RSPB women only walks including men

[SirChenjins]

I emailed them to complain that their women only walks were nothing of the sort (I used my bigger words of course), and got the following standard guff back. Any ideas re how I should respond?

We are aware of the Supreme Court ruling and like many organisations, we are awaiting the updated Code of Practice and formal guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Once published, we will take time to review the Code and formal guidance carefully, ensuring we fully understand its implications for our charitable activities.

Our goal is always to ensure that everyone feels welcome, included and safe when engaging with nature and our work.

Indeed - or advertise a walk for minority ethnic groups and open it up to white people, or a walk for people with ND conditions and open it up to anyone.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Shocking breaking news! Female people think female people are important and worth supporting!

Meanwhile on the Man's News Desk, man who doesn't get it blames women for his own lack of insight. Again.

The amount of organisations who are deliberately breaking the law just to get to appease some men is staggering. It's not just an oversight. It's deliberately flouting the law.

How often are organisations that are men only are including trans men? There never seems to be a push for that.

So you can neither acknowledge anything you're reading here, nor meet any of those points other than denial and gaslighting.

Which is par for the course for this entire ideology and why the answer cannot be reasonable discussion, or compromise of any kind any more, it just has to be No.

Apparently nothing can be understood, so just No.

Have you contacted them yet to give them the "heads up" about mean mumsnetters, Chris? 😁
That's your usual MO, right?

But the RSPB is not making the offering to all people. It's offering it only to female people. The RSPB is allowed to do this by the Equality Act 2010.

Men, even those that like to pretend they're women, are still male. Trans women, even those with a GRC, are men; their sex will always be male. The Equality Act is wholly clear on this.

Trans women cannot push or bully their way into a service offered as women-only. Because it would then be a mixed-sex service, and other men should also be allowed in.

The law states that trans women are men, so the RSPB MUST exclude them from walks labelled as women-only. Charities must obey the law, and their own guiding principles and remit.

The RSPB's core objectives are protecting wild birds, the birds' habitats, and biodiversity more widely. It is being both craven and foolish to put its funding and public support at risk for men who wish to perform their sexual fetish in public.

This odd and self-destructive behaviour is almost certainly being driven by the "Starlings", the RSPB's LGBTQIA+ Staff Network.

The RSPB has apparently learned nothing from the recent, very public, humiliation of the National Library of Scotland for its shabby, rotten treatment of the truly excellent 'The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht'. Beccy Speight, the current RSPB Chief Executive, would benefit both from reading this book and from reading the associated press coverage for the spineless Amina Shah.

Staff Networks cannot be allowed to bully and blackmail their organisation into breaking the law. This is a very important principle, and I'd happily make a contribution for bringing a court case against the RSPB. We would all then certainly learn more about the 'Starlings' contribution to this troubling behaviour during the testimonies.

Bring it on.

Well you blokes can go on a walk with other blokes then.

Why would you be interested in joining a group specifically advertised for women?

What’s your interest?

The wildlife charity is trolling women, Chris, so, amazingly, some women are pissed off.

You just don't get it. You're never going to get it, because you don't want to.

Do any of you lot ever confront actual men's crimes against women? Because your obsession with trans folk is spectacularly telling. Cis men are the fucking problem. Will you address that? Nah, cos you're happy to go along with easy cop out bullshit. Your husband is vastly more likely to be an abuser than a random in the street. Keep propping up the patriarchy mind, it's what KJK and JK Fash want. Abortion rights are next, tokens get spent.

Cis men are the fucking problem.

Fixed that for you.

"transwomen" are men.

Hi there.

You do understand that transwomen are men, yes?

Would that be the men who claim they are women and are in jail for sex based crimes they've committed at a far higher rate proportionally than the men who don't claim they're women? Those men?

Sigh.

One of our protections against male violence and male entitlement is female only social spaces.

Transwomen are the only male people who some groups in society want to give a pass into these famale only spaces, and therefore they are the only male people we complain about in the context of female-only spaces.

HTH

The walk isn't free. You have to pay the RSPB for the privilege of allowing them to insult you.

‘actual men’

trans women - also actual men

Ministry of Justice data. The number of men claiming to be women who are imprisoned for crimes of sexual assault and rape is way higher proportionately than for the male prison population as a whole.

Nice argument. Your husband might assault you so let’s make it easier for other men with bad intentions to share your spaces where you’re vulnerable.

