He all. It's been a while since the subject came up, right? Even on Reddit few people dare to bring up the question nowadays. I'm sure I'm going to be the close of this thread, since I'm one of those... co's... and since nobody is going to want to interact with me, that'll be the end of this thread
Just a few thoughts. This whole regular/irregular discussion is quite tiring. Remember that both terms only have value within your own organisation, not within 'Freemasonry at large' and the point is usually narrowed down to the subject. If a woman is curious about FM, is it offensive to let her know that there are indeed forms of FM that she could join if she wanted? Does it matter if this reference is to a mixed gender lodge and not a women-only lodge? There are more countries with mixed-gender organisations than with women-only organisations. I usually just refer to a
website I made about the subject so the person with the question can inform herself.
I said 'narrowed down'. When we talk about women and Freemasonry, some people like to use the word "clandestine", some even say "bogus", while in fact such organisations are only "irregular" to your organisation. When two mixed gender organisations are on good terms with each other, they are "regular" to each other.
When a colored person informs about FM, but he lives in the Southern states, is it offensive to way that there is something such as Prince Hall? These lodges are irregular in the Southern US, right? Is it because "regular" Southern lodges aren't 'enlightened' enough to recognise Prince Hall that saying this form of FM exists contrary to your "obligation"?
A similar example: 'atheistic' or 'adogmatic' people. They can join the Grand Orient de France, "regular" to many grand lodges. A few decades ago when the GOdF was not "regular" the same referral would have been offensive?
No I'm not saying that it's a matter of time before mixed gender or female Freemasonry will be "regular", I'm just saying, that the whole "regular"/"irregular" discussion is used way too black and white and used in a way that says more about the responder's character than Freemasonry at large. There have been different forms of Freemasonry since the beginning. "Antient", "Modern", "Prince Hall", name it. Mixed gender and female Freemasonry (which also comes in different forms) is one of these forms. Some people may be in a Grand Lodge that cooperates with such organisations (I do not way "recognise"), some may not, but that is of no concern to people who inform about on an internet forum and may live in an entirely different part of the world. Mixed gender Freemasonry has been there for 125 year. Heck, in the early days of FM there have been mixed gender lodges, not just lodges of adoption. Recently detailed plans of the Strict Observance have been found for a
Maçonnerie des Dames from 1780. Doesn't the ever returning discussion say more about our
Zeitgeist?
Look at it this way. Mixed gender Freemasonry is out to make good man and women better, just as 'your' organisation may only be out to make good
men better. When at the end of the day, we have more 'better' people, the world will be better off, right?
As for the rest. Sure, there may be "clandestine" organisations that admit women, organisations that are after people's money. I think there are more "regular" FM copyists that do that. Most mixed gender organisations are quite like your own. They've got lodges, a Grand Lodge/Orient, one or more organisations for 'higher degrees', etc. They also have a procedure for new members that will be quite like your own. Of course it may happen that a rotten apple gets through the procedures, but I'm sure that this also happens to "regular" lodges.
No, co-Masons aren't all feminist. I joined a mixed gender lodge for a very practical reason: my girlfriend wanted too and we decided to work on ourselves together instead of in two different organisations.
Sure, there are co-Masons active on fora who take a fairly militant position and make a habit of feeling offended. Then again, there are "regular" Masons who get offended by the question of women in Freemasonry alone, only being able to rant and spit out terms such as "clandestine" (to be honest, the second group is usually worst). Not everybody manages to remain civil in the anonymous virtual arena.
So to answer the question. Of course I will notify an inquiring woman about the fact that there are forms of Freemasonry available to her. I will also tell people who wonder about "atheistic" FM that there are forms of FM available to him/her, even though I am no fond of "secular" FM myself. That is not to offence "regular" Freemasons, but just because 'their' FM has long been not the only form. Besides, the Masonic landscape keeps changing. Some Grand Lodge loses "regularity" over their standpoint regarding homosexuals; another starts to cooperate with other types of lodges; the next has been "irregular" for decades, but comes to terms with UGLE. FM is like a river. Never the same, but all made of water.
We don't all have to "recognise" each other officially, but can't we just recognise each others existence without being offended by that very fact? When a woman learns that she can't be a Freemason because of her sex, she may be surprised at first, but "regular" Freemasons may be surprised how few people within mixed gender Freemasonry are out to change "regular" FM. There's no need for that, the other options are there. People can make their own choices. What the more 'experienced' members
can do is inform people, teach them about the correspondences and differences, see to it that they don't fall into the hands of money-grabbers and stimulate them to become a better (wo)man.