From Val S

Thursday 6 March 2025

How very sad that the event had to move. So in effect no women only events can ever take place in the Town Hall in Hebden.

International Women's Day is a day to mark the struggles and achievements of women. It is one day in the year and there are many days, weeks and months for other groups but it seems nothing for women only in Hebden Bridge.

From Glenda C

Thursday 6 March 2025

Regarding the Town Hall's reversal of its initial decision to support this event, if women-only events are not permitted and the Town Hall possesses clear, justified, and legally robust guidelines for this decision, then the initial support was likely an individual error. In this case, the Town Hall should ensure all staff are aware of the guidelines and enforce them consistently.

Alternatively, if guidelines determining which groups can and cannot hold events do not exist, I suggest they be developed in collaboration with community members, prioritising the needs of all. These guidelines must include transparent and publicly accessible criteria for justifiable decision-making.

I am personally pleased that this event is proceeding at an alternative venue, enabling the women planning to attend to acquire the valuable skills they hope to gain.

Wishing an enjoyable and peaceful International Women's Day to all who celebrate it.

From Jessica Jones

Friday 7 March 2025

My name is Jessica Jones, and I'm the lady that is running the SP workshop to celebrate International Women's Day on Saturday. 

Thank you to all those people (men and women) who have shown me an astounding amount of support and solidarity. It's been very humbling and I'm beyond grateful. 

The workshop I'm running was being ran purely as a 'good thing to do' and if I could do it on IWD, even better!  But the kicker is, I've actually got such a wealth of knowledge and understanding of Self Protection and the 360 degree sphere around the subject, and now some women won't get to access this, because now they don't want to attend. 

But… even if the second venue pulled out due to pressure, I will do this workshop, even if I have to do it on bloody McDonald's carpark!! 
Thankfully, the owner of the gym in Halifax is not easily bullied. 

I truly do not have an issue with anyone or how they chose to live their lives. It's quite simply none of my business. And for the record I would've been more than happy to do a trans-inclusive workshop at a later date, teaching the same principles. In fact, I encourage anyone to acquire some sort of skill set and/or knowledge base in order to keep themselves safe. 

If there are any other women that would like to book a place on the workshop, there's still spaces! Drop me an email on amazoniasosp@gmail.com and I'll pop your name on the list! 

Jessica - Head Instructor 
Amazonia School of Self Protection 

From Chris M

Friday 7 March 2025

Yesterday, Thursday 6th March, the Government produced a press release, to coincide with International Women's Day, highlighting the Government's pledges to protect more women from violence. 

It contained some very depressing statistics: a woman is killed on average every 3 days in the UK, It also stated that over 9 in 10 female homicide victims were killed by a man (92%) 

Given these statistics, I am furious to learn that our local Town Hall decided to cancel a women's self defence class, due to be  held on International Women's Day, because it was a women only event.  I believe it was cancelled due to objections from a small, but very vocal, minority. When the organiser then found an alternative venue, the same people threatened the owner with legal action unless he, too, cancelled the event.  Thankfully he did not give in to their bullying. 

The Government's  press release also stated that the Home Office lit up in the colours of green, purple and white to mark International Women's Day across four estates in the UK in a symbol of how crucial this priority is this government. Perhaps our Town Hall would like to follow this example - I won't hold my breath!

From Anon 5

Friday 7 March 2025

What I find unbelievable is that certain people in Hebden, want to shut down a very valuable event for biological women. They talk about inclusion but in reality, it's exclusion.

No-one bats an eye when we see events for trans only, so why argue and bully over a woman's only event

A woman is an adult human female, not a trans identified male.....

I'm sorry the lady who has organised this has been treated so badly.

Shame on those who have done this.

From D King

Saturday 8 March 2025

I am furious that the small vocal small minded few have prevented women from the ability to feel safer and stronger and more equipped to face the onslaught of male violence which is undeniably rife in the UK and beyond. 

Well done Town Hall (not) for another show of flawed thinking and for having a commitment to listen to the voices of minority bullies rather than enabling women the space they need and rightly deserve away from the gaze of males. 

You have no idea how unsafe as females we feel in a world dictated by bullies such as yourselves. 

I have just read the Hebden Royd commitment read out by Patsi Guilfoile...inclusivity? There is no inclusivity, just a commitment to perpetuate division. Yes Hebden used to be the Lesbian capital Now it is being recognised as the worst place in the uk to have  women only events. 

