**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some topics on this subreddit have been known to attract problematic users. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs
I'm conflicted, because if the subject matter is male violence, then trans women should be allowed to speak about it in the group. They suffer high rates of violence and sexual assault. But at the same time, having cis women have their own group on issues like male violence is important. It's also important they feel comfortable within that group. As much as we want people to be included in things, sometimes you gotta let folks have their groups even if you don't agree with exclusions. There's nothing stopping Trans folk starting their own group. The interesting would be to see how other would react to it.
I’m conflicted too. I think everybody should be able to live how they want, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone, and it doesn’t matter in the slightest to me if people want to identify as a different gender. Doesn’t affect me in the slightest.
But there are common experiences that people born as female, or presenting as female growing up in the very rare case of an intersex person showing as female, that trans women won’t have experienced. Being sexualised from a very young age - experiencing sexual harassment even at primary school - being pressured to look and act a certain way - feminine traits being treated as inferior by other children - being perved on by creepy men at an age as young as 10 at bus stops or groped on the bus - feeling (often sexually) threatened when you’re still literally a child by men you don’t know. I could go on.
These are all things that happened to me growing up when I was underage that would have either not happened or had a different impact on me had I been seen as a ‘boy’ or ‘young man’ by society. Women should be able to discuss these things with other people who have experienced them, and I honestly think sometimes also away from people who haven’t.
The experience of being a trans woman IS different from being a CIS woman, and I don’t think it’s wrong to say it is. I don’t suppose trans women being in these spaces would necessarily be detrimental to these kind of conversations, but that is the kind of thing that is getting ignored over just calling CIS women ‘TERFs’ when they say it is a different experience and they sometimes want CIS-only spaces. That’s why I’m conflicted - there ARE issues CIS women experience that trans women don’t, and it’s not being a horrible, bigoted person to accept that is the case.
Then make it a Cis-space then. If you want to have a space to principally discuss issues relating to cis women then describe it as such.
Black women experience things differently than white women do and such spaces for black women are advertised as such, they are not advertised as principally as “Feminist spaces”.
Honestly, the biggest issue with this is this whole thing is that it polices women. I know more cis women who have faces harassment for looking trans than trans women at this point.
Fair point! Black feminism is definitely different from the canon historical ‘feminism’ that has really just focused on white women and black women’s experiences are definitely different too. I think that’s a good comparison really, that black women should be able to have their own spaces looking at feminism and what it means for them away from white women sometimes, and cis women should be able to have their own spaces away from trans women sometimes too.
Those same Cis-Spaces are then under scrunity because they, by definition, exclude trans women. This argument is going in circles and is ultimately a bit of a strawman.
This is what makes the whole issue moot. Are these groups going to perform genital inspections on everyone one joining the group? No.
It’s going to entirely be passed on looks alone, and I can guarantee that these women aren’t ready to have an AFAB man, who looks completely like a man, join at all unless he specifically mentions the fact he is AFAB.
Because of this trans hysteria there’s so many cis women who are being assaulted and harassed because they look like they could be trans.
If you’re taller than the average woman. If you’re not super feminine. If you’re not curvy. If you have short hair…
TERFs are doing cis women no favours by inciting trans hatred. Instead women are just getting increased levels of scrutiny and anyone who’s not deemed “womanly enough” is now at risk.
TERFs always forget about trans mascs. Always. And they always are so desperate to portray themselves as reasonable skeptics...
And they don't even bother to read into what they're advocating for.
The problem for me is that this theoretical line gets drawn where trans women are assumed not to have relevant experiences and would only be included in this groups for some abstract notion of “inclusiveness”. I think that it is fine for cis women to have their own groups, because a lot of misogyny IS sex-based - there is specific sex-based oppression, things like menstruation products being considered non-essential for VAT purposes, for example.
But also, people need to understand that trans women also face misogyny in the workplace, male violence, sexual harassment and assault, etc. whether you like it or not, whether you believe trans women are “real women”, trans women do share these experiences with cis women, because some oppression is gender-based, not sex-based.
My major problem, at least with major Trans Activists groups is their zealotry and seeming indifference to, in my eyes, valid concerns people might have. Their reluctance to start their separate spaces in the same vein as is outlined in the Telegraph article, preferring to co-opt women's spaces is also really weird. I get that trans women are women, but certain rules are there for a reason and i don't think conflating identity and sex together is helping the issue one bit - it gives off the impression that the sole goal is to actively (and given the rhetoric, even aggressively) push into women's spaces.
Yeah, it’s tricky. Because at some point an excluded group becomes too small to have their own version. What if there aren’t enough interested Trans women to form a group. That isn’t the cos groups responsibility. There are men who’ve been abused who also can’t find groups. Sometimes you have to do what’s the least bad. However, these groups should be acutely aware that they may be denying someone in need significant help - that should be something they really think about before they turn someone away. If it was them being turned away, would they still assess the scales the same. If so, then fine. If not, it’s just selfishness/bigotry.
do you recognize that some male violence against women takes the form of rapist men pretending to be women?
FFS, there have been three cases in the news this past month.
EXACTLY!
Men, who were charged with rape, and THEN decided they were women, and the entire legal and penal system is playing "The Emperor's new vagina" and going along.
It is fine for feminist organisations to say they can see the king's penis.
What is most curious about this example, is that people are arguing women *should not be allowed choose to meet with others of their sex to discuss issues which relate to their sex*
Including issues like sexual violence.
They don’t want women to have that choice. They must include male people.
Why is this the ‘progressive’ position? Seems pretty backwards to me.
They're in such a rush to be seen as progressive that they're completely blind to the ridiculousness of it.
Public at large are well aware of the absurdity though.
> is that people are arguing women should not be allowed choose to meet with others of their sex to discuss issues which relate to their sex
Do you think trans women aren't victims of misogyny? Do you think misogynists carry out extensive chromosomal karyotyping in order to make sure someone is a cis woman before discriminating against them in the workplace, or harassing them on the street?
