The Women's Institute faces revolt ...

The WI isn't just about jam and knitting, it's always been very involved in women's education and feminist campaigning. Single-sex spaces for women aren't just about physical safety and bodily privacy, there's a political and social aspect to them too. Imagine if, for example, union members were never allowed to meet unless at least one of the bosses was present too.

This^^ honestly the jam and baking comment was a little rude and misogynistic.

The EA bar for a single-sex space is set deliberately low: anywhere you wouldn't expect to see a member of the opposite sex. This certainly shouldn't include any 'seat of power' for want of a better phrase but rightly leaves the door wide open for groups that under normal circumstances wouldn't be questioned by anyone.

As it is, WI women are saying they don't want any males in their group and that should be respected and go unchallenged.

Petra seems like a genuinely kind soul, but 65(?) years of testosterone and male socialisation is inescapable and Petra's presence will, unfortunately, change the dynamic of women's-only spaces.

Transvestites/crossdressers have always been included under the trans umbrella.

Press For Change is the organisation that is pretty much solely responsible for the Gender Recognition Act being passed in 2004. They championed the use of the term ‘trans’ precisely because it made no distinction between ‘transsexual’ and ‘transvestite’.

https://womenspeakscotland.com/2021/06/23/the-trans-umbrella-is-older-than-you-think/

What's the difference between a crossdresser saying they're trans and a 'trans person' describing themself as a crossdresser?

DH belongs to three men-only Masonic lodges. But I left WI four years ago over this issue.

Absolutely agree. I've been a member for over 3 years now, jam and baking barely gets a mention.

There was a segment on the news recently about a gardening group for Muslim women who had allotments. They were talking about how it was only for women. How is that different from want women only in WI?

(I don't think either should be allowed in the WI btw!)

Mixed-sex space always becomes male dominated space. The WI isn't just about jam and knitting, it's always been very involved in women's education and feminist campaigning. Single-sex spaces for women aren't just about physical safety and bodily privacy, there's a political and social aspect to them too. Imagine if, for example, union members were never allowed to meet unless at least one of the bosses was present too.

This makes me angry as I know several women for whom the WI is their only social life and time away from taking care of men. I remember hearing women talk about the early decades of the WI and how difficult it could be to get their husbands to take care of their own children so they could attend meetings and how suspicious some men were of what women were plotting when men weren't there. They don't want us to have anything of our own. If men don't want women in a space they don't have to bother with laws, they just have to make that space so hostile and intimidating to women that women self-exclude. If women want a tiny little space we have to plead for our rights.

That says trans people may describe themselves as cross dressers. That's not the same as saying cross dressers are trans.

Crossdressers are trans according to Stonewall:

Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/list-lgbtq-terms

Poetic. I will remember that line.

how Could you see the harm when your eyes are shut tight.

In theory for the same reason you can't have male only clubs for companionship anymore.

It's possible you could argue the point in a court, but I genuinely think you would find it hard to stick and it'd need (an expensive) legal precedent to get through I suspect.

Drowning only effects a few folk. Is that a reason to remove all life
belts from beside deep water? Heart attacks/defribrillators likewise.

Years ago I knew women who found the Irish Countrywomen's Association (WI equiv) a godsend because their controlling husbands would not let them go unsupervised to any function or occasion (even family visits or church meetings) where they might encounter other men.

It would be good to think that the criminalisation of coercive control in relationships meant that that could no longer happen, but I wouldn't bet on it. Women, particularly women held hostage by family circumstances, need places to meet other women.

I think there is quite a different mindset between people who consider themselves trans vs and cross dressers. I think the next generation are doing trans their own way (of course); DS's 'trans' friends don't actually dress differently to how they used to, they are still in jeans, trainers & hoodies with no make up. They have long hair (always did though) & girls names. I can't ask too much detail as we quickly start to disagree.

In my mind trans and cross dressing is the same. It's playing dress up make believe at being the other sex. I'm really disappointed in the WI tbh.

It would mean GRC holders could join the WI but not self ID if the clarification to the Equality Act along the lines of biological sex goes through in the way I think is proposed.

I don't know you could argue enough about legitimate aims for campaigns for women's rights and protections if they aren't your central purpose. It would be ok for a dedicated women's right group I think if their stated aims were about biological differences causing social disadvantages but the WI probably couldn't make the same claim because they have a much broader base / purpose (think about stated aims / purpose descriptions in charity descriptions to get an idea of where I'm going with this).

A woman's facebook forum could sling out males from a group about breastfeeding but probably not knitting or reading.

It's all about central and legitimate aims to discriminate that will be the crux of the exemptions to the Equality Act in the case of a GRC but these probably wouldnt apply for self ID.

That's why GRCs would still matter and why Self ID would be a disaster and it all could still be a problem for certain women's only groups. It depends on how you frame yourself and why you exist.

I've always argued that men's clubs should not be outlawed. Freedom of association also means freedom not to associate and I do not believe that the "power relations" argument cuts it.

If one deploys the power relations argument in order to force someone else to associate with them then they themselves are vulnerable to anyone who can claim relative disadvantage.

Since trans people are the "most marginalised" group then their victimhood card trumps any "cis" person's.

Right of association must be unqualified.

Pronouns.