I’m losing my head over this is the WI a mixed sexed organisation?

Well yes - but the definition quoted above doesn’t indicate the biological sex of the cross dressers. Of course the implied terms are that they mean males. But because they don’t include that in the definition they should be screening the members for “appropriate dress”. How do they decide if my cross dressing is ok? But a male in a frock is not? And how is that different to a TW? The whole cross dresser rule is a bit of a fuck up idnt it? Because logically any women would n trousers should be banned!? Why aren’t they policing that rule?

The non binary policy makes it very clear that the WI knows that women are people that are female at birth

i have been saying this for ages! It shows the WI do know what a woman is .

I read on X a couple of months ago that the TW policy came about because they wanted to increase membership, that was dropping ( still is hemorrhaging- wonder why? )

They need to be asked this. The EDI policy severely contradicts itself.
I would like to hear the response.

That’s even worse then.

The non binary policy makes it very clear that the WI knows that women are people that are female at birth.

But it’s definition of women when it comes to membership is anyone who identifies as a woman, deliberately allowing the inclusion of people that are male at birth..

Someone has really shoehorned TW into the WI membership rules.

ETA: And what ‘exemption’ is the WI relying on if it’s not the EA2010 exemption for membership of associations?

What you say is bleak, but I just have to applaud and giggle at your turn of phrase.
'pointing at a fucking squirrel'

"A person who was assigned female at birth but who identifies as non-binary is able to join the WI. This is because they fall within our women only exemption as they were assigned female at birth."

But not that old rubbishy exemption in The Equality Act and we know we said female, but not that old fashioned female as in a sex category, because don't forget we do not purport to establish single sex membership within the meaning of the EqA.

🙄

There's a surprise 🙄

You can see the fun in court when all incoherent crap is challenged by one of the excellent lawyers can't you?

NB people may have a gender identity that changes over time or they may not relate to gender at all.

How do you "relate to gender"? Is that the same as rejecting gender identification, which another source defines as agender?

"IIRC the WI does mention non-binary somewhere, doesn't it? If it does, how does that fit in?"

Yeah, they say only the non binary women can join, but alas the non binary men can't.
😂

The WI are basically declaring themselves to be nothing more than handmaidens of the patriarchy. They're in it for the cookies they get from perpetuating the patriarchy and nurturing and validating men - and they expect their members to commit to the same misogynistic aims. Can they not hear themselves? Utter 🍆🐼💍 tripe!

IIRC the WI does mention non-binary somewhere, doesn't it? If it does, how does that fit in?

Below from the WI EDI policy.
My bold at the end highlighting their reference to their "women only exemption":

12. Non-binary members Non-binary is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity doesn’t sit comfortably within the binary categories of “female” or “male”. Gender is often expressed in terms of masculinity or femininity but it is important to think of a gender as a spectrum. Gender identity is a person’s sense of their own gender, and there are many different gender identities on this spectrum. Non-binary people may feel both male and female, something in between, or not either. They may have a gender identity that changes over time or they may not relate to gender at all. Non-binary people often use gender neutral pronouns such as they/theirs and it is therefore important to find out how a non-binary member wishes to be addressed. A person who was assigned female at birth but who identifies as non-binary is able to join the WI. This is because they fall within our women only exemption as they were assigned female at birth. As mentioned above, the WI does not ask members to prove their sex when they join the WI.

What utter weasel words from the WI. How can they state any of that with a straight face??

I did not think Operation Let Them Speak would extend to hearing such utter bullshit from the WI 😡

Molly wants to join the WI. I presume that would be OK?

If a woman is an Adult Human Female but Females can be Males then maybe Humans can be any species?

However, Molly is currently living as a Driving Instructor, a traditionally male job, and is a Jack Russell rather than a Jill Russell. So I suspect that the WI might consider her to be non-binary.

IIRC the WI does mention non-binary somewhere, doesn't it? If it does, how does that fit in?

When organisations say that they "welcome non-binary people" as well as women, without any further qualification, they must mean "anyone who thinks that they are not living as either a man or a woman". So, both males and females.

Oooops! Just fluffed an Emergency Stop!!

😳🫣

Exactly, that was my point! Wanting to join WI = proof you're a woman. So Mr TwoCats should obviously be allowed. And those of us who previously thought we were women will just have to come to terms with our new reality. 🤷‍♀️

(On a more serious note, they'll certainly have to define what 'living as a woman' means -- and I doubt that most of their current membership would measure up!)

Eddie Izzard sometimes calls himself Suzy, and sometimes Eddie. So would he be excluded on his Eddie days (men are not allowed to join), but included on his Suzy days (living as a woman)?

So the WI is for anyone who identifies as a woman, and by indicating an intention to join you are showing you identify as a woman.

But then they can’t exclude anyone who wants to join, regardless of sex.

"But they can't make it fit, because the two terms are immiscible."

Ooo! What a lovely word: "immiscible".

Looked it up and was a bit disappointed at first that it didn't have the possible meaning that first popped into my head: "antagonistic to mice"

🐭⛔️😂

When the Sex Discrimination Act & Race Relations Act became law it took several years before employers etc really came to understand that they couldn't discriminate any more. It's going to take a few years to turn round the Trans juggernaut.

The ponds and the WI legal argument completely conflicts with FWS1 where the court found that you can't conflate two pc's. It was outside the Scottish government's powers to pass a law that counted anyone living as a woman as a woman on public boards because the EA doesn't allow that. If the WI & corporation of london arguments were correct, then the Scottish government would have won FWS1 and 2 because it would have been allowable to discriminate based on a category similar to sex but not quite sex.

If their arguments are correct then this will basically do away with protection against sex discrimination. 'What do you mean we are unlawfully discriminating by having a policy not to promote women? It's not sex discrimination. We don't promote anyone who lives as a woman or who has a feminine gender identity. That's not a pc under the EA so it's perfectly lawful.' That can't be what the EA means so they can't win. I wouldn't put it past a lower court to make a stupid decision but if it goes up through the courts they won't win.

I am not . For one thing their Head of Legal has no legal training whatsoever. I have no idea how and why she got that role.

So there is no scrutiny of dubious solicitors with a trans agenda .

You can’t argue with stupid comes to mind.

Indeed.

What, exactly, are they meaning by 'validation'? I've never needed validating as a woman, I just am one without any outside proof.

I have a horrible feeling that for at least some members this 'validation' is intended to create 'gender euphoria'. Which brings us back to the PP's earlier point about prostitution.

Being cynical, I don't want a vote to the membership as there's so many BeKind women out there it would seem risky.

I'm gobsmacked they're carrying on when it's clear they have no legal argument that stands up to scrutiny.