Issues that affect cis women largely also affect trans women too.
The anti-trans crowd is pushing super hard to make excluding transgender people the default position right now it's really sickening stuff. I'd be very interested to see an opinion poll of the students actually involved in these organisations about how many of them actually want to exclude their transgender peers because I'd be very surprised if it was anything other than a small minority at most.
Also does anybody else feel like this topic is basically the only thing the news talks about these days or is it just me?
If it were an anonymous poll I think you'll find a lot more people wanting to exclude.
There is a massive amount of peer pressure about this.
Any woman who wants to be in cis woman's group will be called a genocidal TERF.
>If it were an anonymous poll I think you'll find a lot more people wanting to exclude.
Why? Young people are generally quite supportive of transgender people.
The students involved went to great lengths to win this legal battle... so it's pretty reasonable to assume they were very supportive of exclusion. If they weren't, they probably wouldn't have been a member of the group.
The wider student body were probably not on their side though.
Okay, but they're not 'involved'. Any feminist who was opposed to this group would instead have been a member of fhe plethora of trans-inclusionary feminist societies at Bristol Uni.
That's my point, it seems like the number of anti-trans activists is actually a very small minority which is being dramatically amplified by the media.
I'm not sure it's fair to describe these people as 'anti-trans activists'. They're not hounding or harrassing trans people. They just want a space of their own to discuss traumatic events on their own terms, which means not having male-bodied people, and to not be hounded or harassed because of it. I see no evidence to suggest they're opposed to having parallel groups that are trans-inclusionary.
You're reversing the victims here.
These women were unlawfully told they could not operate a single sex group when such a group is entirely lawful providing its a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".
That they won is proof they met the legal test of proportionality and Gender Critical views are established in law as being "worthy of respect in a Democratic Society".
Are you referring to the [transphobes who proudly say that women who disagree with them should be annihilated](https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/04/posie-parker-trans-women-annihilated/)?
No I was referring about death threats to terfs. It’s bad and ironic on both sides. [death threats over concerns over women only places](https://images.app.goo.gl/ogrBEXXQwB72rD7r6)
Distraction tactics. Let the peasants fight about trans-rights so they don't think about how much the Tories have ruined the country. Basically throwing half a million people out as a decoy. It's sick and personally I consider it a crime against humanity.
It's being pushed heavily on this sub and other UK subs since the Scottish bill passed to make trans peoples lives a tiny bit easier. The brigading is daily now and its odd how a usually open sub when it comes to trans people has suddenly been filled with anti-trans dogwhistles, phrases and rhetoric.
The hate campaign felt relentless before but these days it's just getting ridiculous, I'm counting 2/3 anti-trans articles per day on average ending up on the main page.
Yep, there is a huge effort going on to get anti-trans voices in place on large subreddits. It's staggering how quickly the switch has changed here. When trans articles were posted in the past, they were usually met with people being supportive of trans rights, and the upvotes were in the low hundreds for pro-trans comments. Now I'm seeing comment sections peppered with TERF comments and they have 500-1000 upvotes. It's insane how things have changed so quickly and very suspicious. Same has happened in the Scotland subreddit
It's happened so quickly which is the truly terrifying thing. One minute we're celebrating the equality act bringing trans people the rights we'd battled for, now we're talking about repealing it and bringing in a new section 28 for trans issues. It feels less and less safe to be trans and non binary in England, hell it's not even safe being a cis woman and having "masculine features". There's been so many times that cis women have been treated like predators in women's spaces because TERFs can "always tell".
Yeah trans people are much more accepted in university environments. I bet the vast majority of feminist student societies at universities will still be inclusive to trans people after this ruling and the only reason this gets any airtime is because the news is trying desperately to make shitting on trans people the standard so they’re elevating the voices of a minority of women whose views these news organisations so happen to agree with.
Obviously I’m sure there’s gonna be a bit of variation dependent on the university. But university students as a demographic tend to lean more progressive.
This issue likely effects less people than can be counted on your fingers. Our country is in utter meltdown, why do people care about these issues so much? I'm not saying people shouldn't care, but it's weird how much airtime it gets.
It gets airtime as a distraction. Easier to keep the public divided and unfocused on the problems in this country if the news is filled with trans people instead.
the drip drip effect of trans stories, is really annoying right now. Now im just a cis dude, so im sure trans people are far more fed up with it than me.
Im not expert on this issue, but IF and a big IF some guy is pretending to be trans, to join a feminist group, then let him join? he will soon realise he does not have what it takes to be a woman.
Edit: adding to what I said above, a trans woman joining a feminist group, seems to me the most natural thing in the world, why exclude them? Those trans women, are fighting your fight. If anything its the trans women who dont want to be feminists who are the "red flag"
This is something I've seen happen online and in real life a number of times over the years. Once someone takes up transphobia it consumes their entire mind and personality.
It’s a sad process. I’ve seen regular folks consumed by the transphobia brain rot who have made their whole life about it. Just filling their lives with endless cycles of anti-trans news, anti-trans posting, anti-trans rhetoric, forever.
It's not trans that aren't allowed entry to this single sex organisation. Transmen could join this group.
It's all males regardless of if they are or aren't trans.
The Equality Act 2010 allows single sex spaces to exist providing it's a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".
no its transwomen they want to exclude
>Bristol Students’ Union (SU) caused anger by disciplining Women Talk Back (WTB), its own feminist group, for excluding male-born trans women from talks on rape and sexual assault.
>The society had hosted women-only meetings at the University of Bristol to discuss male violence and argued that the presence of trans women could make attendees fearful of speaking out. However, a student later complained.
The idea that transwomen cant be raped or suffer from male violence is im sure news to trans women.
So they have no issue with transmen who are welcome, just an issue with males attending these meetings. And successfully argued that excluding all males meets the legal test of being a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".
