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.

I honestly think that "my husband" or a random man in the street is LESS likely to be an abuser of women than a man who goes to the effort of making himself look like a woman (hormones, various surgeries) in order to try to make people think he is a woman.

The potential of a man disguising himself as a woman then entering women's only spaces is frightening. "My husband" and the man on the street understand this.

It was never about toilets

The only difference between ‘cis’ men and trans ‘women’ is that trans-identifying men are more likely than any other men to try to invade women’s spaces. Vastly more likely. Pretty much 100% of them.

It makes my blood boil to imagine the sanctimonious little twits at the RSPB typing away about inclusivity and welcoming, when they’re essentially outlining how they’re breaking the law, centring men and telling women to shove over & be quiet.

Then a poster like Savage Tomato arrives to amaze us with his stunning tone deaf ignorance, and a nice little weekend scold.

They’re all cowards, liars and a danger to women

The stats certainly bear that out.

What’s the point of a ‘woman only’ walk if men are allowed? It’s so bloody pointless😂. Either don’t bother, or stick to the brief of woman only. And no a bloke claiming to be a woman does not make him a woman, just a bloke in a frock wearing makeup (because of course all women wear frocks and makeup and have long hair🤦‍♀️).

I hope no women go, then the men who turn up will be the only people there.

Do any of you lot ever confront actual men's crimes against women?

a cursory glance will show you that women here are indeed very bothered about male
violence

TW are men

and "the fash" makes you sound like Rik from the Young Ones

your obsession with trans folk is spectacularly telling

Er, yes - it tells us that trans rights are impinging on women's rights. This is kind of obvious! It goes against basic common sense to overlook this and assume some kind of phobia as the more likely explanation! Apply some logic...

• If previously women-only activities were now "inclusive" of older men while still being called "women-only", we'd be protesting that. It wouldn't mean we're sexist and ageist.
• If previously women-only activities were now "inclusive" of gay men while still being called "women-only", we'd be protesting that. It wouldn't mean we're homophobic.
• If previously women-only activities were now "inclusive" of Asian men while still being called "women-only", we'd be protesting that. It wouldn't mean we're racist.
• If previously women-only activities were now "inclusive" of blind men while still being called "women-only", we'd be protesting that. It wouldn't mean we're ableist.

This isn't what's happening, though. What is happening is that previously women-only activities are now "inclusive" of trans-identifying men while still being called "women-only". So we're protesting that. It doesn't mean we're transphobic.

The only possible argument you can make for transphobia is that "but while none of the above hypothetical groups are women, trans-identifying men are." But this is also a clear failure of logic, because saying this simply proves our case: it demonstrates that by accepting transwomen as women, women are left with no way or right to distinguish themselves as a distinct demographic. This is wrong. We don't ask that transwomen lose this right. Why would you demand that women do? Only one of these two approaches really denies the existence and agency of another group in a politically meaningful and absolutist way - could be seen to be "phobic". It's not our side of the debate.

TLDR: TW believe they're women. We don't. Both beliefs are arguably valid, but only one leaves the other group with no name or identity of their own. This, to me, is the litmus test for where the phobia/hate/-ism etc. truly lies.

PS I personally don't see their belief that they're women as valid, for the aforementioned reason, ofc. It feels utterly unethical to take another group's name. And when you consider that the group whose name has been taken has had the vote for less than a hundred years and enjoyed only a few decades of not being "owned" by their male partner (marital rape, abolished in the UK in the late '90s), it becomes quite breathtaking. This weirdly irrational conviction that women's wish to name, distinguish and advocate for themselves stems from some kind of phobia or bigotry rather than simply reflecting our own needs is further evidence of our continued invisibility/devaluation in society.

Historically subsumed into our husbands, constantly absorbed by the male default (read "Invisible Women")... and now our claim to even a single word of our own to argue we deserve recognition is reframed as bigotry. Plus ça change, eh?

