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

Thank you wims for finding, exploring and explaining the EDI policy, super grateful.

Exactly. One cannot just set up a group of over fifteen people, be it on line or in the real world that excludes people without a bloody good reason.

I think you have identified the core of the correct way to think of this. It’s not about who is included - it’s about who is excluded.

When you analyze who is not allowed to join the WI, the unlawful discrimination becomes clear.

And I want to know what ‘living as a woman ‘ means as well. My six foot five son cooked the evening meal today, so does he qualify?

I’ve posted this before, but I’m going to post again. In the WI FAQ, the question is posed, ‘can men join the WI?’, and the answer is ‘no’. So you can’t have it both ways!

Yeah, they can't just make up protected characteristics.

You are certainly not alone.

That women are consciously and deliberately used as validation resources for male people’s wants is disturbing. And to be led to believe it is kind to do so is red flag territory.

Also meant to say, they would have to change their governance document and remove the word woman as the SC ruling was clear on what the meaning of that word is.

it would have to be something like anybody interested in XYZ. To be compliant.

I go back to Professor of Law Micheal Foran every time.

If you want to set up a group of any sort over 15 people, then as per the EQA you must include Everybody, from all sections of society be they disabled, of any ethnic group, sex, sexuality, etc. The EQA requires that.

If you want to set up an exclusive group in furtherance of some aim that is fair and reasonable, it must be related to a protected characteristic.

You could have a group specifically for two protected characteristics, such as a group for isolated older men, (who like sheds). So that is two protected characteristics that they must all share, age and sex.

I could not complain as a female who likes sheds.

The WI have included two protected characteristics, but the problem in law is, that, as an exclusive group all the members must share the two protected characteristics that they are including. Ie being a female and being a person who is or is undergoing transition. In order to comply with the EQA.

In other words they have no exemption under the EQA.that they can rely on.

The idea that they are furthering the disadvantages faced by “trans women” can only hold if they were the only membership.

That clause only applies to the existing membership group of a membership group which is lawful.

The EQA when drafted was designed to prevent groups and clubs forming and excluding people for no good reason, eg a club for able bodied white women who like JK Rowling.

Well that helped me cement my understanding if you can be arsed to read it LOL

Yes. Let's see how that goes for them.

It's cynically positioning women as regressive support humans. The only role for real women is to be present and teach these men how to be women - to validate them.
So ironic when there are countless groups of women - marginalised, impoverished, in poor health, with mental health problems, struggling with parenting, suffering domestic violence, managing cancer and life limiting illness diagnoses and many other challenges who could benefit from the largesse of the WI with targeted community based support. Yet this tone deaf organisation has selected this powerful group of men who have positioned themselves at the top of the oppression tree for support.

Their level of hypocrisy is off the scale.

Not THOSE women, silly. Those women need to reframe their trauma and stop being exclusionary of males. Rape victims must learn to be kinder to men. Or they can fuck off.

Just because they say that they know that they are male, that does not mean that they do not want to be validated as women. Hayton blatantly does, Yardley too but less "in yer face".

'there is no other similar organisation for trans women that offers this space, and so it is unique.'

There are several organisations for trans women. What they mean is there isnt another organisations that provides a plentiful supply of validating women to serve the special men.

"It offers trans women an acutely needed sense of community, solidarity, inclusion and validation with other women, as well as access to practical opportunities that they have not been or felt able to access. It offers a welcoming place where transgender women can connect with other women, socialise and learn together. As far as the Women’s Institute is aware, there is no other similar organisation for trans women that offers this space, and so it is unique. The Women’s Institute offers transgender women ultimate acceptance – a space where they are welcomed as women just as their fellow members are, with no need to justify their presence, and free from prejudice, discrimination and judgement"

Am I the only person rendered very angry by this blatant declaration by the leadership that ordinary female WI members are being consciously used to validate the inner womanly feelings of a subset of men? Though no longer a member of the WI, I was one a long time ago and valued very much the fact that it was an organisation founded, run and intended just for women and our interests, needs and concerns. I wouldn't touch it with a very long pole now.

PS Editing to say that you can count me in if any gardening were to be needed in the future. This one I would love to see in court.

So could Miranda Yardley or Debbie Hayton join? TW who don't expect validation as W?

Another point to consider is the carers policy and not allowing male carers to join meetings, this puts some disabled women at a disadvantage in accessing some WI activities

A good time with the Peggie tribunal about to get under way and rumblings about the Hampstead Ponds.
We are unusual on here in that we know all about these things happening; for the uninitiated it must be getting more and more surreal.
Quite extraordinary that the WI seems to see its remit as validating men who are at best confused, at worst, well, I don’t want to get deleted.

Tangent, but I'm always slightly thrown by the term 'identify with' - that usually (or used to) means 'empathise with' or similar, which is totally different as 'identify AS' or even 'is'.

E.g. I can identify with people who grew up only having second-hand clothes, because I shared that experience, I can somehow understand them. But you wouldn't just do that for 'an identity' or an entire class of people, it more often relates to an actual shared experience by individuals.

Never have i wanted so much that the Telegraph and Mail and GBNews and anyone else to pick uo this story !

I would too

Their words, my bold and []s...

Gender: "Gender is often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, is largely culturally determined, and is assumed from the sex assigned at birth."

Plus

Gender identity: "Gender identity is a person’s sense of their own [gender largely culturally determined masculinity or femininity], whether male, female, or something else."

Equals

Woman: The implicit definition of "living as a woman" - and, indeed, "woman" - here would appear to be "[identifying with] culturally determined femininity".

I think. It's tying my brain in knots. Which I think is probably intentional.

'Crossdresser is a term to describe people who dress in clothes
associated with their opposite sex, as defined by socially accepted
norms, but who identify with the gender that matches their sex
assigned at birth.'

'The below resources and organisations can offer further information on inclusion:
• The Equality Act 2010
• The Equality and Human Rights Commission
• Citizens Advice
• Gender Identity Research & Education Society
• Gendered Intelligence
• The Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Rethink Mental Illness
• Stonewall'

My bold.

They need to define what 'living as a woman' means.

If it's not about sex, then why on earth can't OP's husband join?

Surely any activities that constitute 'living as a woman' are included in the WI programme, so if he wants to carry out any of these then he is 'living as a woman'?