Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

My WI group folded this week

193 replies

Mauvish1 · 26/03/2026 14:24

The vote in my WI group was 4:1 against signing the new WI declaration, which would have obliged us to sign that we agreed with the WI upholding the law on being single sex (well yes, obviously!) but also that we agreed that TWAW and should be allowed to join, if only the pesky lawmakers hadn't clarified biological sex for the hard of understanding.

The person from the NFWI who was there to oversee our suspension told us that it was obvious from our refusing to sign that we all had friends or loved ones who were trans! This produced a roar of dissent! She also told us that if we left the WI, we would each be a lone voice to whom no-one listened. The look on everyone's face as she patronised us was a sight to behold.

Comparisons were made with brownies, and some people felt that the WI and brownies should simply open doors to men and boys - but there are plenty of other mixed sex groups to join, and very few other female-only groups.

So, another WI group bites the dust, and it's not the only one in my area.

OP posts:
Marmaladelover · 09/04/2026 15:01

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 13:18

Oh 100%. It's the rights impact that is the issue for me. It's not what people believe in their own heads or chapels, it's when society foreces everyone else to fit into the shapes that one belief puts them into.

Show quote history

Except it’s not forcing people into their religion, it’s about protecting some people with some beliefs and not discriminating against them . It’s SOME beliefs not all beliefs that this applies to.

Edit for examples
Catholicism yes
flat earthists no

gender critical yes
gender ideology no?

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 13:18

Marmaladelover · 09/04/2026 13:06

@FlirtsWithRhinos

Well even if you think GI does conform to 4 being no less wacky than other mainstream religions , the mainstream ones do seem to get a free pass, worthy due to their number of followers and importance. Maybe that’s not fair but if GI stays around for the next 2000 years or so then maybe they get to pass 4 .

But you cannot say that GI doesn’t trample on other rights and they must pass all the tests not pick and choose which one .

Oh 100%. It's the rights impact that is the issue for me. It's not what people believe in their own heads or chapels, it's when society foreces everyone else to fit into the shapes that one belief puts them into.

Marmaladelover · 09/04/2026 13:06

@FlirtsWithRhinos

Well even if you think GI does conform to 4 being no less wacky than other mainstream religions , the mainstream ones do seem to get a free pass, worthy due to their number of followers and importance. Maybe that’s not fair but if GI stays around for the next 2000 years or so then maybe they get to pass 4 .

But you cannot say that GI doesn’t trample on other rights and they must pass all the tests not pick and choose which one .

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 12:48

Marmaladelover · 09/04/2026 12:13

I can answer this one ! In the case (Linda’s) Smith V Northumberland Police it was held that Gender Ideology was a partisan belief That is one that is not impartial. In the Edinburgh rape centre case it was said that believing TWAW and the reverse is on the extremes of gender ideology.

The WI constitution says it must be non religious and non sectarian. Sectarian is another word for extreme partisan.

so just like the Northumberland police (or any other police) could not be shown to be partisan ( due to an Act forbidding it ) by taking part in a parade , the wi cannot be , due to its constitution.

so one belief (GC ) is not partisan but mainstream and therefore permitted by the constitution.

in addition whether gender ideology be considered a belief under the equality act depends on whether it fulfills the test set out in the case Grainger PLC v Nicholson. These are

  1. The belief must be genuinely held.
  2. It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
  3. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
  4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
  5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

The last criteria makes it difficult for me to believe that GI could be considered a belief as it conflicts with the fundamental rights of others.

I don’t think it can be under 3 either - certain level of seriousness anyone . To me GI is akin to flat earthism and young earth creationism.

But I don’t think this has ever been tested in law.

Edited
Show quote history

I think 4 (as per your 3 to 4 edit :) ) is absolutely passable.

Genderists believe a thing called Gender Identity exists and it is this, rather than body sex, that truly differentiates between "me" and "women", and so it is this rather than body sex that should be an organising principle in society.

I personally do not believe in this, but I don't see it's any less cogent, serious, cohesive or important than most religions.

(Conveniently, since this thing usually aligns to body sex, Genderists also assume that their beliefs allow that in practice nothing needs to change except all the sex based stuff is now gender based. Everyone who doesn't declare themselves "trans" is supposed to just carry on as before, the trans people get to cross over, and no one will have a problem with the influx of opposite sex bodies because we all recognise our innate gender sameness 🙄.But I digress.)

An interesting question is whether TRA's i insistence that "science" proves they are right would actually undermine 4, because if "science says so" is part of the belief and science can be shown not to say so, is the belief still cogent?

drspouse · 09/04/2026 12:43

witheringrowan · 08/04/2026 19:54

If my WI branch ends up not shutting down next week, we're going to have a venue problem, as the pub that currently hosts us says it won't allow an organisation that's not "trans-inclusive" to book a room.

Does anyone have any ideas on the legal position here - basically they are saying they won't host a single sex group. I've seen suggestions in other contexts (i.e refusing a booking for an all-female hen party) that this would count as indirect discrimination, is that correct?

It's direct discrimination, not indirect. It's like saying they would not allow a booking from an autistic peer support group.

Marmaladelover · 09/04/2026 12:36

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2026 12:33

Great post, but I think it’s Linzi Smith rather than Linda, just to note.

I wrote Linzi autocorrect must have changed it without me noticing . Thanks for pointing it out for me and others !

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2026 12:33

Great post, but I think it’s Linzi Smith rather than Linda, just to note.

Marmaladelover · 09/04/2026 12:30

Marmaladelover · 09/04/2026 12:13

I can answer this one ! In the case (Linda’s) Smith V Northumberland Police it was held that Gender Ideology was a partisan belief That is one that is not impartial. In the Edinburgh rape centre case it was said that believing TWAW and the reverse is on the extremes of gender ideology.

