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.

Had the SC judgement gone the other way transmen would have lost their maternity rights as they would have then been, for all purposes, men. And men don't have maternity rights.

TRAs have focused on infiltrating every single women's only group. Including breastfeeding groups ffs.

Perhaps if they hadn't, there wouldn't have been the pushback.

And what?

Of course! If I were a man, I couldn't be a trans man, could I?

That's what "trans" means: that I'm not a man but I want to live like one as much as possible anyway.

You edited your post while I was replying...

Yes, I know I'm out of step with "the community". That doesn't mean I'm wrong and the community is right. The community cannot even properly define what a man and a woman are, so really...

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

There is no reason to exclude them. The expectation is that only like minded men will join as the group is for people who believe in gender identity.

In the 10+ years the Equality Act has been law was one trans man denied maternity protection?

In what ways do you live as a man?

I didn't understand this sorry.

What I believe the court intended was to allow for the separate treatment of (cis) women and trans women because of biological differences. Not to mandate it.

It's not mandated as organisations can choose to be mixed sex

The small numbers of trans women who give birth mean that it's impossible to make a general statement about their treatment, but that doesn't mean that they don't need clear rights.

Hi seethlaw - I remember chatting to you on another thread (with a different name). Always good to hear from your POV

I think some women probaly view trans identified men in the same way as they view gay men, and are probably flattered by having male attention.

The usual ones: male name, testosterone, double mastectomy, growing a beard... Just, trying to present as a man as much as possible. A very average trans man, really.

Why?

The law does not stop women and trans women meeting and socialising in groups, it just means they cannot use the law to call themselves a women only group, or use the law to exclude men who are not trans.

It's just clarifed the language around what a womens group which has menership criteria means. It means females and not males.

You can still socialise meet and commune with whoever you want.

The alternatibe seems to be: membership groups can define words for proteced groups however they want and exclude whoever they want.
What could go wrong...??

If you allow for separate treatment on the basis of biological difference (eg a women's only group) you can't then also admit a specific group of men, because then you don't qualify for the separate treatment on the basis of biological difference.

The biological difference you refer to is the one that distnguishes males from females, men from women...and that is Sex. Being female is not a quirk of personality.

I agree.

But for the last 10+ years there has been immense confusion, so yes a pregnant 'man' called Dave was going to get maternity protection.

But the SC judgement was to be the final word on the situation.

Had the SC ruled the other way then legally they would not have been entitled to maternity protection and pregnant Dave wouldn't be covered if his boss sacked him for being pregnant.

I'm not a man but I want to live like one as much as possible anyway.

So if you want to live like a man as much as possible, would you be very concerned with joining the WI?

Yes, I know I'm out of step with "the community". That doesn't mean I'm wrong and the community is right.

Absolutely. But you can't claim to speak for the broader community. Thanks for acknowledging you are out of step.

Ultimately , people describe their experiences in different ways and that makes total sense:

The salient point is- however we use words or understand sex/ gender- Do you support the total prohibition on any women's organisations that include /
welcome trans women? And the exclusion of trans people from using services/ facilities according to their gender?

Thtas the expectation but legally it will have to be a mixed sex organistaion won't it? Any man could join?

Not as far as I know.

And why would they have been when the Equality Act recognises that a women who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment by virtue of proposing to undergo, or actually having undergone, a process for the purpose of changing physiological "or other attributes of sex" (no, me neither) remains a woman for the purposes of the Act?

"Because it is notable, and revealing, than neither you nor the WI seem to have ever considered trans-identifying-women (so-called 'transmen'). Trans-identifying women are legally entitled to join the WI, a women-only organisation, because they are biological women, and cannot be discriminated against by the WI."

My DH started a claim for sex discrimination against the WI back in May. It was (is? the case is still ongoing) a core part of their defence that their membership criterion is not based on sex.

DH and I totally agree with you that trans-identifying women can join the WI, but the WI argued otherwise. They explicitly said in their Defence:

"...women (as defined under the EqA) who choose to live as men are excluded by the Defendant’s membership rules"

Hi! I had to stay away from here because I got very depressed over the state of trans affairs in my country ("Hey, let's just make all the same mistakes other countries did before, even though those countries are now walking back on them because they have disastrous results!"), so I just blocked everything while I digested it all. I'm slowly getting back into it now.

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.

Great! On this you are aligned with the Equality Act and the majority of people on this board. A space/service can only be single-sex if it meets this criteria.

Not to mandate a total prohibition on women's organisations ever being allowed to be inclusive/ welcoming of trans women.

If an organisation lets in members of the opposite sex, it is no longer a single-sex space/service.

Yes, it's legal to have mixed-sex spaces/services. No, it's not legal to claim that they are single-sex.

I do not believe they intended/ contemplated the latter for a second: because it's fundamentally antithetical to British democracy.

This makes no sense. You are now no longer in agreement with the first two sentences in your comment, because you're now saying that it's fundamentally antithetical to British democracy to have single-sex spaces.

What the Supreme Court ruled was that the common, everyday usage of the word 'woman' related to biological sex, and that is the understanding which formed the foundation of the Equalities act when it came to the protected categories of Sex and Sexual Orientation. Gender -Re-assignment as a protected category does not over-rule the biological meaning and application of the category of 'Sex' .