It's truly unbelievable that the small minded and mean spirited lobby which now has power and influence in Hebden Bridge would deny a space for women to be together to fight violence against women. Not only did they stop this in Hebden they then continued their onslaught following her to the next venue!! I would call that stalking behaviour.

Absolutely disgraceful and needs to be called out for what it is.

From Steve Woodhead

Saturday 8 March 2025

As a husband, father, grandfather and as a man who a has spent most of his working career supporting some of the most vulnerable people in society, I feel bound to raise my concerns that women in our community are being denied the opportunity to take part in a women's only self defence class which we all know as well providing the opportunity to learn physical skills provides the much needed space to be yourself and deal with potentially traumatic memories.

International Womens Day, when my focus and the focus of us all, should be on the most amazing women in our lives and about remembering those women who through the ages have stood against challenges, particularly from men and misogynistic systems to bring us to a point where all people have a greater freedom and equality should not be a day when we are reminded of the ugly fact that women are still having to fight for their rightful place and freedoms in society and here in our community. 

In writing this, I do not stand against any group or individuals who need their space and freedoms, but I do stand firmly in support of women and their rights and need for safe spaces.

From T Smith

Saturday 8 March 2025

Can we have a bit less sound and fury and more clear reporting of the facts please HebWeb? Could the Town Hall's stated reasons for cancelling the event please be reported?

Was the problem that the the event was advertised as a "Women's Self Protection Class", but in fact not open to trans women? If so, this was false advertising - and it is hard to believe that anyone experienced in organizing these classes would not know this.

Or was the problem that the event was advertised as a "Cis women's Self Protection Class", or, in some other way that made it clear that it was for cis women only. If so, I don't see why it could not have gone ahead. 

Yes, there are biological sex-based rights. In addition, there are gender-based rights. Is this so difficult? It should be clear to anyone with eyes to see that the new fascism is attacking trans rights first (others' rights will be undermined later) because too few will stand up for these rights.

From Val S

Saturday 8 March 2025

T. Smith is incorrect. What exactly are gender based rights? The only protected characteristic is gender reassignment. Since when do women have to define themselves as a category of themselves as cis?

As already stated Hebden Bridge is not a place for women who believe in biological reality. Really inclusive.

From Glenda C

Sunday 9 March 2025

Single-sex groups wanting safe spaces have legitimate needs, but so do people who prioritise inclusivity. 

In Hebden Bridge, our diverse and supportive community seems to be caught in a conflict over balancing these competeing needs. People are as worried about being called bigots as they are of getting into legal trouble.

Notably women's groups get most of the flak. I've never heard anyone object to the men's mental health group that meets here, and I would be equally disappointed if our community opposed those meetings, as I am with the opposition that led to the cancellation of the women's self-defense class.

Shouldn't we be able to find a way to make this work for everyone?

From Sam H

Sunday 9 March 2025

Glenda, no-one has a problem with the men's mental health group because it's open to all men. Biological men, trans men, any one who identifies as a man. In fact, the only criteria for attendance is that you are not a woman. 

Quite a difference to holding a class on International Women's Day (a day for all women) and then excluding a marginalised group of women. 

From Glenda C

Monday 10 March 2025

Sam, You've made your point regarding the Mens group very clearly and I can't argue with it.

From R Hudson

Tuesday 11 March 2025

Sorry if I am not up to date with sex and gender definitions but please could T Smith explain what the definitions of 'trans women' are?  

From Harriet Groves

Wednesday 12 March 2025

I'm not clear either about what is meant by 'trans woman' or 'cis'. But what intrigues me about this incident - and others mentioned in these columns about 'women only' events is the psychology behind those who (trans women?) oppose these events. 

It would seem that although they may be trans women, they have not yet left behind archetypal/ patriarchal male psychology - I wonder if they ever can? Because in all those decades of struggle for women for equality, safe spaces, etc, I cannot recall any time where women threatened physical violence ('punch a terf in the face'?), cancelled those who didn't agree with us, or vindictively pursued individuals who had a different opinion about the aims of the feminist/ lesbian movement. 

History shows us how male psychology and patriarchy was integral in opposing for decades any progress for women or minorities. Men did not relinquish their power easily - and clearly this approach - to stamp down and close down - is evident in the opposition to this women only event. They may be trans women, but they'll never be sisters.

