruptive or unreasonable?

I don’t think I would be either - I’d just state my position which is as per the law and if the group admitted men and was still claiming to be a women’s only group I’d send a letter to the organisers and/or chair asking them to obey the law.

If they insisted it was a women’s group and was admitting men I’d ask them to change their title and constitution (if they have one) as they were acting illegally.

And I would leave the group.

Have you considered the possibility that most members of the group didn't feel any more comfortable with the trans identifying man than the other man, but that they just believed they were not allowed to say no to the trans identifying man?

I think it is incredibly dangerous to create a special category of men - a category any man can self identify into - to whom women are not allowed to say no.

I would genuinely love to know more about this connection you feel you have with trans identifying men. I just see them as men. Men I actually have less in common with than I do with regular men.

I know you weren't 😉

And yet apparently trans identifying men are incapable of having a gender identity without expecting the world to revolve around it.

It's quite curious, isn't it?

Not expecting the world to revolve around your feelings seems to be a female trait, and expecting the world to revolve around your feelings appears to be a male trait. By imposing themselves on women only groups, trans identifying men are behaving in a stereotypically male way. They'd be acting more "female" if they simply joined a mixed sex group and behaved like a normal person.

I think now, given the law change, it’s even clearer than that.

The law says if you’re a single sex group, that means sex not gender. So admit all men and become a mixed sex group or admit none and remain single sex (in the case of a group claiming to be a women’s single sex space).

You can't speak for all trans women. I'm sure there are plenty trans people just quietly going about their lives, the same as the majority of the rest of us. Laws get made without one person's sole input. You can't group all trans people together and say they all behave the same way.

And yet it seems to be very common behaviour among this particular group, doesn't it?

Where is the mass counter protest by respectful trans people saying, "Actually, no, we shouldn't be included in single sex spaces intended for the opposite sex and we don't endorse the views of the Stonewall screeches"?

That's like saying all women love shopping. It's not fact. It's not correct and you can't judge all women based on a stereotype.

People quietly going about their lives not bothering anyone don't tend to start demonstrations and protests. Myself included.

I would say your first sentence is not clear at all. Im not sure what you are saying.

Im all in favour of people with interests in common sticking together, Tottenham fans, GBBO fans, etc but I don’t think that’s genetic. Lots of different people have things in common, it’s not fair to say only some men can join a women’s interest group, and not others.
Like, lots of people like allotments, but there is a men’s mental health charity called Sheds for Men or something where they meet up and talk about men’s health problems separate from women because it’s easier to open up maybe? Perhaps they can discuss their feeling and experiences (complain) about women more freely, I don’t know. But that’s the proportionate reason for not allowing women in. Not because only men like sheds or allotments.

I don't think you can really go quietly about your life when a huge lobby group purporting to be speaking for you is unashamedly infringing the rights of 50% of the population. Either you speak up, or you're complicit.

I also think that trans identifying men using men's single sex spaces are not a very common sight, so the most likely hypothesis is that they have all been using women's spaces.

"Have you considered the possibility that most members of the group didn't feel any more comfortable with the trans identifying man than the other man, but that they just believed they were not allowed to say no to the trans identifying man?"

The OP said quote: "welcomed with open arms" for the trans woman & also said "the overwhelming majority said no" to the man so it doesn't sound as if they were 'shy' to voice their opinions or it was an undemocratic inclusion. Of course people going along to get along isn't an exclusive phenomena to just acceptance but works both ways to non acceptance as in anti trans proponents pressuring others. Have you considered projection?

"I think it is incredibly dangerous to create a special category of men - a category any man can self identify into - to whom women are not allowed to say no."

Gendered personality traits aren't a 'created' social construct but a biological reality. What's socially constructed are the categorisations via distinctions. You do this yourself when you distinguish males from females 'cause violence'.

"I would genuinely love to know more about this connection you feel you have with trans identifying men. I just see them as men. Men I actually have less in common with than I do with regular men."

Their behaviours mirror my own in my experience. I'm a very feminine, agreeable, sensitive, empathic, nurturing, compassionate, emotionally expressive, understanding and cooperative individual who enjoys feminine aesthetics & interests more common to women. Of course not all women are like this but these behaviours are more common in women than in men.

But what they fail to understand is that what makes trans women associated more to women on a psychological level is the organic inclinations they share with women on average. For example, what makes them more like women is not because they 'wear dresses' but the inclination to do so that we share.

Did you really just write that?

Do you really believe that women (original female meaning obviously) have an organic inclination to wear dresses? And that this organic inclination to wear dresses not only exists but is more relevant to why women (OFM) have fought for and built single sex spaces, protections and rights, and engaged in sex specific analysis and political discourse than the inequalties that we face because of our biology and what society constructs around it?

Really?

"Im all in favour of people with interests in common sticking together, Tottenham fans, GBBO fans, etc but I don’t think that’s genetic."

