How to say "no men" without saying "no men"

July 21, 2022 11:54 AM

How to best signal that our group is not for men?

I help organize a women's-only club in a hobby dominated by older white men. We've expanded our gender policy to include non-binary people, but now we are rethinking our language based off of a new member whose gender identity is unknown. Regardless of how this person identifies, we want to be sure that anyone who identifies as a man (cis or trans) does not expect to be welcomed into our meetings. How do the options below sound, or is there a better option we're not thinking of?

X is a women's club. We welcome all (cis + trans) women and non-binary people who feel comfortable in a woman-centered space.
We thought maybe the language is too soft here, and a non-binary person who happens to also identify as a man would think they can attend.

We also considered this, but thought it sounded too negative: X is a women's club. We welcome all people who do not identify as men.


(There were a few threads related inclusivity language, but they were old and didn't quite fit our parameters)

posted by joeyjoejoejr to Human Relations (36 answers total)

In my opinion only* I think an example of an organization who addressed this effectively & with a lot of care is a maker space in San Francisco Bay Area called Double Union. This is their policy.
*this may be considered controversial, I am not quite sure to be honest.
posted by bleep at 12:07 PM on July 21, 2022 [9 favorites]

This is an issue that historically all-women's colleges have been dealing with, and they've been working hard on developing language to accomplish what you're trying to do.

Tons of examples here.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:08 PM on July 21, 2022 [16 favorites]

I'm an agender/nonbinary person that was AMAB and has facial hair. My clothing choices kind of range all over. I like the policy that bleep linked, because it clearly includes people who look like me who identify as I do. I have been to some places that advertise as "women and nonbinary" and they did NOT mean they wanted to include me, because of how I look.

I think what's important is to be very honest about who, exactly, you want - or do not want - in your group. Better to be verbose and specific up-front; there is not a short, concise way of talking about this.

One thing to consider: if you had a person join your group, who later identified as a man, would you kick them out?
posted by curious nu at 12:18 PM on July 21, 2022 [12 favorites]

Response by poster: One thing to consider: if you had a person join your group, who later identified as a man, would you kick them out?

Yes.
posted by joeyjoejoejr at 12:52 PM on July 21, 2022 [9 favorites]

Another example that I just came across and liked:

For Women + Marginalized Genders That Feel Comfortable With A Femme Approach To Woodworking

It’s from the Fireweed Community Woodshop.
posted by scantee at 12:55 PM on July 21, 2022 [4 favorites]

I think you should go with the "we welcome all people who do not identify as men", or maybe even "this club is only for people who do not identify as men". It makes your position quite clear. If some people find it off-putting, it sounds like that's what you want, especially given that you would kick someone out if they started to identify as male after joining the club. I mean, I'm a cis woman but my partner is a trans man and a policy worded like that would make things very clear for me.
posted by Athanassiel at 1:41 PM on July 21, 2022 [24 favorites]

I helped write that Double Union policy! An important element is that Double Union welcomes nonbinary people and women as equally important parts of our community. That does not sound like what you're trying to do.

As you consider what you want to say, I'd suggest reading On the Design of Women’s Spaces by Kat Marchán and Making Your In-Person Event Inclusive of Non-Binary People by Kendra Albert.
posted by dreamyshade at 1:59 PM on July 21, 2022 [10 favorites]

Not to be glib, but I think the best way to say "no men" is probably "no men, please". Tacking that on to the end of the first blurb you offered sounds very clear and polite to me.
posted by dusty potato at 2:00 PM on July 21, 2022 [8 favorites]

In general, I think phrasing things like this in the negative ("We welcome all people who do not identify as men") invites more pushback than doing so in the positive. So I would think about something like:

"A community for women and non-binary XYZ'ers"

or

"A community for women and non-binary XYZ'ers to support other women and non-binary XYZ'ers."

There is no perfect language. You may in the future find yourself in a situation where someone's self-identity does not align with your perceived guidelines for the organization, and that will have to be addressed with them, but it's easier to do that with a definition of who the group is for rather than who it isn't for.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 2:02 PM on July 21, 2022

I do very much like the one bleep linked but also appreciate the clarity of "no men." Perhaps you could combine them so that you get the benefits of being explicit while also welcoming those who might otherwise suspect they'll be perceived as too man-adjacent.
posted by teremala at 2:04 PM on July 21, 2022 [4 favorites]

If what you really want is no men, cis or trans, then say that. It still leaves a couple of edge cases but it’s as clear as you’re likely to get in a short statement. It will put some people off but those people will be equally put off if you use softening language but then they figure out what you actually mean. You will be doing yourself and those people a favor by being clear up front.

