The Women's Institute faces revolt ...

Loyal should have said Labour.

I haven't rewatched it, and am not sure that anyone would be surprised by what is said, but most commentators aren't that blunt.

The commentator is Ayesha Hazarika, former aide to Gordon Brown(?) and not sure why she should have a role re the EA.

I haven't re-watched and it probably is that revelatory to others, but it really made me think, that someone was so casual and unnaccountable for this.

Think this will work https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4730605-standing-for-women-glasgow-5th-feb?page=38&reply=123724090

Oh man

if they carry on like that I’m going to have to leave

Exactly, but the worse thing is knowing (the link to this is on an early thread) is that a loyal female party member who helped draft the EA, spoke about how wonderful it was they had created the exemptions

That is interesting. I have no legal
knowledge and just try to follow as best I can.

It is an outrage that these are exceptions that have to be wrangled over.
It is dreadful if as you say a women has contributed to setting it up this way.

Which early thread, do you remember?

What can a male teach women about being a woman… unless it’s.. “this is north what a woman is”? That is horrendously misogynistic and if I was a WI I’d be extremely pissed off

Michael Foran is a professor of law at Glasgow University. I am aware of that. But he also has personal and political biases and these do inform how so called experts "interpret" laws. And gave wrong advice about associations.

Dont forget it was at the same committee that we got lengthy legal "expertise" droning on about women's "safe spaces".

If people like this disagree, ordinary people are not going to risk it.

Exactly, but the worse thing is knowing (the link to this is on an early thread) is that a loyal female party member who helped draft the EA, spoke about how wonderful it was they had created the exemptions, without in anyway recognising that she showed her bias by thinkg women only deserved exemptions. ie no where and no one would have thought it acceptable that someone could "identify" as being Black, and that only on a few occassions could an actual Black people be allowed to associate with other Black people.

Up until I heard her say this I just sort of accepted that silly old male fuddy duddies hauled out of some legal library had created the stupidity of parts of the EA. But her complacent explanation made it clear that the EA was drafted by people with a bias. And that was against women's sex based rights. And it was a woman doing this. And a member of the Labour party.

From that article

I know from speaking to so many of our members that they feel that we are enriched by that, that we learn something about being a woman through the eyes of transgender women.”

That's marvelous. Some women are enriched by being mansplained "women".

You realise why equality takes so long when you read this shit.

I’m looking forward to the day when males hold all the positions of power in the WI. Which won’t be long. Look at Edinburgh rape crisis…. Headed by a male. Many womens officers posts are held by males. Bet within 5 years the leadership committee of the WI is 70% male

I am wondering what will happen to the topics the various WI branches might choose in the future. Perhaps discussions about menopause, say, will be deemed as not inclusive? The same would apply to anything about being of the female sex.

This might not happen, depending on the presence or absence of trans activists, but I have seen a tendency towards this in several feminist spaces in the last decade.

If we redefine 'woman' so that it's not being female but some mysterious abstract female soul, then the activism of the group won't, ultimately, be on material aspects of being female.

As I said this might not happen. But what might happen is a different mix in the leadership. Male people tend to take over, even in female-dominated occupations and organisations.

ArabeIIaScott · Today 18:08
The fact is that highly qualified and informed lawyers disagree on the interpretations of the EA, Haldane's judgement, etc.

Which is why the whole thing needs to be unpicked and probably rewritten, at least in parts. Law that nobody understands or agrees on is unsustainable.

This is the point. If people like this disagree, ordinary people are not going to risk it.

A representative of the WI is quoted in a Guardian article as saying that trans women teach something about being a woman to the rest of the WI membership.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/18/womens-institute-to-continue-to-celebrate-transgender-women-amid-inclusivity-row

Foran is a biased witness. And uninformed. eg he said associations cant be single sex. They can.

What I have written is what was said at the time (cant be bothered to find the name) senior UK judge post Haldane ruling and acknowledged by Nicola Sturgeon and others.

And was illustrated by the Bristol student feminist group being grudgingly admitted to have the right to be women only.

The same posters keep coming up with this misinterpretation of the Haldane ruling and somehow make one committee more important than anything else, which not only included numpty Foran but had some really silly things said by the Sex Matters rep about women's groups. (I hope she updates her education prior to representing "Sarah")

Its really strange to keep repeating the worse scenario explanation instead of pro-actively circulating what the law is in practice.

As I said upthread it is a total outrage that women are treated as an "exemption" but the problem is that not enough are prepared to use the exemptions.

Unless and until the EA is clarified to say sex means sex, why not be positive and proactive about what can be done to ensure women have single sex services.

Not forgetting that despite the very loud trans campaign, most large institutions stopped using the exemptions for purely financial reasons, and so aren't going to make any effort to re-instate them because of ongoing cuts.

You don’t think? Presumably that means you don’t actually know as you’re not a member. And if you are/were a member you are dismissing the experiences of other WI members here who definitely discussed all kinds of sensitive subjects but wouldn’t have done so in the presence of a man.