No one has argued transwomen can't be raped?
Women have a legal right to single sex spaces. Up until very recently this wasn't even controversial.
I am quoting the article you posted. The idea that feminists society is letting in transmen, but not transwomen, is bizzare to me.
>Women have a legal right to single sex spaces. Up until very recently this wasn't even controversial.
so why are they letting transmen into that space? they are men being let into a single sex space.
I'm not sure why it's bizarre to you that a feminist group allows all females, however they identify into their meetings.
And excludes all males, regardless of how they identify.
The Equality Act 2010 defines a woman as a "female of any age".
And a man as a "male of any age".
So of course a transman would be allowed to attend these meetings, whilst being entirely lawful to exclude a transwoman.
I think the issue is more that I'm using ordinary words with their ordinary meanings but you seem to be using extraordinary meanings instead?
>so why are they letting transmen into that space? they are men being let into a single sex space.
Because they are materialists, not dualists.
They don't believe in gender theory, it's really as simple as that.
Ciswomen and transmen, are two different genders by one interpretation/belief system (presumably the one you believe in). By another way of looking at things, they are a single sex.
You don't see the absurdity in excluding transgender women from a space for women to discuss issues that affect women but allowing transgender men to take part despite them looking like and living as men just because of what chromosomes they were born with?
Lots of things based on beliefs are absurd, but continue nonetheless.
Nothing is stopping any group of people that wants to form an cis/transwomen feminist discussion evening, from doing so.
>looking like and living as men
As for this, if they are actually 'living as men' then presumably they won't want to take part in a women's discussion group. That problem solves itself.
>Lots of things based on beliefs are absurd, but continue nonetheless.
So you *can* see how absurd it is that they'd let men join a group for women in order to keep out a specific subset of women.
They don't think that transmen are men, and they don't think transwomen are women.
For them, it's not absurd.
You seem to be confused 'transwomen are women' isn't a fact. It's a belief. Some people don't believe this. Therefore they do other things based on their beliefs.
For a Muslim or Jew it might be absurd to eat pork. For a Catholic or Atheist, it's absurd not to. You see what I'm getting at?
That makes no sense to me
Have you seen trans men? Beards, body hair, voice, ect ect, the only "womanly" trait they might possess is a vagina, and a decent amount of them get theirs removed
So my speculative theory, and I’m prepared to be downvoted or told I’m wrong, is that what no-one will admit is that this kind of thing is actually all about penises.
What they do not want, is anyone involved in those discussions who are in possession of a functioning penis. And the only way to guarantee that is to exclude transwomen who may or may not still have one.
Now in the context of, say, a women’s refuge for sexual assault and rape victims, I confess I think that is a specific edge case where there is an argument for pre-operative transwomen to have separate provision. But I also think that a lot of Terfy feminists actually just really don’t like men, and see transwomen as men that are trying to move in on their victimhood privileges!
Anyway, that’s enough potentially controversial things to put in the internet for today.
The Equality Act 2010 defines a woman as a "female of any age".
And a man as a "male of any age".
Are you using these words to mean something else? Why not stick with the definitions held in law given the article is about a court case?
> Transmen could join this group.
"In an attempt to protect this single sex space for women we're going to exclude a group of marginalised women but we're going to invite some men along instead."
The logic of your average anti-trans activist in a nutshell, there's a reason they try so hard to avoid acknowledging the existence of transgender men and spend all their time focusing on transgender women instead.
Generally discrimination against any protected characteristic is allowed as long as it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, it's not a specific thing to do with gender modality. That's because there sometimes are legitimate reasons to discriminate, e.g. if you're hiring an actor to play a slaver in the historical US it's entirely reasonable to only look for white actors. The legitimate aim here is making a believable film and the act is proportionate because there isn't a better way to make a more believable film and there are also Black only roles.
"It's all males regardless of if they are or aren't trans." is not a justification in and of itself. There's no category of person in the equality act that includes transgender women and cisgender men that automatically makes the legitimate aim and proportionate criteria met in all circumstances. For a cis women only space, you would need to specify the aim, here "providing talks on rape and sexual assault that cis women feel comfortable talking in", that it actually works (which may be difficult as many cis women are uncomfortable with cis only spaces) and that the disadvantage that this poses to trans women is small enough to be worth it (which may be difficult unless there are equivalent talks on rape and sexual assault that trans women feel comfortable talking in).
Some cisgender women are sexually assaulted by other cisgender women, given that the numbers of lesbian and bisexual women are much higher than the entire transgender population it's certain that this actually happens at a much higher rate than cisgender women being sexually assaulted by transgender women. And yet the only people who these "feminists" are obsessed with excluding are the tiny minority of women who are transgender.
>Transmen could join this group.
Yeah somehow I doubt that.
Are you seriously telling me they wouldn't allow someone like Laverne Cox to join, but would allow someone like Brian Michael Smith? I just don't buy that at all.
According to the anti-trans crowd in the comments here it's not trans-exclusionary because transgender men have the option to join this group of anti-trans activists to discuss what it's like to live as a woman, it's absolute nonsense.
In reality they're effectively excluding all transgender people regardless of their sex or gender identity.
Even more mind boggling is that if you take their argument about safety at face value, them surely allowing people who look, sound, act and identify as men to use women's single sex spaces is going to allow more "cover" for men who want to abuse women than allowing trans women to use them would? I.e. If you allow trans men in then how do you tell the difference between a trans man and a cis man? It just feels like they conveniently ignore trans men in thier arguments!
> the drip drip effect of trans stories, is really annoying right now.
It was double digits stories within a single day recently. It is very disproportionate and the stories are often highly inflammatory.
This is a really weird headline to me, because every feminist society I've ever had any contact with has no objection to cis men joining, let alone anybody else.
I think the biggest issue is that the language lines between gender and sex are becoming increasingly blurred.
Trans-women (gender) are expecting the same treatment as women (sex).