I like the Double Union statement a lot but to me it doesn’t read like it’s trying to do the same thing you are.
posted by Stacey at 2:08 PM on July 21, 2022 [5 favorites]

I like Athanassiel’s “people who do not identify as men”. That would be inclusive of cis women, trans women, and lots of non-binary or genderqueer people. I would suggest the group interrogate what it wants to achieve with the updated language, if it hasn’t already. You don’t want old white dudes monopolizing your space; does a person of unknown gender identity who joined your enby-inclusive organization actually threaten that?
posted by hollyholly at 2:09 PM on July 21, 2022 [5 favorites]

Best answer: As an AMAB non-binary person, I would definitely read a "no men" statement as one a place I would really have to vet to know if they really meant that I was welcome. Especially if that craft was one where I couldn't safely over compensate with femme attire. If I'm in a wood shop and wearing close toed shoes, pants, and no jewelry, it's exhausting to think that if I don't continue to perform femininity to the right extent, that I will be seen as not belonging, or even worse, as a threat. I'd really want to know someone in leadership was trans competent and really doing the work to make it a safe space to feel comfortable. Most of the time, I'll sit it out, it's too much overhead.

None of that is to say that's the wrong wording, just to make you aware of how those words impact me, one AMAB nonbinary person in particular.
posted by advicepig at 2:20 PM on July 21, 2022 [35 favorites]

The more I think about this, the more I think you should actually go with "women only". I mean, a genderfluid person who sometimes identifies as male and sometimes as female and sometimes as neither or both isn't really going to feel like it's a safe space even if you let them in on a day that they're not presenting as male. If you'd kick people out after letting them join because their gender identity shifts, it's not really a safe space for anyone who isn't a cis woman, and a certain kind of cis woman at that.

I do think you need to spend more time thinking about what it is that you want to exclude, independent of gender identity. If it turns out that what you really want to exclude is patronising, sexist behaviour from people who have a considerable lifetime of male privilege, excluding trans men and kicking out people who shift their gender identity seems unduly harsh.
posted by Athanassiel at 4:02 PM on July 21, 2022 [20 favorites]

I think the question of what you're trying to do is really important. If you're trying to include only people from certain backgrounds, or marginalized folks, or people with a certain set of cultural touchstones... It seems like maybe you want femme non-binary folks but not masculine ones? Like, I know that's not what you said, but it's hard not to read it that way. And not including trans men, even though they won't exactly be welcomed in the male-dominated spaces either, is a little hard for me to figure out exactly what you're going for. So I can't paraphrase that for you, but maybe you can figure an alternative phrasing out if you think about it a bit?

Or if you're trying to avoid certain atmosphere or behaviors, you can spell that out too. And it's probably more effective to take aim at it directly than trying to use "identity" as the scalpel.
posted by Lady Li at 4:18 PM on July 21, 2022 [6 favorites]

Best answer: You're right that your language doesn't work.

I think you need to just be more explicit about what you want.

If it's really about identity, then don't say NBs welcome. So no men, and no male-leaning NBs, or whatever it is that you really want.

And, it is not clear to me what it is that you want. In particular, how you're handling gender fluid and non-binary people. It could be that you're really not sure yourself - in which case, figure that out and it will be easier to write.
posted by J. Wilson at 4:25 PM on July 21, 2022 [2 favorites]

The other thing I was thinking about is a couple of my agender friends, who might respond to "are you a man?" with basically, "shrug emoji, nah, but I'm not NOT a man, either, really?" Are those folks you're looking to include or exclude, here? You probably need to really drill down here and get clear on that.
posted by Stacey at 4:32 PM on July 21, 2022 [5 favorites]

X is a women's club. We welcome all (cis + trans) women and non-binary people

make up your mind. advertising yourself as an enforced women-only space while welcoming non-binary people is disrespectful (at best) to all concerned. I do not personally seek out women-only spaces but if you are going to claim to run one, women have a reasonable right to expect you mean it. if you do actually mean it, We welcome all (cis + trans) women is the way to express it. but "women" is not a euphemism for "not-men", and you are not being terribly respectful to women by defining us in that way. speaking of negativity.

if "all cis and trans women" is not a complete and adequate description of the people you welcome, then a women's club is not what you are operating. if you want, instead, to operate a club that excludes men and only men, say so. do you think women and non-binary people who would be interested in such a place would be put off by clarity and plain speaking? that strikes me as very unlikely.

you cannot be trusted to actually keep men out if you are afraid to even say out loud that they aren't welcome.
posted by queenofbithynia at 5:34 PM on July 21, 2022 [30 favorites]

X Club is for women and gender expansive adults. It is not appropriate for men.

