Work Women's Network still open to everyone who identifies as a woman

[Polynerd]

I work for a large organisation that has various 'diversity groups' including lgbtq+, disability, ethnicity etc. One is the Women's Network, but when I click through to the group's page it says it is for anyone who identifies as a woman. Are they actually allowed to do this, given recent rulings/guidance? Should I flag to my employer? I'm pretty nervous to do so, sadly.

No they aren't, if they want to keep the name woman then they need to ditch all the men. If they want to keep the men then they need to stop calling themselves a woman network.

If you are unsure about raising it could you do so anonymously at 1st?

No it's false advertising, if it's calling itself a women's network it should only allow women as members, women isn't something you can identify as.

If you do complain they will have to change the name if they continue to allow anyone but women in, which will at least stop them from flying a false flag, which I believe is important.
The more the Gender Idiots get away with using women to refer to anyone but women, the more devalued the word women becomes, which is what they want.
So I hope you do complain, but it is difficult to do in your workplace, perhaps you could send a confidential email to your HR department, or do you have a People Person Department.

Just a genuine question; where should trans women go then? Should there be a network for trans women?

Because as gender critical as we want to be (and I certainly am), they do exist, and they're not exactly not discriminated against.

They should call it a women and transwomen network.

Presumably to the LGBTQ+ network.

They are not women, and their problems in the workplace are not the same as women’s work related problems.

I don't agree with that because you only need one man in a group of women and he dominates that group whether he calls himself a man or a woman. There is no point having a group for women if it's dominated by men.

If men who identify as transwomen want to set up their own groups they should of course be allowed to do so. Asking women where should they go is the wrong target. Ask men. They are men, they are not women's problem to solve.

well yes, and that will mean that women lose rights again.

But I would rather things were called what they actually are at the present time so that it is made perfectly clear that there is a difference between women and transwomen.

Obviously the best solution would be a separate group.

Oh I see what you mean yes, if they won't allow women to have their own group then they should at least acknowledge that by saying it's for women and transwomen.

That also makes it very clear to everyone that women aren't allowed to have their own spaces without men.

That clarity is helpful I agree.

And then you could start a “female women only” group, and those women who want a female only space can use that, and women who want to centre men’s problems can join the “women and trans women” group.

And everyone will be happy!

To the LGBTQ+ network - that's why it's there for

they may be discrimated against for being trans

it's not because they're women because they're not

In law, as long as they're not professing to offer a single sex space, they can call their network what they like and admit who they like. They can even include trans women while excluding cis men provided cis men have an equivalent network that they can join as per GLP Vs EHRC.

I guess the other question is, does it matter? This isn't a space where anyone is getting changed, accessing healthcare, using the toilet, or anything else that would make them particularly vulnerable or create a need for privacy. It's essentially just a social and networking group. Is it really that important to exclude trans women from absolutely everything? At a certain point isn't it actually just about reviling in exclusion rather than actually protecting anyone?

No the need for privacy isn't there agreed, but as @ScreamingBeans said, men do tend to dominate a group and, if transwomen are admitted you might as well just have a group for everyone.

Women in the workplace face specific challenges and have specific needs, not shared with transwomen.

Genuinely unsure what the law is on this.

This is what I thought the position was but not a lawyer and others on this thread seem to disagree.

Yes it matters. This particular diversity group is intended to represent women and the specific issues that we may have in the workplace. What issues do we share with a self selecting group of men that we don’t share with other men?

@Polynerd If they are going to call it "Women's Network" then it should be for women, and not include any men. I'm not sure how far you'd get with a claim against your employer if they are also allowing men who think they are women. But, it might be worth a shot.

The issue is that if you raise it with your employer, as it's not a required part of work, they could just change the name to "Network at Work" or something, and admit everyone. Then, of course, you could set up one just for female employees, which should be lawful, but see the recent SEEN tribunal case (Tempest/DEFRA). Be aware that there might be men who will try to disrupt and/or disband a female-only group, but I'm sure you know this by now,

To my mind, first and foremost, the network needs to be clear about why it was set up, and what its aims are. If any of those things are about female-only issues or mentoring, etc., then they can't have a group that includes men if they want to improve things for female employees only. One man in that group nullifies their aims. And they shouldn't be calling themselves "for women" if they don't mean adult human females.

But they could just change the name.

IANAL

Sigh.

It's about recognising that female people exist and have experiences, challenges and risks that are sometimes different to male people. And that is true of the workplace just as much as anywhere else.

If you make it a "women including transwoman" group, you are effectively taking a big black marker and scribbling off the agenda any discission or support for the lived expereinces, challenges and concerns of female people. You are turning your "woman's" group into a group whose area of commonality is something hand-wavey to do with "feeling like a woman in your mind".

Now, I'm not saying that people of both sexes who do "feel like a woman in their mind" should not be allowed to have a group that focuses on the consequences of having that feeling at work.

But I don't think it should be at the cost of female people not getting to have a group that can focus on us and our needs.

I personally find it highly demeaning and offensive to be told that male people who believe they feel "like women" need to be treated as if that feeling actually makes them meaningfully more like me than other man. I think it imposes a reductive and sexist idea of womanhood on to me.

And the idea that my emploer might be the one imposing that identity onto me is just horrible. It would make me feel that my employer just saw me in terms of sexist sterotypes.

So no, it's not about "revelling in exclusionism", it's about the right of women ike me to not be redefined into a nebulous gender identity. It's about our right to be able to say clearly how we see ourselves rather than having some weird assumed commonality between our bodies and some men's feelings imposed upon us.

Re including men who identify as women in any 'women's group', @MissFancyDay makes a good point about men dominating a mixed group. In 'Man-Made Language' Dale Spender recounts some research she did with a group of around 30 women and six men who were asked to discuss women's rights (this was in the 1970s). The recordings revealed that the six men spoke for around 2/3 of the time allotted yet thought that the M/F balance was evenly split. Women talking for anything over 30% of the time were perceived to be dominating the conversation. And that's without all the tiptoeing round TW sensitivities. Can't be doing with it!

In several ETs it has been witness testimony that there was no women's network in the workplace and/or that no objections to trans inclusive SSS have been raised from any diversity network that management consult. It is therefore very important that where a women’s network exists in the workplace that it is actually capable of representing women. Transwomen are men and can be represented by the LGBTQ+ network. Women’s networks need to be voices for the 51% of the population whose issues and concerns have historically been ignored in the workplace.

It's about recognising that female people exist and have experiences, challenges and risks that are sometimes different to male people.

Women also have experiences that are different to each other. For example I have not faced any of the challenges or issues women have faced in the workplace (presumably because I have chosen to remain single and childfree). I don't think you need to have experienced sex based discrimination in order to be allowed to join a womens group. Making it the reason why we exclude transwomen would also exclude women like me.

What is the purpose of a women’s network in a workplace setting if it is not representing wonen’s issues? What issues would be shared by women and transwomen that would not be relevant to non trans identifying men?

This.

A women’s network in a workplace is about representation. The representation of women’s issues which often relates to matters intrinsically linked to our sexed bodies. It’s not a social network to provide validation to the gender identities of a self selecting group of men.

And you're so sure you won't ever need accommodation for menopause-related issues? To name just one example.

Why are females never fucking allowed to have anything without men butting in?