Yet, when faced with the delicate question of whether a trans man can join these gatherings, she finds herself at a crossroads of empathy and boundaries. Her intention is clear: to keep the space drama-free and respectful, but the complexity of identity and inclusion challenges her to navigate uncharted emotional terrain with compassion and integrity.

I am in a group for women who are 30-50 in my area. It’s basically a way for women to make friends in my city. The group is a sub group (12.5k members) of the large group (over 20k).
Anyways, I’ve been organizing dinner meetups once a month that are designed to be inclusive. I have Celiac and am looking for ways to cycle through dry dinners, vegan dinners, cocktail nights, winery, etc.
Basically trying a variety of new places around the city.
To the question. I had a woman reach out and asked if her trans husband could attend the dinner. The woman used he / him pronouns towards her husband (her pronouns were on her profile).
Her husband looks like a woman so is likely in the beginning stages?
I want these to be drama free and just a way for women to meet women. I wasn’t sure if this is considered an AH move to say “since he identifies as a man, I don’t think it’s appropriate” or not.
This might be stupid but I don’t want to be rude.
Conclusion
The original poster (OP) is facing a conflict between their desire to keep the women-only social group focused strictly on female bonding and the request to include the transgender husband of a member. The OP is hesitant to exclude the individual, fearing they might be perceived as rude or unkind, yet they also feel protective of the group’s established boundary regarding gender inclusion.
Should the OP prioritize the explicitly stated, informal purpose of the group—women meeting women—even if it means potentially excluding the husband of a current member, or is the inclusive action of allowing the husband a greater priority in maintaining group harmony?
Here’s how people reacted:
Sometimes we will meet in a more public venue and have a tournament. Maybe even a trophy.
I generally decide myself who gets invited and who does not. Often times I throw the invitation open to everyone in earshot. But sometimes I limited to a select group of friends.
To be sure, if you don’t like Star Trek if you don’t talk the right way about Star Trek then you’re not going to be invited and you’re not going to be able to attend.
I have no problem with people who don’t like Star Trek who don’t speak about it in reverential tones. But they won’t be at my party.
I’m a guy. I’m absolutely certain that I would not fit in at your woman’s dinner at all. And I would not have a problem being excluded solely on that basis.
You certainly have a right to limit attendees to like-minded individuals.
I can handle not being invited to your events just like I’m sure you can handle not being invited to my Star Trek party.
If anyone has a problem with that then that’s just too bad.
To me the spirit of those outings is to allow people to have time away from their SO and I think that’s important for bonding, and allowing people space outside of relationships or abusive situations. I think the spirit of those things should be preserved as those spaces are for a specific, underserved, audience.
trans men are men, and so no, he should not attend the dinner nor ask to be included. He’s a man.
Spaces for trans men do exist and if they haven’t found one, they can connect with folks and make one.
NTA
You are literally respecting and affirming his gender identity by refusing him entry to the dinner. It is a **women only** group. Just tell her plainly that no husbands are allowed. NTA.
Like while he might be a safe person to have in women only spaces because he has lived the same experiences as most women, at the end of the end of the day, it’s a women only dinner, no boys allowed.
How would you handle nonbinary attendees?
Your answer is in your own post. It’s a way for women to meet other women. It’s a her/she event.
NTA