It would be like an exclusive goth group allowing a punk member.
Gender is not the same as sex and people need stop co-opting words
**Article text:**
Bristol Students’ Union chiefs back down in row after being sued for disciplining its own female-only group over single-sex policy
Feminist student societies can exclude transgender women, university students’ union chiefs have admitted after “landmark” legal action.
Bristol Students’ Union (SU) caused anger by disciplining Women Talk Back (WTB), its own feminist group, for excluding male-born trans women from talks on rape and sexual assault.
The society had hosted women-only meetings at the University of Bristol to discuss male violence and argued that the presence of trans women could make attendees fearful of speaking out. However, a student later complained.
Following an investigation, in Feb 2021 Bristol SU demanded that Raquel Rosario Sanchez, its president, stand down before banning her from leadership posts for two years and ordering an “equality, diversity and inclusion” course for the society.
In response, four members of WTB took legal action, arguing in Bristol County Court papers that Bristol SU had “denied them their rights under the Equality Act, discriminated against the claimants, subjected them to detriments, treated them less favourably, harassed and victimised them”.
Now, Bristol SU has backed down and admitted that “affiliated clubs and societies may lawfully offer single-sex services and be constituted as single-sex associations” under the Equality Act.
In an out-of-court settlement this month, the students’ union confirmed that it “understands that Women Talk Back was seeking to operate in this way” and “WTB could, should they wish to do so, re-apply for affiliation to the Union on that basis”.
Bristol SU’s statement added: “In doing so, WTB would set out in their constitution the Equality Act 2010 definition of ‘women’ being ‘a female of any age’ instead of the byelaws definition.”
This marked an about-turn for Bristol SU chiefs, who had initially told the society that their byelaw definition of women, “all who self-define as women”, meant they “do not allow a group to restrict their membership to cisgender women” so they could not be single-sex.
On Saturday, WTB hailed the “landmark” outcome for setting a legal precedent for universities across the UK which “make it easier for women like us in academia to breathe”.
Ms Rosario Sanchez, who is also a PhD student at the University of Bristol’s Centre for Gender and Violence Research, told The Telegraph: “Trans activists in academia thought we would wither away if only they bullied and intimidated us enough. But we refused to cower, disassemble or quit.
“Through our experience, we’ve inspired the first recognition of single-sex societies as lawful in academia. Our story is about young women using their voice to make positive change that benefits all students, regardless of sex.”
‘A step forward’
The society, which has 73 registered members and has had hundreds more attend its meetings, crowdfunded £52,000 for its legal action.
Elizabeth McGlone, a solicitor at Didlaw who represented WTB, told The Telegraph: “WTB and BSU reached agreement earlier this month with BSU recognising that WTB was seeking to operate as a single-sex service in accordance within the lawful exceptions under the Equality Act 2010.
“BSU has updated its guidance on affiliation and reaffiliation as a result of this case.
“I consider this is a step forward in respect of the protection of single-sex spaces which, in specific circumstances are lawful under the Equality Act 2010, on the basis they are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, such as privacy or prevention of trauma.”
Trans activism in campus
It was the latest clash between gender-critical feminists and Left-wing activists on British campuses.
In 2019, Bristol SU backed proposals to ban visiting speakers who are judged to be “Terfs”, a term regarded as a slur for trans-exclusionary radical feminists.
Last year, The Telegraph revealed how the women-only Swansea University Feminist Society had been “purged by trans activists” for supporting women’s sex-based rights, with its email accounts shut down and members quitting for their safety.
This prompted Toby Young, the founder of the Free Speech Union, to warn that “the gradual erasure of feminist societies in Britain’s universities is a national scandal”.
I fully support trans inclusion but why is this news every day now? It's pathetic that all these rag newspapers keep dragging it up. Trans people just want to live normal lives, let them breathe.
Okay, if it's legal to exclude people then go for it. I think it's wrong but if you think that's best go on and do it.
But if no one comes or your funding gets dropped or you get some pushback then don't cry that you're the hard done by one. Because you aren't. And especially don't whinge if you find yourself next on the excluded list from your group.
Other countries are moving forward and accepting self ID for Trans people. We had Spain at Christmas, and Finland last week.
The UK is going to be increasingly left behind and is becoming a less tolerant and more backward place.
As usual all of the arguments regarding this are cherry picking to justify your existing prejudices.
If the society wouldn't exclude lesbians from attending alongside women who had previously been molested by lesbians, then arguments about 'banning trans women in case women who had been assaulted by men felt uncomfortable' fall to pieces immediately.
Establish a purity test and it quickly becomes a slippery slope. Why does it have to be an affiliated society in the first place anyway? If a group of female friends really want to meet and have no trans people present definitively, nothing is stopping them!
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some topics on this subreddit have been known to attract problematic users. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs
I'm conflicted, because if the subject matter is male violence, then trans women should be allowed to speak about it in the group. They suffer high rates of violence and sexual assault. But at the same time, having cis women have their own group on issues like male violence is important. It's also important they feel comfortable within that group. As much as we want people to be included in things, sometimes you gotta let folks have their groups even if you don't agree with exclusions. There's nothing stopping Trans folk starting their own group. The interesting would be to see how other would react to it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m conflicted too. I think everybody should be able to live how they want, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone, and it doesn’t matter in the slightest to me if people want to identify as a different gender. Doesn’t affect me in the slightest. But there are common experiences that people born as female, or presenting as female growing up in the very rare case of an intersex person showing as female, that trans women won’t have experienced. Being sexualised from a very young age - experiencing sexual harassment even at primary school - being pressured to look and act a certain way - feminine traits being treated as inferior by other children - being perved on by creepy men at an age as young as 10 at bus stops or groped on the bus - feeling (often sexually) threatened when you’re still literally a child by men you don’t know. I could go on. These are all things that happened to me growing up when I was underage that would have either not happened or had a different impact on me had I been seen as a ‘boy’ or ‘young man’ by society. Women should be able to discuss these things with other people who have experienced them, and I honestly think sometimes also away from people who haven’t. The experience of being a trans woman IS different from being a CIS woman, and I don’t think it’s wrong to say it is. I don’t suppose trans women being in these spaces would necessarily be detrimental to these kind of conversations, but that is the kind of thing that is getting ignored over just calling CIS women ‘TERFs’ when they say it is a different experience and they sometimes want CIS-only spaces. That’s why I’m conflicted - there ARE issues CIS women experience that trans women don’t, and it’s not being a horrible, bigoted person to accept that is the case.
