The Women's Institute and inclusivity

Or, rather, his fees

I hope they respond favourably @Anotherporkypie

Petra donates her fees from her WI talks to Stonewall.

I think the news at the moment is primarily centred on Scotland and I don’t think it’s really making the headlines here.

Perhaps the news at the moment might make your request seem more reasonable.

I realise I am resurrecting an old thread.

I am a WI member. The National Conference is coming up in May to be held in Cardiff. I am attending but it is too far from my home to go for the day.
I am staying with a large group from one county . I have been asked if I want to share a room which I would be happy to do if this person was another woman. Sharing at national conference is pretty common. It will save considerably on the cost. I would be extremely unhappy if that person turned out to be trans.
I had to frame a written response saying this without the worry of being accused of being transphobic.
I really resent having to do this a because of the now WI policy.

From memory , back in the summer - the front cover of WI Life magazine had its first trans member , Petra Wenham .

The definition of non binary is interesting Glogirl when it states it applies to those born female . For that reason it is astonishing that tw are allowed to join. I would bet that there was never any vote by local groups on this and who knows what the wishes of the membership are. If I were a member in my local branch I would be asking for input by transgender trend, FPFW or FWS. And raising hell that this has been allowed to happen.

Maybe this is naive, but why does the WI need to have definitions of sexualities in their regs at all? I just don't see the relevance.

The idea of admitting anyone who identifies as a woman is very silly, if that is the approach they want they should simply admit men - after all plenty of men might be interested in their activities as well. But I suppose as long as there is this weird claim that it's difficult to define who counts as a woman, they do need to say who they will admit.

That seems different to me than sexual orientation which seems to have nothing to do with their remit.

I just think we shouldn't alienate - it only gives the big lobby groups more ammo to damage us with

Personally, I think that's exactly the approach that has got us into this mess. If we give the TRA movement an inch, it will take a mile.

However, my views aren't really relevant, because I am not a WI member. If the majority of WI members want to accept TW, it should happen. But it should be their choice, not imposed upon them.

@WomanStillNotAFeeling I wonder if the WI could operate a probationary period for all potential new members as some sort of screen?
I would also be concerned regarding your point, and it would be important to keep leaders and executive single-sex, although I don't know whether the law would see that as discrimination, if TWs were accepted but blocked from positions if leadership?

It may be the only possible route to keep it staunchly single-sex from a legal minefield pov

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow I understand your point, however I would think inclusion and safeguarding a slightly different area for WI Vs GG. Upholding single sex membership more critical for GG, I would argue.
I wouldn't be for opening up the WI carte blanche to anyone who would wish to id as a woman, for example, but it should be up to the membership and executive in collaboration, with whatever criteria they would wish to retain, within the law of course. I don't know if it's easier to stipulate single sex only, rather than allowing some TWs but not other men. I don't know whether they could stipulate single sex, and TWs with a GRC, for example.

I just think we shouldn't alienate - it only gives the big lobby groups more ammo to damage us with.

@GloGirl Thanks for taking my points in the good faith they're meant, although likely clumsy!

there should be a proud feminist liberal approach to the TWs who are genuinely interested and wish to take part

Personally, I strongly disagree with that, for a host of reasons, but it should be put to the WI membership (in a way that allows them to respond truthfully). One of the aspects of the approach from the WI and Girlguiding that is so objectionable is the way that each organisation's leaders have totally changed their (single sex) purpose without consulting the membership. Such arrogance.

@GloGirl It sounds as though it's been put together a bit lazily, and GI have had free-reign to write the area regarding gender! That's even worse than I thought! Full-on gender woo. Laughable really.

And yes, if they point to further clarification in sexual orientation in the glossary, but it's not really there, that's poor.

For me, my anger and wrath is firmly focussed on the lobby groups. The WI are pandering without question, but there should be a proud feminist liberal approach to the TWs who are genuinely interested and wish to take part. Many TWs are also quite against the gender woo and the aggressive appropriation of their rights and inclusion by the current highly funded groups to weaponise and beat everyone with - particularly when it comes to indoctrination, medicalisation and surgery for children. I smell big money behind that.

And I would view such a move to cautious inclusion - as guided by members and carefully balanced by the executive (NOT GI!) - as appropriate (and different to that for childrens groups such as GG, for example).

I may be explaining myself badly, but I feel we need to stand firm, but fair and diplomatic, if we are to see the end of the gender and transing woo as pushed by the big groups, alongside our lgb and genuine TW brothers and sisters.

I do agree with @DoubleTweenQueen that there are two separate issues here: whether TW can be members, and whether this GI-influenced policy is the right one for the WI. I would be inclined to address only the latter in your letter, otherwise you are making it easy for them to write you off as a transphobe, and ignore you.

I would highlight the concerns about Stonewall, the fact that advice given by GI and Stonewall has turned out to be wrong and unlawful, and the Forstater ruling that it is unlawful to discriminate against someone for holding GC views.

I attended my local WI meetings in the past but due to family & work commitments just didn’t have the time to go regularly. I now do and planned to join but won’t be now. Such a shame

But I've not read it. Will take a look if I have time.

Do the WI have an AGM? Should it be brought as a motion there? - removal of 'guidance' from GI. The pushing if gender ideology on children and in schools; WI being feminist bastion etc etc

@GloGirl Just to be devil's advocate, and I've not read the policy however:
The WI - the description is in the name - women's institute - so that would encompass all women? And I wouldn't expect there to be a paragraph on inclusivity for different types of women? (Thinking about your comment re:lack of mention of lesbian women)

Breastfeeding women with babes in arms would need a mention Also agree that focus should be to attract other women from different races/cultures & ages.

I suppose the tie-in with GI is them trying to be 'progressive', as are all large institutions but that section has been given over to GI and that's the mistake - not defining the section themselves and not asking the member's views. Although, perhaps some WI members would be accepting of TW who were truly female presenting? Although, yes, we can tell.......

It's the involvement with GI that would annoy me, knowing how demanding and bullish - and supporting Mermaids with appealing LGB Alliance being granted charitable status. All the large groups are in it for the money and power trip, and their toxicity should be avoided.

I would be diplomatic in your letter to the WI if at all possible, and highlight what these organisations are doing elsewhere.

The inclusion of TWs is another convo, I would say, for the WI members, but influence of GI over this needs to be cut.

Well, KittenKong, my two penn'orth- I expect it will be something along the lines of males joining, either as tw or as men, rising quickly to the top (this aided & abetted by the 'be kind' brigade) as males usually do in previously all-female areas, alter the essential character of the WI to suit themselves, women leave and the organisation dies.