A call to all wims to challenge registered charities who claim to be women’s services who include “transwomen”

[Hedgehogforshort]

Inspired by a post about Nottinghams Women’s Centre being trans inclusive, I think it is time we did something. Like pull the ruddy rug on them.

I don’t think it will need the extensive work of the NHS data thread.

There are hundreds of alleged women’s only services who are registered charities. They mostly have a governing document describing themselves as for women only but do not mention “transwomen” in their objects, but do in unlawful policy documents.

All charities have a beneficiary group, which they cannot stray from.

Also if they change their objectives to be “inclusive’”IMHO” the funds they hold on behalf of the original beneficiaries, must be handed back or ring fenced, which is why some of the major charities have conceded, ergo the WI and GG.

My idea is that we target our own localities and make a complaint to the charity commission, about the charity we are a potential beneficiary of.

what do you all think? Happy to coordinate this though i may need @knottyauty

meanwhile i am off to look at a few national bodies

Yeah, despite being very much against the inclusion of "transwomen", I'm not sure trying to "bring down" women's centres that do so much on the ground to help vulnerable women - many of them illiterate, without reliable computer access, or not native English speakers, and so naturally excluded from this discussion - is a noble or worthy goal. Seems like more of an own goal - a bit cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Despite its ideological posturing and media spiel about inclusion, the reality is that almost every single person that Nottingham Women's Centre welcomes and helps is a real XX woman. I've seen maybe ONE transwoman there in eight years of regular volunteering and attendance at events and groups. They do a lot of good and real feminist work - supporting women, empowering women, sheltering women, educating women - on the ground.

So, who's going to help all the women and girls that use and rely on these services if they're put out of commission? Are we just going to wait for these non-inclusive, properly feminist centres to be set up in their place, bearing in mind that many were the fruits of a very grassroots and productive women's lib movement that doesn't exist anymore? The women on Mumsnet, great as they are, are certainly no replacement for the grassroots activists of the 70s. Who's going to be the next Erin Pizzey?

Why is Nottingham Women's Centre open to men? Was any consideration given to the women using the centre at the same time the men were present? Or is there more than one type of woman in their eyes, and the xx ones should shut up and budge up?

Well given some of the reactions on here , those letters are worth writing

I really do not understand why some posters have concluded that I want to “bring down” “close” or otherwise harm agencies in the charity sector who were founded to serve biological women.

My intention is to locate agencies who are not compliant with the law for charities who claim to be for women only., but are not.

And look at ways to insist that they should comply, or change the purpose of their charity to people, or men and women and stop fibbing.

for those who are hard of reading the priority is to look at services provided for victims of SV and DV, and I can tell you negative posters with a good degree of certainty that, having developed and built up services for Thirty some years for women by women, who have experienced SV/ DVA.

That service users do not want any chance that they might come across a man, particularly one in a dress.

@Allisnotlost1 "And if you’re going to use ChatGPT (nothing wrong with it as a starting point) edit the letter so it’s not so obvious." Of course we'll fucking edit the ChatGPT letter. I said as much above, and that everything spewed out by CGPT has to be checked/double checked. It just saves some work by providing a starting point.

Aren't these "women's" charities leaving themselves wide open to being sued by including men. If there's any risk of being shut down it seems entirely self inflicted. Some disgruntled 'cis' man (perhaps with an axe to grind because they helped his ex escape him) is refused access to their facilities when they'd throw the doors open if that same man claimed to have a trans-identity. Pretty straightforward case for discrimination.

Any Charity whose Equality and Diverity has the Protected Characteristics wrong is also worth calling out.

This is the best practice example they should all look like
https://www.acas.org.uk/equality-policy-template

I seem to recall it was a 'cis' man who challenged his exclusion by the Women's Institute that may have resulted in it announcing trans-identifying-men were, tragically, no longer allowed to join.

Sure. They're being incredibly stupid and pig-headed. That goes without saying. But the people who will suffer the most are the women who use and rely on their services.

How does the exclusion of a handful of male transvestites result in an entire service being unable to help women?

If legal action results in the service shutting down, then that is the natural consequence.

WTF are you on about we are scoping non compliant services legal action is not on the agenda

From what I have gathered, your plan is to complain to the Charity Commission to try to get the funding of offending women's charities withdrawn (which might mean their shutting down if they are not willing or able to adjust), and to take legal action against the Commission itself if they don't enforce this, which could be viewed as indirect legal action against the charities.

You have gathered incorrectly. There was a discussion about whether to write to the service directly, a template has been created to ask the charity to become compliant. Or wether to complain to the Charity Commission to require legal compliance, of identified charities but nothing has been decided.
So you are just making flying leaps, which is tiresome, impugning bad faith where there is none.

