I wonder what the WI are going to announce on Woman's Hour in the next few minutes?

[nauticant]

Apparently it will be a matter of the greatest seriousness and sorrow.

I wonder whether perhaps people should stop feeding the puppy.

Do you think women should legally be allowed to hold a group without trans women in it? Any group?

trans men are important. They consider themselves to be men.

Trans men are affected and harmed by the consequences of the SC judgement along with trans women although it is easier for trans men to pass and continue to use male facilities / services as they wish. Please stop using trans men as a shield to justify your exclusion of trans women.

I don't think anything of you, you aren't that important.

Can women still be SAS members ?

Yes. I do. Where it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

It is my firm belief that this is what the SC judgement intended to provide
for- to allow exactly this.
Not to mandate a total prohibition on women's organisations ever being allowed to be inclusive/ welcoming of trans women. I do not believe they intended/ contemplated the latter for a second: because it's fundamentally antithetical to British democracy.

Very glad that the Sisterhood will provide a space for the the elderly trans women who are going to lose their support network in the WI.

and?

Transmen maintain their maternity rights as a result of the SC judgment.

If FWS had lost, transmen with grc would have had no maternity protection as they would be considered men for the EA

Transmen are women and if they give birth they are legally (as well as factually)the mother of that child.

I think race discrimination is always illegal, but a society can certainly restrict its membership on the basis of ethnic origin or nationality.

I doubt trans-identifying-women long to join the WI, - that's not the point, though.

If one of them did, they'd be legally entitled to join. Can you quote the part of the judgment you refer to, that may say otherwise?

It's not sisterhood though. These are elderly men.

What you are specifically seeking to prohibit/outlaw is any women's group that includes/welcomes transwomen

Well yes. I can't believe it's necessary to say this, but women's groups, by definition, aren't actually going to welcome men as members, are they?

The maternity rights of trans men have never been under any threat and it's not something that has been of concern to that community.

Groups open to general membership have to have clear rationale or aim to justify discrimination aginst a protected group.

What would be the rationale for discriminating against men who weren't trans in joining 'Sisterly Souls'?

It's for people who...what??
Explain the rationale for discrimmating against men who aren'tt transwomen who want to join because they also like jam and knitting?
There isn't one, that's why you can't do it.

You can't discriminate just because you want to. That seems to be Puppys issue.
Just because we want to isn't a lega; argument.

In reality the majority probably wouldn't want to. But some might. And as it's the WI and not a rape crisis centre I don't think they'd be able to use the fact that they'd grown a beard and looked like a man to exclude them.

I think the scope to exclude some transmen based on their presentation was more geared towards the possible upset and stress caused to some woman who was trying to talk about her sexual assault in a rape crisis centre in front of someone who appeared to be a man.

I've really liked your posts on this thread, but this one is great! The sad thing for me is that TIM just won't discuss women's issues like restrictions in Afghanistan or sexual assaults or childcare etc etc. They genuinely dont give a stuff about real women's lives. And their (male) lack of honesty about that makes it very hard to support their entitled views. But you are so right if this male-led movement had been honest from the start how different this all would look. AND I am not wanting to read the weird word waffle salad rubbish this poster has been posting all day. Just random words in a random order.

How would they have been able to claim those rights if they were legally men? Men don't have maternity rights.

The situation about transmen and maternity rights was discussed in the SC judgment - you should read the judgment

trans men are important. They consider themselves to be men.

I don't. I'm a woman. I have XX chromosomes in every one of my cells. I have a vagina and a uterus and a vulva. I had to have my breasts removed so now I have the scars. I'm a mother who gave birth. I have had a female socialisation. I know nothing about what it's like to grow up as a boy and to become a man.

There's exactly nothing about me that's naturally male. I'm a woman who feels she's a man, but that doesn't make me male in any way.

And I'm not the only trans man thinking that way.

I understand the point you're making. That the law appears to be draconian in telling women and TW they are not permitted to meet together.
Which when framed that way appears an overstep.
However what the law is actually saying is that such a group could not exclude men. Which is a protection of the rights of men from discrimination, rather than a removal of the rights of trans people.
I also understand that in order to stay within the law, the WI have made a choice that does exclude TW so from whichever way we examine the law, the outcome for TW is the same, so to draw the distinction might appear semantic.
However, this was not the WIs only choice. They could have chosen to continue to accept TW and also men, but they prioritised the exclusion of men over their desire to be inclusive of TW.
This is going to happen on repeat now as more and more agencies have to decide whether to open their doors to all males in order to include TW. Because that is their choice under law.
Faced with a choice between excluding males, including TW, or women losing spaces away from males, would you really think the first the least harmful option to the fewest?
Because I understand you believe TWAW, but the law does not and the law is where we are.

I think you are confused about the difference between the rules for services and organisations.

There is no legal requirement to demonstrate a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' for a club to be single sex. This was specially discussed in court, using the example of a lesbian walking group.

The thing that you are complaining about is the law that prevents sex discrimination. Any organisation can completely exclude men or women. What they can't do is have different membership conditions for men and women.

Stating biological fact that transmen are women is not using those women as a shield to justify excluding men.

Yes, it's a Schedule 3 thing: doesn't apply to Schedule 16.

Good luck with that.

I wonder if the community is under the mistaken impression that women only need to be protected from discrimination when they are actually pregnant?

So you consider yourself to be a trans man but not a man?

I didn't say anything about trans men considering themselves to be "naturally male", that's not something I would say. People use words in different ways. But the fundamental aspect of what makes a trans man a man is that they see themselves as being/ feel themself to be a man.

Do you consider yourself to be a trans man and do you support the consequences of the SC judgement and the prohibition on women's organisations that include trans women and men's organisations that include trans men? If so, you are wildly out of step with the majority of your community.