The Women's Institute faces revolt ...

Why can't women meet unchaperoned? Why does this idea threaten males so much?

There are issues with men only clubs, because men hold the economic and structural power in all societies and whilst the urge for a man to be with fellow males isn't necessarily bad, it is sometimes impossible for these clubs not to become the seat of business deals. Class comes into play here too - a working man's club or dart team for example isn't equivalent to the Masons or financial executives playing golf together.

Similarly a club for black people would be understandable whereas a club for white people would present issues. A club formed around the basis of being trans would be absolutely acceptable.

And I wonder how many transwomen have actually kept their Freemason membership, and how many transmen have been allowed to join. Not many I wager, it is one thing for an organisation to say they are welcoming and another to put it into practice - unless of course you are an organisation which was designed for women in which case you lie down on the floor so your betters can walk over you in their lady shoes.

Another WI campaign (which I voted for but it didn't win!) for car seatbelts to be tested on female bodies; they are currently designed and tested on male bodies and proportions only.

The gnostics like Keir Starmer and LOJ will tell us.

Single characteristic association are permitted otherwise things like Deaf clubs would have to admit non hearing impaired.

It become a challenge if someone has a GRC. This was part of the problem with GRR if I remember correctly.

I'd be interested to know if any TRA groups are campaigning for transmen to be allowed to join the Freemasons.

If the Equality act is preventing a woman's only group existing (the WI) then how can all the other single-characteristic groups get away with it? Men's sheds, gay men's saunas, & associations for same-sex attracted?

If the Equality Act is preventing the WI from existing, then is it the Equality Act that needs changing? Small voluntary organisations can't be expected to go to court to keep out the chancers.
The Giggle/Tickle court case is presumably on a similar point of law?

The WI was more than just jam making and baking, it was social, it did a lot of campaigning, politicians used to take notice of it - remember when they slow hand clapped Tony Blair when he attended?

Yes this. It isn’t just baking and it’s a little dismissive to suggest that here. Even if it were, women wanting to do things together should be allowed legally.

It mentions these campaigning activities in the article.

[The campaign group] points out that the WI often runs campaigns that are specific to women as a biological group, such as those opposing male violence, mixed hospital wards and the gender pay gap.

If you're campaigning against male violence you really don't want people like Kellie Maloney as a member of your organisation.

I was in the WI in my early 20's. There was a group in the same town called Men's Forum, which must be the same thing but for men.

"You'd have to demonstrate a need for women to bake cakes and make jam without the presence of males. I think you would potentially struggle."
Inclined to agree. But in that case, could men without a trans identity also argue that they should be able to join? If transwoman-without-GRC is fine to come along, are you not discriminating against Dave who is bored on a Tuesday evening and John who doesn't want his wife to go anywhere without him?

I agree Arabella.

The WI was more than just jam making and baking, it was social, it did a lot of campaigning, politicians used to take notice of it - remember when they slow hand clapped Tony Blair when he attended?

I didn't see the other thread. Very pleased to see this @ArabeIIaScott thanks.

@RedToothBrush

I think the WI could exclude someone without a GRC using Sch 16 exceptions as a single characteristic association. If they have a GRC then it would be harder to argue.

This is one area I don't think would be covered by the Equality Act exemptions tbh.

You'd have to demonstrate a need for women to bake cakes and make jam without the presence of males. I think you would potentially struggle.

You would be able to prevent transwomen from going to a WI residential but not necessarily from other social groups unless they could demonstrate a legitimate aim from being single sex.

So a kayaking session for women because of the difference in levels of physical ability and how women are deterred from participating in sport in the presence of stronger males who have been socialised differently MIGHT just get away with it but I am struggling to think of a specific legitimate aim the WI are trying to achieve that would be deemed proportionate in a court.

I absolutely take your point but to be honest, my grandmother was the strong, inspiring type. Not so much the domestic type- her cooking was....interesting. My Grandad usually washed up 😀

I would bet my house that the women had shopped for all the food and drink, cooked all the food and would wash up all the dishes.

That was my question at my WI, no one could answer. Funny that.🙄

Not folk, men. A women’s group is for women. Women should be allowed to gather together exclusively in an actual women’s group without men. Women join precisely because it’s a women’s group.

Quite. What's the difference between a man living as a woman and a crossdresser?

They allow men who live as women to join, with no definition of what a woman is or how a man 'lives as a woman', but they want to exclude crossdressers. They don't seem to have thought this through.

This might be a sexist contribution and I am happy to be corrected. My grandmother, a wonderful woman, was in the WI.

At our Boxing Day family get together, social activities were strictly sex-segregated. The men went upstairs to play snooker in the attic and the women stayed downstairs in the lounge (to talk about shopping and make-up 🤮)

I suspect the women making up the WI are more likely than most to want genuinely single-sex places.

Take a women's group.

Add one male.

At a stroke, the group has become mixed sex.

Women who join the Women's Institute presumably wanted a women's group. Why can't they have that, even if it makes men sad?