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.

I agree. And I wonder how many men genuinely attend a menopause group to find out how they can support women, and how many are just interlopers.

Men's network
It network
Lgbtqia network
Men's health network

Any network that includes men will also includes men of all descriptions.

i would have to leave a menopause group that allowed men, especially at work.

I'm not sitting there talking about vaginal dryness, or the night sweats/anxiety that disrupt my sleep, etc etc.

If men want to now about the menopause, they can join a menopause support group for people wanting to help people get through it.

I don't think we'll be able to hold the 'absolutely no TIM in any way shape or form' line forever. People are transitioning earlier, treatment and surgery is advancing and more will 'pass' and experience work place sexism in a way that is somewhat similar to women. Attitudes will gradually soften as there is natural turnover and younger (less terfy) women replace us!

Not all TIM are shouty TRA types who'd shift the dynamic of a group, those are just the ones we most hear about.

I'm firmly in favour of fighting for single sex spaces when there's risk to women's safety/ dignity and welcome the legal decision that allows for women only spaces and groups where they are necessary. Socially (like a women's work network) I think it should be up to the group/ workplace to decide if they wish to include or exclude TIM in all/ part of the group) so long as they make it clear when they are using 'women' in a gender way or a biological way.

I think refusing to explore any middle ground makes us just as bad as the TWAW brigade.

all TIM have one thing in common: they are men.

And i am fine with there being mixed groups, TIM groups or whatever. But i also want women's groups too.

Discussions about the gender pay gap? discuss in a women's group for sure. But then discuss elsewhere - and incude men too. It is not difficult.

Can you describe woman gender without resorting to stereotypes about hair and clothes?

and why men performing women gender need to be in a woman's network when other men don't?

'People are transitioning earlier, treatment and surgery is advancing and more will 'pass' and experience work place sexism in a way that is somewhat similar to women.'

Parking for the time being, the claim that more men will 'pass' in future, I will be somewhat startled if they ever experience workplace sexism related to menstruation, pregnancy, child birth, breastfeeding or menopause.

I agree that they may well experience other types of discrimination but, as posters have pointed out, there are other networks for those issues. Or they could start their own like women did.

The “middle ground” is to admit any and all men who are interested in joining. There’s no legal or practical way to distinguish between “shouty TRA types” and “genuine meek womanly men”, who “transitioned” a couple of days after their first birthday.

If you’re prepared to have men in your group, go right ahead and do so. That’s no problem. But you have to admit both the men in spinny skirts and the men in trousers.

There is no middle ground between "women include all adult human female people because woman is the name for those people" and "woman can be either sex because woman is a type of mind not a type of body".

As soon as you allow even one non-female person to qualify as a woman on the basis of something other than sex, you have legitimised the concept that womanhood can be mental rather than physical. Like the black swan, you only need one example that doesn't fit the rule to undermine the previous understanding of the whole group.

Pretty sure that's not true. I think they would count as an Association under the Equality Act and, if they call themselves a women's association, have to use the EA's definition of women, ie real women. If they want to include trans ID men, they can't call themselves a women's group. If they rename themselves something like a "Woman and Transwomen Group", it leaves the field open for someone else to set up a real women's group which, under the EA, your employer wouldn't be allowed to refuse.

IANAL.

The EA2010 doesn’t have any rules about what you call your group. It has rules about who you can turn away.

if they call themselves a women's association, have to use the EA's definition of women

This is not true, not because they don’t have to “use” the EA definition of a woman but because it’s true all of the time regardless of what they call themselves. There’s no “correct labelling” rule that applies here.

The “Is it a service” question is also moot. If it’s within a workplace and provided with the cooperation of the employer then the rules that count are the workplace rule and the employer is responsible for any unlawful discrimination caused by the group.

This is the basis on which Tempest is pursuing an action against DEFRA as his employer, responsible for the SEEN workplace network. Not as any kind of association but for discrimination in the workplace.

There are implied rules. If a group advertised itself as a women's group, calls itself a women's group, then it has to be for women only. And the EA was very clear that that means real women, not trans-ID men. Both the Women's Institute and GirlGuiding were forced to restrict their membership to Women and Girls respectively because doing otherwise would have mean not just rewriting their Rules but also changing their name.
And the Service question seems irrelevant. It's an Association, and falls under the EA because of that. Yes, as it's a workplace association the employer is liable for any discrimination it might commit, but that changes nothing. A Women's group needs to be Women only if it calls itself a Women's group.

Why not? Why can’t we have a group just for females? Why can’t 51% of the population be represented as a diversity group that is consulted by management as part of change management the same way that other groups are?

I don't think you can have "implied rules" that stand up in court. There's a rule, or there isn't. And I'm not aware of any rules about how you name your network.

What counts are the rules that you apply for membership: if you let only some men in and not others, that's potentially unlawfully discriminatory. If you let all men in, or no men, you're on safer ground. The title of your organization can be, but is not necessarily, the same as the rules of membership. A "Women's Network" that openly admits all men regardless of how they identify, is not breaking any rules.

Both the Women's Institute and GirlGuiding were forced to restrict their membership to Women and Girls respectively because doing otherwise would have mean not just rewriting their Rules but also changing their name.