From T Smith

Wednesday 12 March 2025

I think we all know how to manufacture and spread hatred of a marginalized group. 

Start with (endlessly and tiresomely circulated) reports of bad behaviour (one person who said 'punch a terf in the face') and generalize from that, tarring every member of that group with the same brush. Encourage your audience to conclude that 'They [yes, every single member of the group] have not yet left behind… patriarchal male psychology', and that 'They [again, yes, every single member of the group] will never be sisters'.  

I was asked to define 'trans woman'. The question is disingenuous, so let me give an oblique answer. Trans women, and trans men, are a group that the right have discovered they can easily effectively demonize, because too many will not merely let this happen, but cheerlead. 

From R Hudson

Thursday 13 March 2025

Dear T Smith 

My question is genuine and only requires a straight forward answer from you.

Please can you explain what the definitions of 'trans women' are?  

From Ruth X

Sunday, 30 March 2025

I've just been ironing and mulling, as you do, and it occurs to me that what is happening is an attitude of if WE (trans people) are not allowed to use women's spaces, then we'll make sure no one can, by getting women's events cancelled.

TBH we can't even have a dialogue that makes sense unless we can define who/what is a trans woman.  The failure of any trans person or advocate to clarify that is odd.

It's distressing, and I agree patriarchal, to basically say if it's not open to me, it shouldn't exist, however much vulnerable women may need it.

From T Smith

Friday 4 April 2025

A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.
A cis woman is a woman who was assigned female at birth.

If you don't like those definitions… then try defining 'red', or 'horse'. As Wittgenstein noted – his example was 'game' – it's nigh on impossible to give non-circular necessary and sufficient conditions for any useful concept. This doesn't prevent us from applying these concepts. And if you think binary biological sex is easier to define than gender, then you need to speak to more biologists.

People on this thread keep saying that the event was shut down by complainants. There is no evidence for this. It seems that it was advertised as 'women only' but not open to all women. Entirely predictably (and one wonders whether the organizer did predict this) when this came to light, the Town Hall management felt it had to discuss the matter with the organizer, who (by Sarah T's account) then decided to take the event elsewhere.

Certainly, there is no evidence for the wild allegations of bullying and threatening behaviour, even one of "stalking behaviour", made by contributors above.

There is a deeper point. Talk of bullying, stalking etc. is male-coded, and as such deeply offensive to trans women.  

Harriet Groves and Ruth X do not even bother to use the code, openly talking of "male psychology", and "patriarchy" to describe trans women and their allies.

Groves cheerfully illustrates the point by insinuating that a trans activist who spoke of punching people in the face is representative of a group that want "vindictively", to "stamp down". It would be no more preposterous to say that Valerie Solanas epitomises the inherently violent psychology of lesbian radical feminists.

Trans women are not the patriarchy. 

The men in power seizing their rights e.g. to gender-affirming medical care, are the same men overturning Roe v Wade. And for the same reason: they want to control the organs of reproduction. They want more white babies, and they don't get them except by taking rights from women. 

Oh, and transgender women and men have higher rates of violent victimization (86.1 and 107.5 per 1,000 people, respectively) than cisgender women and men (23.7 and 19.8 per 1,000 people, respectively). (Source: Williams institute).

From R Hudson

Saturday 5 April 2025

Dear T Smith

Thank you for your definition of 'trans women.'

It is very informative and helpful to know what a 'trans woman' is.  It is my understanding, by your definition, that the only defining characteristics of 'trans women' are that they are all male. Surely by definition a sub section of men not women.

Therefore trans identifying male or men would be a more appropriate term to use than 'trans women' when discussing issues regarding males/men wishing to take part in a females/ women only events held at the Town Hall, or any other issues raised in this thread.

From Dave Boardman

Wednesday, 16 April 2025

 I can update T Smith on definition of women: The UK Supreme Court rules that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, ie what she was born as. 

Finally, people can start properly campaigning for trans rights instead of insisting that the rights women won over many decades and centuries are 'trans rights'. I have despaired that no one, as far as I can see, has been campaigning for safe toilets, washing, changing facilities etc for trans people, but many have insisted that if there is an image of a female on the door that is for them too.

Events for women can now clearly be 'for women' as defined by law. I hope that the antagonism that has raged against women and trans people can now be put to bed and they can join forces in campaigning for trans facilities, sports etc. It may require the ridiculous and abusive accusations of 'fascism' and 'transphobia' to subside and may even lead to people being able to discuss their views and experiences openly without fear of abuse, reprisals, police visits or loss of jobs.