(This is only if you really are for gender expansive adults.)
posted by The corpse in the library at 5:52 PM on July 21, 2022 [1 favorite]

You don't welcome non-binary people. You welcome women and tolerate non-binary people only if you can pretend they're women. If that's the space you want, own it, stop pretending to be inclusive.
posted by hoyland at 7:04 PM on July 21, 2022 [25 favorites]

In particular, "we will kick you out if you start identifying as a man" makes your space unwelcoming to literally every afab person questioning their gender, including those who are women.

Edit: the alternative being believing you have fostered a community that can trust its members will exit gracefully when the time is right as their understanding of their gender evolves
posted by hoyland at 7:09 PM on July 21, 2022 [7 favorites]

If you want to run a women’s club, just say it’s a women’s club. The more detailed you try to get about what you mean by “women” or “not men,” the more confusing it’s going to be to more people, likely to the satisfaction of fewer people.
posted by wondermouse at 7:20 PM on July 21, 2022 [7 favorites]

Best answer: This might seem like I’m going on the attack, but I’m not. To put a finer point on the above questions, how would the group feel if a person showed up who at least outwardly checked all of your “old white guy crowding out everybody else in our hobby” boxes while being trans/non-binary? Not all enbies dress or act androgynously, and there are lots of people who use “he/him” pronouns whether or not they’re AMAB. Not everyone pursues medical interventions or changes how they dress. If you’d feel uncomfortable having such a person in the space, a women-only policy might be more accurate. You can say you’re trans-inclusive too, but you have to mean it.
posted by hollyholly at 8:15 PM on July 21, 2022 [6 favorites]

I live in the DC metro area where the phrase "dyke [event title]" has become very popular. On one hand, I don't really identify with the "dyke" label as a queer woman; on the other hand, it makes the vibe and demographic pretty clear. Enby and trans people are welcome and tbh even a straight cis-presenting guy would be welcome without question, if perhaps a few strange looks. The label of "dyke" is definitely imperfect but it's short, kinda retro, and more inclusive than many alternatives. Personally for me as someone who's queer (albeit rather privileged overall), being inclusive is more important than keeping perceived men out. Part of this is because I'm an inclusive person but also because I've learned that a lot of male-presenting or seeming people have identities that are more nuanced than they first appear. However, I can totally understand wanting to keep white people out or in the background -- I say this as a white person myself -- and respect that, too.

Ultimately, I really agree with hoyland and others who have said: say exactly what you mean and don't beat around the bush or pretend to be inclusive when you're not. It's OK, if not my thing, and the clearer you are, the better. A statement like "While we have solidarity with all people who share a love for [hobby], our membership is limited to people who identify as [xyz]. Please contact us if you have any questions about eligibility." You can then also refer people to different and/or more mainstream groups if they don't fit your criteria: it's still a no but a gentler version.
posted by smorgasbord at 9:13 PM on July 21, 2022 [5 favorites]

It sounds like your real concern is that you’re not sure whether or not one individual’s identity is aligned with your club’s criteria. Instead of rephrasing your gender policy, maybe your club needs a plan for asking participants (preferably all of them, not just new or gender non-conforming people) about their gender identity and/or pronouns on a regular basis and asking them to leave if they don’t fit your membership criteria.

No matter how carefully phrased your policies are, you’ll eventually have to address a situation where someone didn’t read it very carefully, or was invited by a member with a more flexible understanding of the policy, or had their identity shift over the years after joining

That kind of conversation might be uncomfortable, but asking people directly is more fair and provides more clarity than speculating about their identities and appearances.
posted by threecolorable at 9:21 PM on July 21, 2022

Response by poster: Hoping to give some clarifying context...
The people who participate in this (competitive) club, will be added to a global ranking system that is specifically labeled as Women (as in separate from the regular rankings for everyone.) We don't have control of the ranking set-up.
posted by joeyjoejoejr at 9:32 PM on July 21, 2022

Best answer: Ah, then how about "X Club is open to all athletes who compete in the Women's divisions of the USA Hopscotch Association" or whatever the governing body is?
posted by The corpse in the library at 10:24 PM on July 21, 2022 [22 favorites]

I'm someone that you don't want and I would prefer that you be explicit about that. No matter what you say, you risk offending someone, so at least be clear. I can't speak to the most appropriate way to refer to the group of people you want to include, but I'd add the previously suggested 'no men, please', so you start with:
X is a women's club. We welcome all (cis + trans) women and non-binary people who feel comfortable in a woman-centered space. No men, please.