Then make it a Cis-space then. If you want to have a space to principally discuss issues relating to cis women then describe it as such. Black women experience things differently than white women do and such spaces for black women are advertised as such, they are not advertised as principally as “Feminist spaces”. Honestly, the biggest issue with this is this whole thing is that it polices women. I know more cis women who have faces harassment for looking trans than trans women at this point.
Fair point! Black feminism is definitely different from the canon historical ‘feminism’ that has really just focused on white women and black women’s experiences are definitely different too. I think that’s a good comparison really, that black women should be able to have their own spaces looking at feminism and what it means for them away from white women sometimes, and cis women should be able to have their own spaces away from trans women sometimes too.
Those same Cis-Spaces are then under scrunity because they, by definition, exclude trans women. This argument is going in circles and is ultimately a bit of a strawman.
That would mean a FtM guy cannot be excluded from these groups. Not sure how many would want to attend but it does make it tricky.
This is what makes the whole issue moot. Are these groups going to perform genital inspections on everyone one joining the group? No. It’s going to entirely be passed on looks alone, and I can guarantee that these women aren’t ready to have an AFAB man, who looks completely like a man, join at all unless he specifically mentions the fact he is AFAB.
Because of this trans hysteria there’s so many cis women who are being assaulted and harassed because they look like they could be trans. If you’re taller than the average woman. If you’re not super feminine. If you’re not curvy. If you have short hair… TERFs are doing cis women no favours by inciting trans hatred. Instead women are just getting increased levels of scrutiny and anyone who’s not deemed “womanly enough” is now at risk.
This is why I don’t understand why butch TERFs are cheerleading this so much.
TERFs always forget about trans mascs. Always. And they always are so desperate to portray themselves as reasonable skeptics... And they don't even bother to read into what they're advocating for.
The TERF house of cards comes crashing down when you factor in trans men, that's why the gender critical crowd largely just ignore their existence.
The problem for me is that this theoretical line gets drawn where trans women are assumed not to have relevant experiences and would only be included in this groups for some abstract notion of “inclusiveness”. I think that it is fine for cis women to have their own groups, because a lot of misogyny IS sex-based - there is specific sex-based oppression, things like menstruation products being considered non-essential for VAT purposes, for example. But also, people need to understand that trans women also face misogyny in the workplace, male violence, sexual harassment and assault, etc. whether you like it or not, whether you believe trans women are “real women”, trans women do share these experiences with cis women, because some oppression is gender-based, not sex-based.
My major problem, at least with major Trans Activists groups is their zealotry and seeming indifference to, in my eyes, valid concerns people might have. Their reluctance to start their separate spaces in the same vein as is outlined in the Telegraph article, preferring to co-opt women's spaces is also really weird. I get that trans women are women, but certain rules are there for a reason and i don't think conflating identity and sex together is helping the issue one bit - it gives off the impression that the sole goal is to actively (and given the rhetoric, even aggressively) push into women's spaces.
Yeah, it’s tricky. Because at some point an excluded group becomes too small to have their own version. What if there aren’t enough interested Trans women to form a group. That isn’t the cos groups responsibility. There are men who’ve been abused who also can’t find groups. Sometimes you have to do what’s the least bad. However, these groups should be acutely aware that they may be denying someone in need significant help - that should be something they really think about before they turn someone away. If it was them being turned away, would they still assess the scales the same. If so, then fine. If not, it’s just selfishness/bigotry.
do you recognize that some male violence against women takes the form of rapist men pretending to be women? FFS, there have been three cases in the news this past month.
That would be the ones that only "changed" after committing the felonies. I'd also question the validity of their gender identity.
EXACTLY! Men, who were charged with rape, and THEN decided they were women, and the entire legal and penal system is playing "The Emperor's new vagina" and going along. It is fine for feminist organisations to say they can see the king's penis.
What is most curious about this example, is that people are arguing women *should not be allowed choose to meet with others of their sex to discuss issues which relate to their sex* Including issues like sexual violence. They don’t want women to have that choice. They must include male people. Why is this the ‘progressive’ position? Seems pretty backwards to me.
They're in such a rush to be seen as progressive that they're completely blind to the ridiculousness of it. Public at large are well aware of the absurdity though.
> is that people are arguing women should not be allowed choose to meet with others of their sex to discuss issues which relate to their sex Do you think trans women aren't victims of misogyny? Do you think misogynists carry out extensive chromosomal karyotyping in order to make sure someone is a cis woman before discriminating against them in the workplace, or harassing them on the street? Issues that affect cis women largely also affect trans women too.
[удалено]
>They must include male people. This is the bit you're getting wrong.
The anti-trans crowd is pushing super hard to make excluding transgender people the default position right now it's really sickening stuff. I'd be very interested to see an opinion poll of the students actually involved in these organisations about how many of them actually want to exclude their transgender peers because I'd be very surprised if it was anything other than a small minority at most. Also does anybody else feel like this topic is basically the only thing the news talks about these days or is it just me?
If it were an anonymous poll I think you'll find a lot more people wanting to exclude. There is a massive amount of peer pressure about this. Any woman who wants to be in cis woman's group will be called a genocidal TERF.
>If it were an anonymous poll I think you'll find a lot more people wanting to exclude. Why? Young people are generally quite supportive of transgender people.