Guess what? A woman who’s been abused by somebody she trusted sure as hell isn’t going to trust some random man who expects her to share her space with him.

So yeah, women are having to address the problem of male violence, ‘Cis’ ‘actual’ and transwomen - all male. Here’s a thought, maybe the wife beater is also a ‘trans folk’. But hey, let’s let him in because he’s special and not a nasty old Cis man (spoiler - he is just a common or garden man).

RSPB will likely rename the group to be mixed sex.

The “minority religion” angle doesn’t cut water as the presence of other women in a public group activity with unrelated men means it is not haram/yichud. Otherwise no Muslim/Orthodox Jewish mum would ever do the school run as there’s always a few Dads at the school gates.

Our goal is always to ensure that everyone feels welcome, sounds like a good code of ethics.

Shame they’re not following it.

In this context it’s nearly always double speak, meaning we’ll welcome men into spaces previously reserved for women so as to centre the men. Only one group feels welcome.

You are absolutely right. Men indeed are the fucking problem. A huge proportion of men are dangerous to women.

However, men make up 49% of the population. If, as a woman, I wish to function in society and be able to leave my house and not be constantly fearful I have to find a way of identifying those men that are the most risky. That doesn’t mean that I am not aware that every man could be a danger. I just want to know which men are most likely so I can be more on my guard with them.

DBS checks are a good thing from that point of view. Only excludes those who have been caught but at least it excludes them. My teenage daughter has a male coach for her sport that has been assigned by the sport. One of the reasons I am (cautiously) comfortable with letting her build a relationship with this 40-something man is that I know that his past has been checked pretty thoroughly. Not completely comfortable. But cautiously comfortable.

And there is one group of men who wish to force themselves into women’s spaces. Some of them also seem to react extremely violently when denied this. In addition statistics show that this group is many times more likely than the average man to be imprisoned for a violent or sexual crime.

That doesn’t mean that all of them are a risk. Many of that group of men are undoubtedly truly lovely people. But they are still a much higher risk than the average man.

In addition even if they are lovely men I still don’t want to be forced to get changed in front of them. I know loads of lovely men. I don’t want to get changed in front of any of them. Luckily they do not seem to want to watch me get changed either and definitely do not seem to want to force me to be in a position where they get to watch me get changed.

Piffle.

The BBC news currently has a story about a woman finding a camera in a toilet she'd just used. It was found to be streaming live to the Internet. I don't know the gender identity of the person who fitted the camera or of the folk who watched a live close up of this woman's vulva but I'm 100% certain they were all men.

Trans women are 'actual men'. As men they are significantly physically stronger than virtually all women. And most are still very attached to their penis and testicles

Trans women are at least as likely as other men, on average, to commit violent crimes, including rape, sexual assault, flashing and voyeurism. Trans women who 'present' as women for erotic purposes are more dangerous than the average man. Because they're aroused due to performing their sexual fetish in public.

Allowing trans women to access women and girls in vulnerable spaces such as changing rooms and toilets, is very foolish and dangerous. Why do TRAs support placing women and girls at risk? Because Trans Rights is, at its core, Men's Rights sexual-fetish based activism.

We care about men's violent crimes against women and girls. Men's crimes include trans women's crimes. The Equality Act 2010 is wholly clear that 'Trans Women are Men'. Hormones, surgery and a certificate cannot change a man into a woman. Trans women who commit crimes MUST be placed in a men's prison, never a women's facility. Because trans women are all men, both legally and as a verifiable scientific fact.

Abortion rights are not 'next'. Trans Rights are primarily about what (some) men want, never women. Malta is regularly ranked as the top country globally for supporting trans rights, yet abortion remains banned. Malta happily overcomes its strong Catholic influences for its men's benefit, but not its women's. Trans Rights and Women's Rights are in opposition, they're not positively linked.

Finally, threatening to take valued things away from women if they don't comply with your demands is quintessential toxic masculinity.

Proving yet again that trans women are, and always will be, men.

"I don't have access to a car and public transport would take hours. A male friend would be willing to drive me. It wouldn't be practicable for him to drive home, then back to collect me and he doesn't want to hang round by himself. "

"So, just to clarify, my male friend can attend if he is willing to identify as a woman for the duration of the event?"

It would be interesting to see their reply if you were to ask if he could join just as himself, without identifying as a woman - if not, get them to explain their reasons for why not.