Yes, interests are also influenced by environmental input for example a football supporter might support their local football team because they live locally but that inclination to loyalty to 'the tribe' could also be a genetically influenced. Let's not forget genes & environment work together to produce behavioural outcomes.

"it’s not fair to say only some men can join a women’s interest group, and not others."

But they aren't men by virtue of behavioural dissimilarity.

The OP said quote: "welcomed with open arms" for the trans woman & also said "the overwhelming majority said no" to the man so it doesn't sound as if they were 'shy' to voice their opinions or it was an undemocratic inclusion.

This is what is known as the fawning response. We know that we aren't allowed to say no to special men who think they are women, and that if we object to their presence we are the ones who will be punished, so we pretend to be enthusiastic about it instead.

Gendered personality traits aren't a 'created' social construct but a biological reality. What's socially constructed are the categorisations via distinctions. You do this yourself when you distinguish males from females 'cause violence'.

This is both nonsense and completely unrelated to what I said.

Gender is a social construct. It has nothing to do with biology.

Their behaviours mirror my own in my experience. I'm a very feminine, agreeable, sensitive, empathic, nurturing, compassionate, emotionally expressive, understanding and cooperative individual who enjoys feminine aesthetics & interests more common to women.

Christ, I think I just vomited a bit in my mouth.

Out of interest, do you believe these are character traits that men do not have, but that you share with people like Karen White and Sarah Jane Baker?

They are men by virtue of objective reality.

I’m still waiting @Howseitgoin

"Do you really believe that women (original female meaning obviously) have an organic inclination to wear dresses? "

Are you seriously suggesting women don't enjoy their prevailing aesthetic preferences? They are 'forced' to do so?

"And that this organic inclination to wear dresses not only exists but is more relevant to why women (OFM) have fought for and built single sex spaces, protections and rights, and engaged in sex specific analysis and political discourse than the inequalties that we face because of our biology and what society constructs around it?"

Strawman.

You are conflating two separate concepts. I never claimed wearing dresses is more relevant than anything else rather that the inclination to do so is an example of a commonality trans women share with women.

Still here @Howseitgoin and still waiting. Any chance I’ll get an answer?

"This is what is known as the fawning response. We know that we aren't allowed to say no to special men who think they are women, and that if we object to their presence we are the ones who will be punished, so we pretend to be enthusiastic about it instead."

And you speak on behalf of all women? How convenient….and stereotypically sexist.

"Gender is a social construct. It has nothing to do with biology."

Gendered personality traits as in male violence….you walked into that one…😂

Their behaviours mirror my own in my experience. I'm a very feminine, agreeable, sensitive, empathic, nurturing, compassionate, emotionally expressive, understanding and cooperative individual who enjoys feminine aesthetics & interests more common to women. Of course not all women are like this but these behaviours are more common in women than in men.

Forgive me for forgetting, but are you a person of natal female biology or a trans woman?

Shall I tell you why more women are feminine, agreeable, sensitive, empathic, nurturing, compassionate, emotionally expressive, understanding and cooperative individual who enjoys feminine aesthetics & interests more common to women?

It's fucking survival mate.

We don't pop out of the womb like this.

We, like all human beings, learn what is acceptable and what is not acceptable through our own social interactions with others and through observing the interactions of others both real and portrayed.

And female people, being less powerful both in raw physical strength and in social power, learn to bend ourselves out of shape putting kindness, empathy and understanding of others ahead of ourselves and our own needs to avoid triggering the anger of men and the disapproval and rejection of a society that has built itself around men's values.

It's socialised into us so early that it takes most of us a long time to realise it and many of us never do. But even when we don't consciously know it we still carry that mental load.

And the fucking reason we want spaces away from male people beyond simple physical safety is to not have to be feminine, agreeable, sensitive, empathic, nurturing, compassionate, emotionally expressive, understanding and cooperative individual who enjoys feminine aesthetics & interests all the fucking time!

When we are feminine, agreeable, sensitive, empathic, nurturing, compassionate, emotionally expressive, understanding and cooperative individuals with other women it is a mutual experience. It is not having our physical, emotional and mental resources being appropriated by the not insignificant proportion of men (original sex based meaning) who have been socialised to expect female accomodation and support as their basic due in life. And that is precious to us.

What you fail to [admit you] understand is that whether you allow female people to keep our original name "woman" and the rights and protectaions and language and history of female people that goes with that name, female people still exist.

So the real question is not "what set of social attributes do you feel is the correct set to call "'woman'?", it is "Why is it so important to you not just that there can be social spaces where trans 'women and female people who believe they share some commonality of organic whateveritis with them can be together, but that there must also not be any rights, supports, protections, language, politics, analysis, history, or even a name for the roughtl half of humanity who do share female biology and do have to deal with the physical and social consequences of that?"

Why do you hate female people so much that it is not enough to support trans people unless female people's political, social and cultural existence as a group in our own right is also utterly destroyed?