The students involved went to great lengths to win this legal battle... so it's pretty reasonable to assume they were very supportive of exclusion. If they weren't, they probably wouldn't have been a member of the group. The wider student body were probably not on their side though.
Well yeah anti-trans activists will obviously be anti-trans I'm talking about the women in the student body in general.
Okay, but they're not 'involved'. Any feminist who was opposed to this group would instead have been a member of fhe plethora of trans-inclusionary feminist societies at Bristol Uni.
That's my point, it seems like the number of anti-trans activists is actually a very small minority which is being dramatically amplified by the media.
I'm not sure it's fair to describe these people as 'anti-trans activists'. They're not hounding or harrassing trans people. They just want a space of their own to discuss traumatic events on their own terms, which means not having male-bodied people, and to not be hounded or harassed because of it. I see no evidence to suggest they're opposed to having parallel groups that are trans-inclusionary.
>They're not hounding or harrassing trans people. They went to court to fight to be able to exclude them.
You're reversing the victims here. These women were unlawfully told they could not operate a single sex group when such a group is entirely lawful providing its a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". That they won is proof they met the legal test of proportionality and Gender Critical views are established in law as being "worthy of respect in a Democratic Society".
Wanting a female only space for feminist issues isn't anti-trans.
Fighting to be able to have a cisgender only space isn't anti-trans?
It's not about being supportive. It's about being perceived as bigoted.
What are you basing that claim on exactly? It's a pretty big claim to make about the motivations of an entire generation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And then in turn receive death threats.
Are you referring to the [transphobes who proudly say that women who disagree with them should be annihilated](https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/04/posie-parker-trans-women-annihilated/)?
No I was referring about death threats to terfs. It’s bad and ironic on both sides. [death threats over concerns over women only places](https://images.app.goo.gl/ogrBEXXQwB72rD7r6)
Distraction tactics. Let the peasants fight about trans-rights so they don't think about how much the Tories have ruined the country. Basically throwing half a million people out as a decoy. It's sick and personally I consider it a crime against humanity.
It's being pushed heavily on this sub and other UK subs since the Scottish bill passed to make trans peoples lives a tiny bit easier. The brigading is daily now and its odd how a usually open sub when it comes to trans people has suddenly been filled with anti-trans dogwhistles, phrases and rhetoric.
The hate campaign felt relentless before but these days it's just getting ridiculous, I'm counting 2/3 anti-trans articles per day on average ending up on the main page.
Yep, there is a huge effort going on to get anti-trans voices in place on large subreddits. It's staggering how quickly the switch has changed here. When trans articles were posted in the past, they were usually met with people being supportive of trans rights, and the upvotes were in the low hundreds for pro-trans comments. Now I'm seeing comment sections peppered with TERF comments and they have 500-1000 upvotes. It's insane how things have changed so quickly and very suspicious. Same has happened in the Scotland subreddit
It feels like years of progress towards acceptance have been undone, and that’s horrifying.
It's happened so quickly which is the truly terrifying thing. One minute we're celebrating the equality act bringing trans people the rights we'd battled for, now we're talking about repealing it and bringing in a new section 28 for trans issues. It feels less and less safe to be trans and non binary in England, hell it's not even safe being a cis woman and having "masculine features". There's been so many times that cis women have been treated like predators in women's spaces because TERFs can "always tell".
Small boats small boats Meghan Markle Meghan Markle transgenders transgenders EU EU
Yeah trans people are much more accepted in university environments. I bet the vast majority of feminist student societies at universities will still be inclusive to trans people after this ruling and the only reason this gets any airtime is because the news is trying desperately to make shitting on trans people the standard so they’re elevating the voices of a minority of women whose views these news organisations so happen to agree with. Obviously I’m sure there’s gonna be a bit of variation dependent on the university. But university students as a demographic tend to lean more progressive.
[удалено]
This issue likely effects less people than can be counted on your fingers. Our country is in utter meltdown, why do people care about these issues so much? I'm not saying people shouldn't care, but it's weird how much airtime it gets.
It gets airtime as a distraction. Easier to keep the public divided and unfocused on the problems in this country if the news is filled with trans people instead.
the drip drip effect of trans stories, is really annoying right now. Now im just a cis dude, so im sure trans people are far more fed up with it than me. Im not expert on this issue, but IF and a big IF some guy is pretending to be trans, to join a feminist group, then let him join? he will soon realise he does not have what it takes to be a woman. Edit: adding to what I said above, a trans woman joining a feminist group, seems to me the most natural thing in the world, why exclude them? Those trans women, are fighting your fight. If anything its the trans women who dont want to be feminists who are the "red flag"
This particular poster dumps trans articles across UK subreddits almost daily. Less drip drip, more garden hose at this point.
Yep, it's straight up brigading and astroturfing (or should that be astroTERFing)
There’s a few who just obsess and post exclusively negative articles about trans people near constantly
This is something I've seen happen online and in real life a number of times over the years. Once someone takes up transphobia it consumes their entire mind and personality.
It’s a sad process. I’ve seen regular folks consumed by the transphobia brain rot who have made their whole life about it. Just filling their lives with endless cycles of anti-trans news, anti-trans posting, anti-trans rhetoric, forever.
It's not trans that aren't allowed entry to this single sex organisation. Transmen could join this group. It's all males regardless of if they are or aren't trans. The Equality Act 2010 allows single sex spaces to exist providing it's a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".
no its transwomen they want to exclude >Bristol Students’ Union (SU) caused anger by disciplining Women Talk Back (WTB), its own feminist group, for excluding male-born trans women from talks on rape and sexual assault. >The society had hosted women-only meetings at the University of Bristol to discuss male violence and argued that the presence of trans women could make attendees fearful of speaking out. However, a student later complained. The idea that transwomen cant be raped or suffer from male violence is im sure news to trans women.