It may be worth having something like this as your key message, but expand on that for those wanting more information in a way similar to the Double Union one. It does seem a bit too wordy, but does a good job of including everyone, it seems.
posted by dg at 12:14 AM on July 22, 2022

In that case, I would suggest mirroring whatever language the ranking system uses to determine who is eligible. If the ranking system doesn’t get into the weeds about who qualifies as a woman, then you don’t need to either, and can just use the language suggested by The corpse in a library.
posted by Stacey at 4:20 AM on July 22, 2022 [2 favorites]

Even though the competitive ranking may be very specific about defining "women", if you really want to be inclusive you could decide as a group that you will be. Just because someone can't enter Competitive Hopscotch as a woman if they are a trans man or agender or intersex or whoever else is excluded by Competitive Hopscotch rules doesn't mean they might not enjoy informal competitive hopscotch. They might not feel comfortable playing competitive hopscotch with cis men. Your group might decide you're happy to include a broader range of people and even advocate for them to be included in the official competitions.

It doesn't sound like that's the case here, but I just thought I'd point out that if you really do want to be inclusive, there are ways to actually make a difference to the people affected by these arbitrary rules, to create a safe and welcoming space for them. But of course you can just stick to the rules, that's definitely easier.
posted by Athanassiel at 5:37 AM on July 22, 2022 [4 favorites]

The people who participate in this (competitive) club, will be added to a global ranking system that is specifically labeled as Women

Well that makes life easy. "Our club is tied to [competitive group] and can only accept members who fit their Women category."

You can put an asterisk on Women and have it point to the definition used by [competitive group]. No point to inventing your own language when you’re constrained by theirs.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:31 AM on July 22, 2022 [6 favorites]

"The people who participate in this (competitive) club, will be added to a global ranking system that is specifically labeled as Women"

So to me this seems very clearly a women's club, not a women-and-enbies club, why not just say that? Say "this is a women's club and we welcome all women (cis and trans)".
posted by splitpeasoup at 7:59 AM on July 22, 2022 [2 favorites]

As a note, people compete in gender categories that do not align with their identities for a variety of reasons--there may be no category that aligns with their identity (usually the case for non-binary people), they may not be permitted in the category that aligns with their gender (true for many trans people pre/early/not-interested-in medical transition). You can't assume that "compete in the women's category" means "is a woman".

If your club's membership coincides with a team, "people who compete in the women's category" maybe be all you need. If competition is individual, you may want to specifically address the case of trans women who might be barred from the women's category by the organization for whatever reason (eg not having F on the right piece of paper).
posted by hoyland at 9:31 AM on July 22, 2022 [4 favorites]

Best answer: How to best signal that our group is not for men?

Say that.

we want to be sure that anyone who identifies as a man (cis or trans) does not expect to be welcomed into our meetings.

While I'm sure that NotMyselfRightNow is right that positive language will get less pushback, your language should reflect your intent. If the intent is specifically that you do not want men to attend. It does nobody any good to come up with, frankly, fake positive language that is a cop-out way of saying the same thing. You have decided that you don't want men to join (fair enough!) and are now basically assembling a laundry list of all the different ways that somebody could be "not a man" without actually saying that.

You say that We've expanded our gender policy to include non-binary people, but now we are rethinking our language based off of a new member whose gender identity is unknown. which raises my eyebrows. Have you really thought about how to include non-binary people? Some non-binary people are very male-leaning in their presentation and self conception. Would you really be serving your objective by including someone who can and has passed for a cis-male for their whole life and moves through the world that way?
posted by atrazine at 10:53 AM on July 22, 2022 [3 favorites]

It sounds like the entire reason this group is being exclusionary is due to set rules by the organization, not anything about wanting to shut out NB's/people who don't present in a certain way, per se.

I'd go with Tell Me No Lies's suggestion: use the language that the organization does and stick to that.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:56 AM on July 22, 2022 [2 favorites]

If you need to use obfuscatory language because what you are doing makes you uncomfortable if stated plainly, maybe stop and think. Do you feel uncomfortable about what you are actually doing—excluding based on gender? Excluding people from a group employment based on sex, ethnic group, sexual orientation, religion, etc is illegal, and exclusion from any group on such grounds is an invitation to a lawsuit.
posted by metatuesday at 10:05 AM on July 23, 2022 [1 favorite]