From T Smith

Thursday, 17 April 2025

No, Dave Boardman the Supreme Court did not venture a legal definition of 'woman'. If it had ruled as you describe, it would be inconsistent with the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

The court judged, more narrowly, that 'sex' as used in the Equality Act 2010 should be understood to refer to biological sex, and 'woman' as used in that Act should be understood to refer to those born biologically female.

From Anon 21

Friday, 18 April 2025

T. Smith, the court did rule that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. Arguments that sex can be changed by a Gender Reassignment Certificate were dismissed.

In the Equality Act, sex is a protected characteristic. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment is not affected by the ruling. The court has held that it would be problematic to effectively divide trans people between 2 different protected characteristics, depending on whether or not they have a certificate. This is particularly the case when service providers cannot ask to see a certificate.

The judges said that the law needs to be clear and consistent and that including those with a GRC in with women would ultimately be incoherent. I hope that makes it a little clearer.

From T Smith

Friday, 18 April 2025

No, the court did not "give the legal definition of a woman". This is false and people must stop repeating it. The court's terms of reference were much more narrow: to interpret what is meant by 'woman', and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act.

From Anon 21

Saturday, 19 April 2025

T. Smith, the definition of a woman is based on biological sex and women are protected by the protected characteristic of sex. Trans people with a GRC are protected by the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. That boat has sailed. I think that you would be better off taking your eye off women's rights and concentrating on trans rights: trans/ non-binary toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, etc.

From Ruth X

Saturday, 19 April 2025

The BBC has a nicely balanced long article about the decision here.

I want to be very clear that I and other women I know are not gloating about a win "against" trans people.  Many, including myself, are deeply relieved that women's spaces can be protected for natal women only.  But it is not that we believe trans women and trans men should have no protection or rights.  They have different needs for protection and rights from natal women, and this should be respected and their rights campaigned for and upheld, as women have campaigned for our rights to be upheld over the decades.

May we all find peace with ourselves and each other, now we know where the law stands for both groups.

From Mo Ludlam

Sunday, 20 April 2025

I spent some time reading the full Judgement of the Supreme Court. Their job was to rule on the meaning of the legislation, specifically the 2010 Equality Act. They began with the Equal pay legislation of 1970, the 1975 Sex discrimination Act, the 2024 Gender recognition Act, subsequent court rulings and then the Equality Act. One such court case concerned a trans man who had given birth and wanted to be registered as the father on the birth certificate. Their application was dismissed and they were listed as mother on the birth certificate. 

Currently the largest group of people wanting to transition are young women wanting to be men. 

The judges looked at that part of the act relating to protection of women who were pregnant from discrimination relating to pregnancy and childbirth. They concluded that that part of the act could only relate to biological women. This included trans men. There could not be a situation where a trans man who decides to get pregnant could be denied those protections  Therefore biological sex clearly related to sex not gender. 

The judges did not accept that the word woman would have different meanings throughout the act and therefore the word woman in the act could only relate to a biological woman

They went on to look at the protection of trans people in the act and concluded that trans people had a protected characteristic and were clearly protected from discrimination and harassment, both socially and in the workplace.

The possession of a GRC certificate is a private and confidential document. No agency can request to see it. Therefore the judges concluded that in practice there could be no difference between a trans person who had a GRC  and a trans person who didn't. 

The equalisation of the pension age meant that there would be no difference in retirement age between men and women, therefore a trans person would be at no disadvantage.

The Supreme Court judgement therefore clarified the law as it was meant, protection for biological women and trans people.

From T Smith

Sunday, 20 April 2025

The conciliatory intent and tone of Ruth X's recent post is well taken.

Just to add that there is an extremely well-informed, respectful and sensitive discussion of some of the likely negative consequences of the judgement here (it lasts for approximately the first half an hour of the podcast).

From Ruth X

Sunday, 20 April 2025

T Smith, I think where we are at now is a new beginning for trans rights in the UK.  Now we are clear on some of what isn't a trans right - access to some women's spaces - we can start to be looking afresh at what is needed in terms of legal protections and various types of physical facilities for the trans people in our communities.  All is not lost for trans people!  There's a bit of a reset on where and what work is needed. These things take time.  It would be great if they didn't! But I think there is actually more hope than final ending of hopes, if that makes sense.