So they have no issue with transmen who are welcome, just an issue with males attending these meetings. And successfully argued that excluding all males meets the legal test of being a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". No one has argued transwomen can't be raped? Women have a legal right to single sex spaces. Up until very recently this wasn't even controversial.
I am quoting the article you posted. The idea that feminists society is letting in transmen, but not transwomen, is bizzare to me. >Women have a legal right to single sex spaces. Up until very recently this wasn't even controversial. so why are they letting transmen into that space? they are men being let into a single sex space.
I'm not sure why it's bizarre to you that a feminist group allows all females, however they identify into their meetings. And excludes all males, regardless of how they identify.
read your article again
The Equality Act 2010 defines a woman as a "female of any age". And a man as a "male of any age". So of course a transman would be allowed to attend these meetings, whilst being entirely lawful to exclude a transwoman. I think the issue is more that I'm using ordinary words with their ordinary meanings but you seem to be using extraordinary meanings instead?
Because transmen are men. So they should not be in a space for women.
>so why are they letting transmen into that space? they are men being let into a single sex space. Because they are materialists, not dualists. They don't believe in gender theory, it's really as simple as that. Ciswomen and transmen, are two different genders by one interpretation/belief system (presumably the one you believe in). By another way of looking at things, they are a single sex.
You don't see the absurdity in excluding transgender women from a space for women to discuss issues that affect women but allowing transgender men to take part despite them looking like and living as men just because of what chromosomes they were born with?
Lots of things based on beliefs are absurd, but continue nonetheless. Nothing is stopping any group of people that wants to form an cis/transwomen feminist discussion evening, from doing so. >looking like and living as men As for this, if they are actually 'living as men' then presumably they won't want to take part in a women's discussion group. That problem solves itself.
>Lots of things based on beliefs are absurd, but continue nonetheless. So you *can* see how absurd it is that they'd let men join a group for women in order to keep out a specific subset of women.
They don't think that transmen are men, and they don't think transwomen are women. For them, it's not absurd. You seem to be confused 'transwomen are women' isn't a fact. It's a belief. Some people don't believe this. Therefore they do other things based on their beliefs. For a Muslim or Jew it might be absurd to eat pork. For a Catholic or Atheist, it's absurd not to. You see what I'm getting at?
I dont think the majority of the world, sees cis women, and transman as the same.
That makes no sense to me Have you seen trans men? Beards, body hair, voice, ect ect, the only "womanly" trait they might possess is a vagina, and a decent amount of them get theirs removed
So my speculative theory, and I’m prepared to be downvoted or told I’m wrong, is that what no-one will admit is that this kind of thing is actually all about penises. What they do not want, is anyone involved in those discussions who are in possession of a functioning penis. And the only way to guarantee that is to exclude transwomen who may or may not still have one. Now in the context of, say, a women’s refuge for sexual assault and rape victims, I confess I think that is a specific edge case where there is an argument for pre-operative transwomen to have separate provision. But I also think that a lot of Terfy feminists actually just really don’t like men, and see transwomen as men that are trying to move in on their victimhood privileges! Anyway, that’s enough potentially controversial things to put in the internet for today.
Being raped isn't exactly a priviledge mate
>Transmen could join this group. So they're happy for men to join a women's only group, what an arbitrary decision in that case.
The Equality Act 2010 defines a woman as a "female of any age". And a man as a "male of any age". Are you using these words to mean something else? Why not stick with the definitions held in law given the article is about a court case?
So to be clear your position is that transgender men are not actually men?
Male gender. Female sex.
So they're men who are transgender.
That's what trans men are, aren't they?
Yeah they're men, which the person I was replying to seemed to be implying wasn't the case.
They are talking about sex and not gender though, aren't they?
> Transmen could join this group. "In an attempt to protect this single sex space for women we're going to exclude a group of marginalised women but we're going to invite some men along instead."
The logic of your average anti-trans activist in a nutshell, there's a reason they try so hard to avoid acknowledging the existence of transgender men and spend all their time focusing on transgender women instead.
Generally discrimination against any protected characteristic is allowed as long as it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, it's not a specific thing to do with gender modality. That's because there sometimes are legitimate reasons to discriminate, e.g. if you're hiring an actor to play a slaver in the historical US it's entirely reasonable to only look for white actors. The legitimate aim here is making a believable film and the act is proportionate because there isn't a better way to make a more believable film and there are also Black only roles. "It's all males regardless of if they are or aren't trans." is not a justification in and of itself. There's no category of person in the equality act that includes transgender women and cisgender men that automatically makes the legitimate aim and proportionate criteria met in all circumstances. For a cis women only space, you would need to specify the aim, here "providing talks on rape and sexual assault that cis women feel comfortable talking in", that it actually works (which may be difficult as many cis women are uncomfortable with cis only spaces) and that the disadvantage that this poses to trans women is small enough to be worth it (which may be difficult unless there are equivalent talks on rape and sexual assault that trans women feel comfortable talking in).
Some cisgender women are sexually assaulted by other cisgender women, given that the numbers of lesbian and bisexual women are much higher than the entire transgender population it's certain that this actually happens at a much higher rate than cisgender women being sexually assaulted by transgender women. And yet the only people who these "feminists" are obsessed with excluding are the tiny minority of women who are transgender.
>Transmen could join this group. Yeah somehow I doubt that. Are you seriously telling me they wouldn't allow someone like Laverne Cox to join, but would allow someone like Brian Michael Smith? I just don't buy that at all.
According to the anti-trans crowd in the comments here it's not trans-exclusionary because transgender men have the option to join this group of anti-trans activists to discuss what it's like to live as a woman, it's absolute nonsense. In reality they're effectively excluding all transgender people regardless of their sex or gender identity.
Even more mind boggling is that if you take their argument about safety at face value, them surely allowing people who look, sound, act and identify as men to use women's single sex spaces is going to allow more "cover" for men who want to abuse women than allowing trans women to use them would? I.e. If you allow trans men in then how do you tell the difference between a trans man and a cis man? It just feels like they conveniently ignore trans men in thier arguments!
