An update to the WI Announcement thread. My DH just got a reply to his application to join them.

Oh FFS, am fed up of this shit. Not productive I know, but am just so angry about the WI, not to mention feminism for some being centred around men, because that's what trans women are.

Anyway, yes, please ask them to clarify what they mean to live as a woman. Also, by their thinking, a trans man lives a man, so this means they would exclude a biological female?

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but does the SC ruling comply the WI to exclude men who identify as women. Or, is it a personal choice for them as an organisation?

I totally agree that there are things we need as women. I don't think that men should be allowed to join. But does the SC ruling mean they can if that is the stance the WI choose to take?

As we know certain aspects such as significant inheritance are totally male sex only, no women. That ought to be challenged.

What a hero!
Please do keep us updated on Mr Another2Cats application!

I think they mean that that is what living as a woman is really like.

??
What normal man would want to join the Mothers Union?

Kudos to your DH.
It's quite a tricky one this as for example I wouldn't be happy if a man (of any gender) tried to go in the women's pond on Hampstead Heath, or shares a YHA dorm, as in some situations this would breach boundaries. But just writing letters is enough here to expose the madness.

I'd suggest either going to

Membership - [email protected]

or

General enquiries - [email protected]

I do intend to write to them myself, and I think I'm going to email from my WI email address and also send a letter by post.

I'm also toying with contacting the charity commission as I believe they are acting against their charitable aims

Does this mean he should accept sub-standard, poorly-researched, medical care? Get used to inappropriate comments and accidental bodily contact and smile sweetly? Accept that he must become hyper-vigilant when walking alone at night, or using public transport. Expect to justify his apparel if sexually assaulted or raped? Expect regular judgments on his hair, clothing, and body shape. Get used to being told his anger is just hormones. Be more vigilant about contraception. Expect to be overlooked in his career unless he starts working twice as hard? Adjust to health and safety requirements which don't take into account his size and strength? Accept the blame if his children develop any mental health issues?

The WI has a certain classist bias which accounts for the ‘don’t make a fuss’ mentality. But is it bad that I find the gormless betrayal of other women far more depressing than that of the men?

re-enactment of OP's husband turning up to his local WI

committee see him enter the church hall and assume he's the speaker for the night

committee member welcomes him

he clarifies that he's there to join

committee members says 'I'm sorry, we don't accept men, have you tried the local men's shed / the rotary club / the rugby club (delete as appropriate).

OP's husband either folds and goes home, in which case everyone just assumes he was a weirdo and gets on with their night. or goes full on i'm a laydee and insists on staying, in which case you now have yet another man clogging up what was a single sex space and the local committee can do fuck all about it because he's allowed to be there under the national policy.,

either way you've achieved fuck all

But the Equality Act 2010 still has Gender Reassignment as a protected characteristic onwards you expect them to say? Law is Law, and the SC specifically stated that the EA2010 still stands.

We've had "what is a woman?" - before the Supreme Court definition, no-one could really say what a woman was - and now there's "how does one live as a woman?"

But it shouldn't matter how one lives "as a woman". Because organisations are now legally allowed to exclude members of the opposite sex from a single-sex organisation. So if an organisation is for women, men can't belong.

Clearly, in this case, the Women's Institute is choosing not to exclude members of the opposite sex, provided that they appear (on paper) to be female. However, they are not female, but male, and so the Women's Institute is letting its female members down by pretending that some of the members are female when they aren't.

A foolish decision by the Women's Institute.

Good idea.

the 'don't fuck up something that's generally good for women' is strong with me.

it's why I still have a standing order to refuge even thought they're fucking idiots. sometimes a little pragmatism is best.

Well as I don’t know what living as a woman means, especially as the WI seems to include being a man, I won’t be applying to join - not that I have ever wanted to in all my 70+ years.

I know everyone is having a lovely time being furious (and heaven knows I've been there myself!), but you're dealing with a federation. ruining some poor local volunteer's night will achieve precisely jack shit. the policy is set by National. Local groups can't change it. If you're not talking to National you're just wasting your time

It wouldn't surprise me if they just accept any mans interpretation of living as a women, and never say no to any man. Just applying to the WI could be seen as living as a woman.

That way, no man can claim descrimination and they can hope it doesnt become too much of an issue.

OP’s husband sounds extremely calm and reasonable. He’s not going to ruin anyone’s night. If the volunteers think the policy is stupid they need to take it up with the management, often and loudly, until it changes.

I wonder - are there any male organisations that are having to clarify if they accept transmen or not ?

The be kind is strong in this one!

oh yes, I agree.

and I support the action the OPs husband is taking. but it can be done without making ordinary women suffer. You need to find a way to get into correspondence with National

And so are all the women harmed and excluded by men and their enablers constantly pushing for shades of grey in law.

Enough with the Be Kind.