The Women's Institute faces revolt ...

So at what point does a cross dressing male become a Male with a trans identity? Why is one excluded from the WI but not the other? Would Pips Bunce be allowed in or not? What about gender fluid people?

Kirstie Allsop would get on well with him.

If two males perform the same amount and type of cross-dressing in their daily lives and one claims to be trans then that person is covered by the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment.

If challenged they would only need to say, for example, that at some point in the future they propose to change the name on their gas bill to Tiffany.

Since the magical sex metamorphosis can start with nothing more than adopting stereotypical clothing and cosmetic appearance, just wearing nail varnish could be used as evidence that they are covered by the PC of Gender Reassignment - because they have started to "live as a woman" from the fingertips backwards.

As well as appearance, "Other attributes of sex" could mean, for example, "behaving like a woman", such as joining the WI, or "doing woman-things" such as other people calling you by female pronouns.

The whole thing is nonsensical.

EA2010 - Section 7 - Gender Reassignment

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7?timeline=false&view=plain

Cross dressing isn't a protected characteristic, so it is fine to discriminate against cross dressers.

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, but people get very confused about how to apply the equality act to gender reassignment.

Correct application would mean that transmen have to be admitted to the WI but transwomen don't have to be. This is why the free masons don't throw out men who transition.

very well said Esmacannonball

It was deliberately rude and misogynist. It's how the WI is perceived and if it goes to court / media battles that's where the counter argument to single sex provision is going to be thrown at it...

The WI have to demonstrate they have a legitimate aim and purpose in being single sex that goes beyond simple companionship between biological women because the whole premise of the EA protected status for gender reassignment is about social acceptance and not being discriminated against. Women have to demonstrate a need based on biological disadvantage as to why an exemption would be appropriate, fair and proportionate.

I read the article when it was in the WI members ‘ magazine some time ago. I was then an active member of the WI. ( I left because I moved house, not because of this controversy, although I haven’t joined any of my three local groups , and I don’t intend to until this is resolved)

It doesn’t say anywhere why Petra wanted to join the WI. There’s nothing about the ( many and varied) activities and meetings , nothing about the educational courses which were offered before lockdown, nothing about the very real charitable and caring work which groups do in their local towns and villages, nothing about the campaigns which the WI have initiated and supported about issues such as FGM ,maternal leave, or domestic violence refuges.

It’s all just about how great it is for Petra to be recognised as a woman. I presume it is nice for Petra’s spouse , who is very active and respected in the WI at local and National level, to have her spouse with her at meetings (though most members can bear to be separated from their partners for a few hours , just for a change) .

I hope this post is inoffensive. It reflects my experience as a member of the WI

The WI does not just bake cakes - how patronising. And if women want to do that - or anything - with no males present why should they not?

Is that two blokes talking about who woman should let into their spaces?

And I do think the policy potentially discriminates against men who are "cross dressers", as it would against any man other than one who says he's a transwoman.
Either there is a claim for it to be single sex or there's not.

I'm sure he'll be supporting all the transmen who want to join the free masons too then 🤔

Try here

api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/index.html

Here's one with part of the GRA debate
api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/2004/feb/11/gender-recognition

So William Hague wants to deprive women of freedom of association but personally enjoys the freedom of association between rich, well-connected men. What a shock.

We are living in a time when every organisation women founded for themselves is being colonised by men and women are having to spend time, effort and money to re-found those organisations, all the while being called bigots and (special) man-haters for doing so. We think we've progressed but we are just fighting the same battles against a more devious opponent.

Would Hague have been in parliament when they decided to deny transmen the right to inherit titles? I wonder what his stance on that is.