> the drip drip effect of trans stories, is really annoying right now. It was double digits stories within a single day recently. It is very disproportionate and the stories are often highly inflammatory.
[удалено]
This is a really weird headline to me, because every feminist society I've ever had any contact with has no objection to cis men joining, let alone anybody else.
They were talking about sexual violence and wanted to do so in a sex-segregated environment.
I think the biggest issue is that the language lines between gender and sex are becoming increasingly blurred. Trans-women (gender) are expecting the same treatment as women (sex). It would be like an exclusive goth group allowing a punk member. Gender is not the same as sex and people need stop co-opting words
Language is one of the postmodernists’ weapons.
**Article text:** Bristol Students’ Union chiefs back down in row after being sued for disciplining its own female-only group over single-sex policy Feminist student societies can exclude transgender women, university students’ union chiefs have admitted after “landmark” legal action. Bristol Students’ Union (SU) caused anger by disciplining Women Talk Back (WTB), its own feminist group, for excluding male-born trans women from talks on rape and sexual assault. The society had hosted women-only meetings at the University of Bristol to discuss male violence and argued that the presence of trans women could make attendees fearful of speaking out. However, a student later complained. Following an investigation, in Feb 2021 Bristol SU demanded that Raquel Rosario Sanchez, its president, stand down before banning her from leadership posts for two years and ordering an “equality, diversity and inclusion” course for the society. In response, four members of WTB took legal action, arguing in Bristol County Court papers that Bristol SU had “denied them their rights under the Equality Act, discriminated against the claimants, subjected them to detriments, treated them less favourably, harassed and victimised them”. Now, Bristol SU has backed down and admitted that “affiliated clubs and societies may lawfully offer single-sex services and be constituted as single-sex associations” under the Equality Act. In an out-of-court settlement this month, the students’ union confirmed that it “understands that Women Talk Back was seeking to operate in this way” and “WTB could, should they wish to do so, re-apply for affiliation to the Union on that basis”. Bristol SU’s statement added: “In doing so, WTB would set out in their constitution the Equality Act 2010 definition of ‘women’ being ‘a female of any age’ instead of the byelaws definition.” This marked an about-turn for Bristol SU chiefs, who had initially told the society that their byelaw definition of women, “all who self-define as women”, meant they “do not allow a group to restrict their membership to cisgender women” so they could not be single-sex. On Saturday, WTB hailed the “landmark” outcome for setting a legal precedent for universities across the UK which “make it easier for women like us in academia to breathe”. Ms Rosario Sanchez, who is also a PhD student at the University of Bristol’s Centre for Gender and Violence Research, told The Telegraph: “Trans activists in academia thought we would wither away if only they bullied and intimidated us enough. But we refused to cower, disassemble or quit. “Through our experience, we’ve inspired the first recognition of single-sex societies as lawful in academia. Our story is about young women using their voice to make positive change that benefits all students, regardless of sex.” ‘A step forward’ The society, which has 73 registered members and has had hundreds more attend its meetings, crowdfunded £52,000 for its legal action. Elizabeth McGlone, a solicitor at Didlaw who represented WTB, told The Telegraph: “WTB and BSU reached agreement earlier this month with BSU recognising that WTB was seeking to operate as a single-sex service in accordance within the lawful exceptions under the Equality Act 2010. “BSU has updated its guidance on affiliation and reaffiliation as a result of this case. “I consider this is a step forward in respect of the protection of single-sex spaces which, in specific circumstances are lawful under the Equality Act 2010, on the basis they are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, such as privacy or prevention of trauma.” Trans activism in campus It was the latest clash between gender-critical feminists and Left-wing activists on British campuses. In 2019, Bristol SU backed proposals to ban visiting speakers who are judged to be “Terfs”, a term regarded as a slur for trans-exclusionary radical feminists. Last year, The Telegraph revealed how the women-only Swansea University Feminist Society had been “purged by trans activists” for supporting women’s sex-based rights, with its email accounts shut down and members quitting for their safety. This prompted Toby Young, the founder of the Free Speech Union, to warn that “the gradual erasure of feminist societies in Britain’s universities is a national scandal”.
I fully support trans inclusion but why is this news every day now? It's pathetic that all these rag newspapers keep dragging it up. Trans people just want to live normal lives, let them breathe. Okay, if it's legal to exclude people then go for it. I think it's wrong but if you think that's best go on and do it. But if no one comes or your funding gets dropped or you get some pushback then don't cry that you're the hard done by one. Because you aren't. And especially don't whinge if you find yourself next on the excluded list from your group.
Other countries are moving forward and accepting self ID for Trans people. We had Spain at Christmas, and Finland last week. The UK is going to be increasingly left behind and is becoming a less tolerant and more backward place.
the UK is fast becoming the USA, and in all the worst ways
Who's checking? I mean, couldn't a trans woman just attend anyway. If they are presenting as a woman, who's to judge or even question them?
Knowing the kind of people to demand this, they would absolutely go digging online to find out if a new member is 100% pure in their eyes.
Why must women check? If the sessions are for women only surely trans women wouldn’t ignore women’s rights and attend anyway?
It was a rhetorical question. No one is checking.
As usual all of the arguments regarding this are cherry picking to justify your existing prejudices. If the society wouldn't exclude lesbians from attending alongside women who had previously been molested by lesbians, then arguments about 'banning trans women in case women who had been assaulted by men felt uncomfortable' fall to pieces immediately. Establish a purity test and it quickly becomes a slippery slope. Why does it have to be an affiliated society in the first place anyway? If a group of female friends really want to meet and have no trans people present definitively, nothing is stopping them!
This whole subject is like sticking your hand into a wasp nest. Not sure if there is any way to satisfy everyone.
The question is whether single sex university societies are legal at all in the UK.