The charities should therefore course correct and get back to helping the women they were set up to help. They could possibly lend their expertise to one of the plethora of trans organisations. It'd be nice to see one of them actually do something to directly help TiM rather than continue to try to shoehorn them into services that are set up to aid women.

I don't see this thread trying to get women's organisations shut down. By reminding them that they need to comply with their charitable objectives they will be able to avoid the risk of being sued and wasting their funds that are sorely needed elsewhere helping women.

Surely it's not beyond tras to build something for their own communities? Are some posters really suggesting all they can do is glom onto others good work or destroy what they can't take over?

@WTFRSPB well said

was occupied babysitting today will look at a few more tomorrow if i am not dragged away

Surely it's not beyond tras to build something for their own communities?

Is there even a 'community' there? I don't think so. Some creepy blokes and some desperately unhappy young women does not a community make. And that is 95% of it, as far as I can see.

👏

By 'community' I think I mean a group of disparate people with little in common except an unhealthy, and mostly undeserved, sense of grievance and victimisation.

I really do not understand why some posters have concluded that I want to “bring down” “close” or otherwise harm agencies in the charity sector who were founded to serve biological women.

No one has really concluded that, this straw man drama is entirely to cover the real gripe which is women being permitted single sex facilities, resources and services alongside provisions for everyone else. Because that part would be indefensible.

All power to you OP, really useful thread.

Spoken like a male with Male Privilege. Females supporting organisations that support womens hard won sex based rights is NOT 'right wing nut job'.

In fact, tearing womens hard won rights away to benefit males is the right wing position.

"or the total.lack of empathy towards women who are different."

Males are not women. It's ironic you talk about empathy since you don't seem to have any for the female sex.

"because you can't handle the reality that some users might be trans?"

Er, no! It's because some of the womens charity users may be MALE.

I agree with the concept that groups that say they are women's groups need to be honest about what they mean when they advertise as being for women. If you remember these were the grounds on which Roz Adams won her court case. Not that she was against porviding services to TW but she was against lying to potential women service user if a support session was not going to be women only based on sex..

This is the existing guidance to funded women's groupd by the WRC which respresents women's groups. In all instances be honest.

ie many women's groups have women only services but also provide trans services along side (have never seen the number of TW users any of these services have)

And to be boringly practical as others have said, if to get funding for women only services they have to play lip service to also provide services for TW, most women's services will do that. Because in the end to able to provide services to women is their priority. And if that can be achieve by also putting on the odd session for TW they will do that.

I wonder if you have any idea how many women's services have lost their funding in the last few years. Nothing what so ever to do with TW but because the bean counters in local councils etc., do not think the cost of specialised services are justified in an era of cuts. Just try searching for the number of refuges that have been closedin the past 12 months because of funding cuts. Because councils think suvivors of domestic violence can after all get a bed space at a mixed hostel, which will include men and not have any support workers.

So in the nicest possible way I am not sure groups struggling to survive are going to respond to getting letters from individual women saying I dont think you should, as a minor aspect of your service, have something for trans women.

At this point in time, what is far worse are those organisations such as Edinburgh RCC and Survivors Network Brighton who deliberately lie to women by not revealing they are trans inclusive. ie that TW are not offered a separate service but are included in the "women only" services. ie the groups who have been Stonewalled and are deliberately lying.

Also many groups that you want to target, ie women service providers, are parts of federations such as Women's Aid England and they jointly decide policy. So if you want to target anyone you should find the federation or network contacts for which ever types of women's group you want to influence.

Or ask the Women's Resource Centre, who supposedly provide advice and guidance to women's groups why they aren't telling women's groups to be clear that if their aims and objectives for women, then they must either only provide services to women or change their aims and objectives.

WRC has already done a guidance for women's groups post the Supreme Court ruling. Most women's groups will follow that, unless they have been Stonewalled.

See https://www.wrc.org.uk/blog/sex-as-biological-and-the-impacts-on-the-womens-sector

And also the video of the training that followed this

There have already been threads about these but posted here for convenience.

If WRC was to have a more overt stand about being honest about whether a women's group really does mean women as a biological sex, or whether they mean women as a gender identity, this would probably have more impact.

Fair points @IwantToRetire and helpful info, thank you.

One thing though, by definition we don’t actually always know which charities are deliberately lying. I know of some that have always said “woman only”, except they included men with trans ID.

They may now (post SC ruling) have changed their underlying practices and be female only, but often that is not on their website and they do not respond to email queries on this topic (presumably as they don’t want to put it in writing out of fear of annoying the men).

Furthemore, they are still rife with gender ideology language like “cis” and gender identities and are unwelcoming to those who do not hold a belief in gender identity ideology.