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.

Do you use any spaces for men?

i don't know how many times I can say this- I understand your logic. I consider it to be the logic of fundamentalism. Its outcome is a demand that there should be a total, absolute state sponsored prohibition of any women's organisation, association service, facility that includes/ welcomes trans women, ever. I consider this to be completely antithetical to British democracy (not to mention other aspects of law) and I do not believe for a second that it is what the SC intended in their judgement. They meant to allow for the (legal) separate treatment of women and trans women, not to mandate it in all circumstances;

Then you have not read and understood the judgement in full. It was very detailed and long considered and every conceivable type of application of the law was looked at. If a group, organisation, facilty or sevice is deemed to be for women/female people only then that is what female people have a right to expect, and which is why The WI and Girl Guides have now taken the decisions they have.

Do you understand the difference between allowing something and mandating something?

That might help you..

You can have an organisation for people who share a particular belief, so I don't see why you couldn't exclude people who don't believe in gender identity - so any man could join, but they could be excluded if they were found to have beliefs that don't align with the organisation.

As long it is assumed that men and women are equally likely to have a feminine gender identity, it is not excluding on the basis of sex.

The Supreme Court doesn't have an intention of its own; it's just there to interpret the everyday meaning of the words Parliament wrote in the law in question.

They meant to allow for the (legal) separate treatment of women and trans women, not to mandate it in all circumstances;

You may say that it's possible that Parliament intended this; but it's not what they wrote. To the extent that it has anything to do with democracy in the UK, its entirely open to Parliament to change the law. Don't blame the Supreme Court.

No, they definitely did mean that if you have a women's only space it can't include transwomen.

Definitely.

I disagree with you that it was the intention or the court to prohibit / outlaw the inclusion of trans women in any organisation/ association/ facility designated for women in any circumstance. They did not specify this. Eventually it will be tested in law when someone other than the WI is brave (and rich) enoigh.

A women's organisation cannot consent on behalf of all of its female members. If a woman joins expecting it to be single sex then that is what she has a right to expect. That some women don't mind sharing with men is not the point. They can form a new mixed sex organisation if they like.

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

Why are you asking me, when you say I can't speak for the community? But anyway: I'm not the right person to ask, because I'm not interested in joing any community IRL.

you can't claim to speak for the broader community.

Not sure why you point this out, since I never indeed claim to speak for others.

Do you support the total prohibition on any women's organisations that include / welcome trans women?

Yes.

And the exclusion of trans people from using services/ facilities according to their gender?

If it's either that or the elimination of all single-sex provisions for women, then yes. I refuse to obtain privileges on the back of other women.

This is a nonsense: the WI have been very public about their inclusion of trans women.

Have you read none of my posts explaining how to solve your problem?

I don't think there is any barrier to you having an organisation for people who believe they have a feminine gender identity, as long as you exclude both men and women who don't.

You will have to exclude all the women who don't identify with the concept of a feminine gender identity, but I don't understand why that would be an issue for you.

Why?

Why should Woman be a matter of identity rather than body type?

It's not like our bodies stop being female, or that being female stops having physical and social consequences, or that the history of what happened to female people because they were female somehow didn't happen.

No one is stopping anyone creating new words for the group of people who feel they have a thing in common that is definitely not actually being female but should for some reason be pretended to be the same thing.

No one is stopping a damn thing at all that trans women and women-who-think-trans-women-are-women may want to do together.

The only thing that we are saying no to is that that group cannot be under the name woman because that is the existing name of a marginalised group with its own stories, experiences and history.

Many female people find the projections of what "woman" means by genderists as offensive as your Chinese group would find someone turning up to join them with a 1970s comedy Chinese accent and the accompanying facial expression.

Because for all your "open to all people who identify / understand themselves to be Chinese, regardless of genetics or identity documents , or whether they look white or black (as many Chinese people may well do), or otherwise" I'm pretty sure your hypothetical Chinese ethnicity groups also have boundaries beyond which they will not stretch the meaning of Chinese.

Well you misunderstand and/or have not read the ruling then. If an organisation , facility or service is designated as being female only then that is what it must mean. A casual or informal women's group can include men if they want - but not a publicly designated and sign-posted women only one. Which is why the WI has said it will run these informal 'sisterhood' sessions for anyone who wants to attend.

Yes but the law means they’d need to include men.

But not now...because they know they are not in line with the law.

@puppymaddness as you believe that transmen are men do you think that they should be sent to a mens prison if convicted of a crime?

Yes, I do.

The law allows organisations to choose to be single-sex if they can demonstrate that doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The law then mandates that, if they have chosen to do so, only people of the same sex can be admitted.

Did you miss that the whole point of the court case was whether men with a GRC should be counted as women under the EA2010? And that the SC ruled that they should not?

So a women's only space cannot retain it's single sex status if it includes men with a GRC?

The only thing that we are saying no to is that that group cannot be under the name woman because that is the existing name of a marginalised group with its own stories, experiences and history.

And frankly, even if at some point women are no longer marginalised, there will never be a time when they can stop saying 'sorry, no, that doesn't work for us'. (See Invisible Women)

Why are you asking me, when you say I can't speak for the community? But anyway: I'm not the right person to ask, because I'm not interested in joing any community IRL.

I asked because I was pretty sure that you wouldn't be interested in joining the WI.

Not sure why you point this out, since I never indeed claim to speak for others.

I think it's very important to clarify that the overwhelming majority of trans men do not support the SC judgement, since trans men are so often used as props in arguments to justify the judgement.

If it's either that or the elimination of all single-sex provisions for women, then yes.

This is the black and white thinking that I cannot understand and find very disturbing . It's the logic of extremism. Why do you believe it must be all or nothing? Why can't we have some services that are reserved for women at birth and some organisations/ services that include both women and trans women?

Sigh.

The law already prohibited / outlawed the exclusion of trans women from any organisation/ association/ facility simply because of their sex, as it does for all of us. That has not changed.

All that has happened is that the exemptions to that prohition have been clarified to be based on sex alone.

The only time when trans women can be excluded because of their sex is if something is specifically women-only. And that is only allowed in exceptional circumstances where making something mised sex is significantly worse for women than not doing so.

Otherwise, they can fill their boots.

Why can't we have some services that are (as you call them) "single sex" and some services that include both women and trans women.

Because generally the law does not allow that type of sexism.

In my country where it's legal, I use the men's toilets, yes, mostly because I would rather a man be startled to see me if he takes me for a woman, than a woman be scared at the sight of my beard, even if only for a second.

If I went to the UK, I'd use the ladies - and again, my concern would be for the women who might be scared at my sight, not for myself.

Will you just stop with the hyperbole.

They aren't mandating it in all circumstances.

If you want to meet up with your women friends of all sexes knock yourself out no one is stopping you.

If you want to go to a group that is for marketed as 'women of all sexes' then great as long as you realise that's actually mixed sex.

What they are saying is if you do decide to make something women only or men only then the words woman and man have a legal definition that does not include the other sex.

So, you can't state you are women only and allow a man in (even the really womanly ones who totally pass and no one knows are actually men).