The new WI equality, diversity and inclusion policy - it’s worse and includes the thought police

On the contrary, it's reasonable to understand that a diverse group of people will have different values - they are likely to have different religious backgrounds and different voting habits and different priorities in life. Asking them all to share the same values is insane, not to say fascistic.

It is fascistic but they are so blinkered that they were only thinking of one subject when they wrote that sentence. They had forgotten about differences of age, race, background, abilities etc.

The one point of reference that mattered to them in that phrase was that everyone agree with the lie that transwomen are women for the WI.

Thus far the WI has specifically excluded trans identifying females so I don't think they are suddenly pivoting 180 degrees. When they write "transgender women" they mean trans identifying men.

The answer is to replace the leadership.

I think confused terminology may be in use here.

Based on the WI’s
history of trans inclusion, we believe that including transgender women in these activities enriches our organisation to ensure we are a place for both biological women and transgender women to celebrate who they are and influence positive change in their communities.

The words, “to ensure we are a place both for biological women and transgender women”….Suggests to me that by ‘transgender women’ they mean ‘transwomen’ ( biological men).

So not what is usually meant by ‘transgender women’, who are biological women, who otherwise identify as men, often called Transmen. Biological women/transmen should be included in the WI.

Someone needs to write to the WI and ask for clarification.

edited for typo

So essentially WI members must sign up that they believe that trans identified men are really women and that they will uncritically support these men or they can no longer be members if this women's organisation?

It's Orwellian levels of bullying isn't it? And shows the reality of how exceptionally powerful these men are .

We expect all those who engage in the WI movement to uphold the same values.

I admit, I haven't read the previous 10 pages of discussion. But this really leapt out at me.

It's reasonable for a church or a political party to expect members to have broadly the same values.

But it's not reasonable for a social organisation that brings people together for the purposes of chat, education, taking part in craft activities or fitness classes, listening to interesting speakers etc to expect everyone to share the same values.

On the contrary, it's reasonable to understand that a diverse group of people will have different values - they are likely to have different religious backgrounds and different voting habits and different priorities in life. Asking them all to share the same values is insane, not to say fascistic.

I have zero interest in/experience of the WI [I'm not in the UK] but I'm reading this thread with increasing incredulity.
The idea that they are willing to effectively destroy a long-standing, iconic organisation by insisting on altering its most basic characteristic, i.e. that it is the Women's Institute, is remarkable.

I think it serves as a shocking example of the extreme lengths trans allies will go to to destroy any and all women-only spaces, and it's a perfect illustration of the verb 'to beclown oneself'.

It is very sad for women who value the WI, and I sympathise with those of you who feel that something dependable supportive and trusted has now turned against you.

Has anyone heard how they plan to finance these Sisterhood Groups? Because surely they can't use membership subs money, as that would have to be used to support biological women as per their charitable objectives.
They would need to set up a separate income stream. If they start charging a separate fee to attend a sisterhood group the take-up will be tiny.

Or amending it. I realise it's not what people normally do, but in this case they would have to specifically object to any amendment.

Which might be interesting.

Edited to add that I'm not a member, but I would still recommend staying.

As people have pointed out, they simply cannot admit men anymore. It's over. This is a last ditch attempt at some dominance.

And I genuinely believe it will fizzle out. There's nothing at stake for them anymore, except some loose, and probably not even very legal statements in a policy.

Is this a clause that precludes women with gender critical views from joining? Because if so, its discriminatory.

Although it may be legal to require a set belief to join a membership organisation...iirc. Will check the Green Party internal report.

Which may mean they can turn the WI into an organisation that only includes people with genderist beliefs.

They still can't admit men, unless they make it explicitly mixed sex via a change to the charter.

This would exclude a majority of current members.

Maybe it depends how many women and ordinary members will not mind and/or be willing to lie and sign the Genderpledge.

I’ve just this minute had an email saying we have to sign to rejoin.

We’ve never been asked to do anything like this before.

That might be it for me.

Maybe "and others" means non-binaries?

What I mean is - it won't allow them to admit men. Any more than a certificate turns a man into a woman.

That phrase is mentioned twice in the policy; once in the introduction and then in the 'Objectives' section of the policy, ie what they hope to achieve from following this policy. The whole sentence in the Objectives section is:

"Highlight and celebrate the diverse membership of the WI, and ensure that our wider movement offers support and fellowship to all women, including transgender women, and others."

I take that to be a rather poorly worded way of saying

all women, including transgender women

and then seperately:

and others

So, they are still spinning this as being inclusive of trans-identifying men, by saying "all women, including transgender women" but that is in the context of "our wider movement" and includes "others" (ie men).

So, to me, that says "... ensure that our wider movement offers support and fellowship to all women and men"

Examples of how the "wider movement" can engage with the WI are given:

"Aside from WI membership, we offer other ways to engage with the WI movement, locally, regionally and nationally, including being a WI Supporter and belonging to one of our Sisterhood groups."

A contract that compels parties to make illegal statements is in itself unlawful. IANAL.

Wonder what happens if you pay the money but just don't print and sign? Or cross out the bit you object to?

The email from our group’s secretary says whether you’re a new member or a renewing member, you must print off the document and sign. The email from HQ says:

All members (both new and renewing members) are required to complete the form when they join or renew their membership from April 2026 onwards. This is just for this membership year because of the changes to the national policy, and in future years only new members will need to complete this form.

We don’t sign anything if rejoining - just pay our subs to our branch. But presumably we’re deemed to have accepted it by paying. Not that I’ve seen it circulated officially ( might have missed it somewhere).

my county federation newsletter this month included a line thanking all of us who had already responded to their questionnaire re the sisterhoods, saying all views are welcome to help them understand how they can support us, but then had a paragraph about how it was important in this time of change to look out for each other. My response to the questionnaire, which was possibly a little ranty on the subject of who exactly were women, also included a bit about how my reluctance to tell them who I was, was indicative of how debate had not been possible, and how voices had been shut down. I am watching to see how they respond and also share the feedback, as I doubt I’m the only person who said they didn’t want any funds or time going on sisterhoods.

Yes, must be the famous and obviously rare nontranswomen we read about.

The boring MK1 cunty kind, as opposed to the MK2 stunning and brave penisy kind.