Feeling it a bit right now. Last week, I had a tour of a leisure centre and, on seeing the placement of the women's sauna - an isolated little corner through a series of doors - felt I'd no choice but to bite the bullet and ask, "Yes, but what does women only mean?" And then to double-check again, more explicitly, because the India Willoughbys and Dr Uptons of the world won't even allow us the word "female".

Put simply - as I felt absurdly compelled to explain to the guy giving me the tour - what may be going on in someone else's head has no bearing on my own perception of reality or experience of my surroundings.

That guy agreed (he agreed "tellingly" emphatically, in fact).

But who'd have thought that we'd reach a point where the very words that women need to assert their legal rights have been taken from them. And where they're wary even of of asserting this right anyway. And where, in order to do so, they need to effectively justify this, by reminding the listener that, like males, females, too, have a subjective experience of the world, that this is equally valid to that of males, and that if this perception happens to differ to that of a male, that is not automatically a moral failing - bigotry - on the female's part.

It really is akin to that the old sharia chestnut of "the word of two women equating to that of one man" being writ surreally large in western society.

It's genuinely frightening.

Correction to middle post above: marital rape abolished early '90s.

Here endeth the rant.

Maybe. 😁

I was thinking about my male friend who might accompany me on this 'women' only walk. He literally has to do nothing to 'identify as', it's up to all the other people, probably mostly actual women, there to see this obvious man and, denying the evidence of their eyes and ears, pretend he's as much a woman as they are.

Yes. And I find the expectation that women subjugate their own perception of reality - their very understanding of what they are - to males utterly offensive.

As long as what was being asked of me was reasonable - a polite fiction in limited contexts - I obliged.

But now?!

And right there is another piece of evidence for the more logically-minded that this isn't about phobia. I wasn't remotely interested in or concerned by this, until it became apparent what this movement was demanding I sacrifice in its name.

Men in dresses or men dressed as men?

And you could add that finding men present on a walk advertised as for women does not make you feel included or safe.

Yep, we are going to pressure every organisation that misuses the word woman, again and again and again until we get our word back. We don't care if it is the kindest, sweetest, softest, tree-huggingiest, animal-cuddlingiest charity on the planet. It is in our sights until it desists.

My DH is a birdwatcher, let's call him Paul for a moment.

I was reading this thread to him. "You could call yourself Paula, put on all your usual birdwatching gear (think Bill Oddie crossed with a male soldier in camouflage) and turn up to a women's walk."

He was very clear that it would be totally unacceptable, that women need their own spaces and that men, however they choose to dress or name themselves, have no business being there. Fortunately he does not subscribe to the RSPB so he doesn't need to spend time unsubscribing.

I doubt I was deleted for pointing out that the RSPB is promoting this as a women’s walk, not a people’s walk.

I doubt I was deleted for pointing out that the RSPB is not inviting men in general to go on this women’s walk.

I doubt I was deleted for pointing out that the RSPB appears to be welcoming men with a specific performative fetish on this women’s walk.

The phrase I suspect I was deleted for seemed to me a completely reasonable phrase, under the circumstances. But we are not permitted to cast nasturtiums at certain posters, no matter how many hints those posters give us. Ho hum. Sacred caste status continues, I see.

The days of a ‘completely reasonable phrase’ are over.

Unless of course it’s an inverted truth or an outright lie and it centres a certain group.

The minute ‘woman’ became the biggest puzzle known to man (pun intended) all bets were off.

Exactly what I was thinking!
If I have signed up for "women only" I'd be upset and feel deceived/excluded to discover it wasn't that - advertising standards surely apply here too?

Irritating the double standards here - when a much less well funded animal refuge (Carrot Cottage?) was targetted last year by TRAs who tried to have it shut down... Those TRAs very much didn't have anything else better to do - and fortunately their efforts spectacularly backfired and donations spiked as a result of their hatred and bigotry against women.

That's the one!

https://britbrief.co.uk/politics/liberties/rabbit-rescue-targeted-in-trans-activist-feud.html

It's very like the appalling social media wars about knitting, though I honestly can't remember what that was triggered by.

Under the Events terms and conditions, it states the following.

“These terms and conditions shall be governed by English law and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. “

Maybe worth stating this in your emails.