I don't think that's true. Although neither the WI nor GG has released the legal advice that made them take the action of becoming single-sex associations, there's nothing to suggest it's because of the name. It's widely supposed (and I agree) that the significant legal hurdle is that the charitable purposes of those two organizations prevent them from benefiting other than women and girls. I'm fairly confident if all it took to permit men (or boys) to become members of either organization was a name change, that would be done lickety-split. The Boy Scouts Association changed it's name to The Scouts Association in 1967, I'm told, and it's royal charter (to admit girls) in 1991. The two are different matters.

It's possible for a workplace network to be both an association and also part of an employer's duty not unlawfully to discriminate. The choice of which tack to take would be down to the person complaining of discrimination. Do you want to take the employer to court, or the network itself (which may not in fact have a legal personality)?

This is not a moot question: you'll recognize that SEEN very unusually formed a corporate body when it looked like it was facing legal action from Tempest; one might guess this is to shield its individual members from personal liablility. In the end DEFRA was the defendant.

Keeping biological sex strictly within their own single sex spaces for safety reasons has been achieved.

Excluding them from ANYTHING related to natal females is just anti-trans as it’s making a point that doesn’t need to be made. In our work menopause group I have NEVER heard a colleague talk about not being able to sleep because of vaginal dryness. I have seen colleagues, including myself openly talking about hot flushes and insomnia and how their menopause affects them openly in offices.

i honestly think this is petty picking for pickings sake, bad enough the snide remarks and ridicule they go though, now the safe spaces has been won it’s straight onto the next thing - exclude them from everything we possibly can. It is 100% anti trans, just fucking own it. You won’t be happy until they’re erased. I think you’ll be in luck, Reform are all over this (their other policies will break you and take away your NHS, but trans eh.). Reform aren’t too keen on same sex too, and want same sex marriage to be made illegal again. It’s going to be a lovely world, no nasty gays, or trans, or other colours, or languages, or religions. Maybe someone should think of a symbol we could get them all to wear, so, you know, we can make sure they keep in their place.

Now there's no need to get testerical

trans women or men are more than fine to be any mixed sex space or group going

but a women's network is for women not for women and men who imagine they're women due to some kind of undefinable feeling

Excluding them from ANYTHING related to natal females is just anti-trans as it’s making a point that doesn’t need to be made.

You have missed the point. There's no way to distinguish between trans-identifying men and other men. If whatever you discuss in your group (not vaginal dryness, but whatever else) can be said in front of one group of men, it can be said in front of a group of any and all men. Nobody is saying it's not possible to have a mixed-sex group to discuss women's issues.

Reform are all over this

Fine. Let them be. Hitler was a vegetarian. So so so bored with that brush.

Excluding them from ANYTHING related to natal females is just anti-trans

Can be, but not necessarily.

If it's a group for everyone, then obviously, excluding them specifically is anti-trans.

But if it's a group exclusively for female people, then by definition it is exclusionary of non-female people, which includes transwomen. Nothing wrong with that.

In our work menopause group I have NEVER heard a colleague talk about not being able to sleep because of vaginal dryness.

Maybe because they didn't dare talk about their vagina around men?

You won’t be happy until they’re erased

That's a silly thing to say. We only want them to stop inserting themselves where they don't belong. For example, you don't see us saying they shouldn't join LGBT+ groups, do you? Because they belong there, so that's no problem.

And yet in a thread someone mentioned the possibility of a non-trans man going into a female toilet, or a trans man and females there being worried and confused and the poster was firmly told you can tell the difference. If there’s a trans woman in a group but you don’t know,how does it affect you?

In meetings when men didn’t happen to attend that day. Even in friendship groups, say out to lunch, I’ve never heard even a close friend discuss vaginal dryness, and I’ve never felt the urge to share it either. Hundreds of other pieces of madness that comes with menopause (and there are certainly plenty to choose from!) to share, but not that one specifically.

If there’s a trans woman in a group but you don’t know,how does it affect you?

If there's a man spying on you through a tiny hole, or watching on a hidden camera, or sharing video of you using a toilet with his friends on the internet, but you don't know, how does it affect you?

Answer: it's actually made worse by the deception, not better.

You won’t be happy until they’re erased

Please explain what you mean by "erased."

My work has a gender network and an LGBTQ+ network, so nothing specifically for women or same-sex-attracted people.

I just stay away from both of them, it’s easier.

I'm not sure what your point is here? Some women experience vaginal dryness during menopause. They may or may not share this with other women they meet... Okay? What now?

More importantly: do you agree that groups which are exclusive to women must necessarily exclude transwomen?

Lucky you. My friends and I talk about because it's been extremely painful and has destroyed our sex lives.

The various advantages of the tablet pessary over the cream have been discussed over many a cuppa. (I've not really got on with the cream, although it was better than nothing, so I've emailed the GP to ask if I can try the tablet thing)

In fact, I thought I must keep getting thrush because of the burning sensation - it was only when meeting up with women of a similar age I discovered it was atrophy and there was a possible solution. (I thought atrophy was only something that happened to muscles)

And yet as someone who does suffer from it, I have discussed it all women menopause support groups and with friends and family

I would certainly not have said anything in front of male colleagues whether or not they had a dress on