Here is a video of the same:
Dr Michael Foran speaking
https://twitter.com/sexmattersorg/status/1620785398908850176/mediaviewer

LangClegsInSpace · Today 08:17

Beeswood · Today 01:20
If a Trans woman has a GRC certificate and is Female on their birth certificate, can they be excluded under current law?

My understanding of the Haldane judgment is that no, they currently can't be excluded as they are legally female.

IwantToRetire · Today 16:28

If a Trans woman has a GRC certificate and is Female on their birth certificate, can they be excluded under current law?

Yes, the Haldane ruling is irrelevant as it merely confirmed the law as it currently stands.

So two contradictory views.

It is clear the Equality Act is completely confusing and badly designed especially in how it interacts with the GRA.

My understanding is the same as LangClegsInSpace’s
and is based on a Women and Equalities discussion held in the House of Commons
31 January with the legal expert Dr Michael Foran answering questions and explaining the issues of this interaction.

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/12639/pdf/

(It is all interesting but scroll to about Q26)

Dr Foran: Yes, it did. The Haldane—

Chair: Following the Haldane judgment, would it be helpful if that were
revisited?

Dr Foran:
Absolutely. The issue with the Haldane judgment as it arises for all the purposes that we are dealing with here is that up until that point, we were really not sure whether or not sex in the Equality Act, as modified by a GRA, first, does modify the Equality Act for the purposes of the claimant, somebody who has a gender recognition certificate, whether they would be classed as male or female for the purposes of a direct discrimination claim. The Haldane judgment goes further than that because it says, effectively, that the definition of sex in the entire Act becomes legal sex. That means that single sex spaces become single legal sex spaces, and what it then means is your justification for exclusion will hinge partially upon whether or not the person is of the characteristic legally that that space is. The test is the same. It is still a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, but whether or not you are legally the same person of a space or a service that is set up for that legal category, not biological category, will be relevant for determining whether or not exclusion is proportionate. The proportionality—

Q27 Chair: Lord Falconer, do you want to comment on that?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton:
Michael has made it incredibly complicated. The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill does not change the basis on which you make a determination on whether or not—

Dr Foran:
No, it changes whether or not you can sue. The policy arguments will not be changed. You could introduce a policy that bans all males from female prisons if you want, but you could be sued for that. You could be sued for gender recognition discrimination. The question about whether or not you have a gender recognition certificate changes the nature of that suit that you make from an indirect discrimination claim to a direct discrimination claim, subject to the same justification test. Is it a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? If you think a court will possibly come to a conclusion that the exclusion of this legal woman who is biologically male and that there is a less onerous way to achieve the legitimate aim of providing security then the policy will be struck down as unlawful. If you want to ensure with absolute certainty that no rapist makes it into a women’s jail, you need a blanket ban, and blanket bans can be struck down by courts. You need to legislate to have that ban in place. Policy documents, guidance, will not do it because the legislative framework is as it is and it is hooked on to a proportionality test.

If a Trans woman has a GRC certificate and is Female on their birth certificate, can they be excluded under current law?

Yes, the Haldane ruling is irrelevant as it merely confirmed the law as it currently stands.

This means that even though for "most purposes" a trans woman with a GRC is treated as though of the opposite sex to the one that they are born, there are exceptions under the EA that mean services, associations, etc., can be based on born / biological sex.

The problem is not even organisations, instritutions, service providers are bothered to arugement that their service etc., is a valid case for an exception.

It is of course insulting that the law has been written so that those of the actual sex have to argue for their rights against the hostile rights of a tiny minority.

And unfortunatley given societal lack of respect for women, as biological females, and their lived experience, this legal fiction means that many who could, dont bother to stand up for women.

Exactly, we had a talk from a physio about female health such as bladder issues after birth. Most interesting but I would not have attended with men present.

Some Twitter aliases of the nice new WI and Labour Party Member.

Best to Block and not engage for your own safety.

Unblock temporarily if you want to peek at the aggression, threats, vulgar posing in lingerie, etc.

Music Producer - DJmissGripper
Golf - desibandito (currently deactivated)
Conversion Therapy - FMstompdotcom
Professional Profile - DrShanuVarma
Explicitly targeting GC accounts - GC_Fuckups

There will be loads more Twitter socks than these ones plus other Social Media.

(Note to self: must remember that the new Twitter policy of allowing misgendering does not apply to Mumsnet!)

We did chair yoga which was particularly good for the older members. There’s no way we would all have participated enthusiastically with a man present

At our WI we had a speaker on the menopause followed by a very open and honest discussion about our experiences, including vaginal atrophy and coping with heavy bleeding; I doubt that would have happened with a man present.

Every WI is different so if your institute don't discuss it , it doesnt mean another wont.

You are in the WI aren't you?

The world is a strange place for sure.

They're ALL "cross dressers"
You can't change sex!

Even one man in a women’s space makes it mixed-sex.

@LangClegsInSpace

Thank you so much for going to the trouble of replying to me about my query.
I really appreciate it.