The WI constitution says it must be non religious and non sectarian. Sectarian is another word for extreme partisan.

so just like the Northumberland police (or any other police) could not be shown to be partisan ( due to an Act forbidding it ) by taking part in a parade , the wi cannot be , due to its constitution.

so one belief (GC ) is not partisan but mainstream and therefore permitted by the constitution.

in addition whether gender ideology be considered a belief under the equality act depends on whether it fulfills the test set out in the case Grainger PLC v Nicholson. These are

  1. The belief must be genuinely held.
  2. It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
  3. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
  4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
  5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

The last criteria makes it difficult for me to believe that GI could be considered a belief as it conflicts with the fundamental rights of others.

I don’t think it can be under 3 either - certain level of seriousness anyone . To me GI is akin to flat earthism and young earth creationism.

But I don’t think this has ever been tested in law.

Edited
Show quote history

Sorry meant 4 not 3 !!

TheAutumnCrow · 09/04/2026 12:24

Marmaladelover · 09/04/2026 12:13

I can answer this one ! In the case (Linda’s) Smith V Northumberland Police it was held that Gender Ideology was a partisan belief That is one that is not impartial. In the Edinburgh rape centre case it was said that believing TWAW and the reverse is on the extremes of gender ideology.

The WI constitution says it must be non religious and non sectarian. Sectarian is another word for extreme partisan.

so just like the Northumberland police (or any other police) could not be shown to be partisan ( due to an Act forbidding it ) by taking part in a parade , the wi cannot be , due to its constitution.

so one belief (GC ) is not partisan but mainstream and therefore permitted by the constitution.

in addition whether gender ideology be considered a belief under the equality act depends on whether it fulfills the test set out in the case Grainger PLC v Nicholson. These are

  1. The belief must be genuinely held.
  2. It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
  3. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
  4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
  5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

The last criteria makes it difficult for me to believe that GI could be considered a belief as it conflicts with the fundamental rights of others.

I don’t think it can be under 3 either - certain level of seriousness anyone . To me GI is akin to flat earthism and young earth creationism.

But I don’t think this has ever been tested in law.

Edited
Show quote history

Awesome stuff. Thanks for hanging those pieces of information together. Sometimes I feel that I can’t see the wood for the trees.

Marmaladelover · 09/04/2026 12:13

Nanny0gg · 08/04/2026 15:05

That is such a good question! Which gets a bland non-answer in response. It's getting sillier and sillier

Show quote history

I can answer this one ! In the case (Linda’s) Smith V Northumberland Police it was held that Gender Ideology was a partisan belief That is one that is not impartial. In the Edinburgh rape centre case it was said that believing TWAW and the reverse is on the extremes of gender ideology.

The WI constitution says it must be non religious and non sectarian. Sectarian is another word for extreme partisan.

so just like the Northumberland police (or any other police) could not be shown to be partisan ( due to an Act forbidding it ) by taking part in a parade , the wi cannot be , due to its constitution.

so one belief (GC ) is not partisan but mainstream and therefore permitted by the constitution.

in addition whether gender ideology be considered a belief under the equality act depends on whether it fulfills the test set out in the case Grainger PLC v Nicholson. These are

  1. The belief must be genuinely held.
  2. It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
  3. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
  4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
  5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

The last criteria makes it difficult for me to believe that GI could be considered a belief as it conflicts with the fundamental rights of others.

I don’t think it can be under 3 either - certain level of seriousness anyone . To me GI is akin to flat earthism and young earth creationism.

But I don’t think this has ever been tested in law.

oviraptor21 · 09/04/2026 08:19

Re the AGM having a fixed agenda and no questions from the floor, there should be a mechanism by which an EGM can be called. It usually needs a certain number of members to ask for one.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2026 07:18

I guess they do class it as such as it has announced that it will follow the SC ruling, heaven forbid.

ArabellaScott · 09/04/2026 07:14

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2026 00:50

Also discrimination on the grounds of a protected belief.

Show quote history

I guess so, just couldnt imagine anyone was seriously classing the WI as gender critical!

In which case, Free Speech Union.

I imagine there are a few lawyers who may be interested in that case.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2026 07:12

The grounds where it would be unlawful are likely to involve the protected characteristics in the Equality Act.

LlynTegid · 09/04/2026 07:10

witheringrowan · 08/04/2026 19:54

If my WI branch ends up not shutting down next week, we're going to have a venue problem, as the pub that currently hosts us says it won't allow an organisation that's not "trans-inclusive" to book a room.

Does anyone have any ideas on the legal position here - basically they are saying they won't host a single sex group. I've seen suggestions in other contexts (i.e refusing a booking for an all-female hen party) that this would count as indirect discrimination, is that correct?

I am not a lawyer.

My understanding though is that a pub licensee can refuse service and there are few grounds where this would be unlawful.

The only thing I can suggest is that if it is part of a large chain, contacting their head office.

IwantToRetire · 09/04/2026 01:22

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2026 00:50

Also discrimination on the grounds of a protected belief.

Show quote history

I think from other threads pub landlords do have some rights if they think certain customers "may upset others". But in the instance presumably the meeting would be in a private room.

So then to say they couldn't meet because of believing (in line with the law) that sex is biological would surely be discrimination of a protected belief.

I think in most instances it isn't usually the pub landlord/lady but the preceived and too often real, threats of violent protest by TRAs.

But if its a private meeting, in a private room, where the door just says private meeting I would have thought no one could say that it was "provocative" to have a meeting their.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2026 00:50

ArabellaScott · 08/04/2026 21:20

Maybe ask Sex.Matters, or the EHRC?

Show quote history

Also discrimination on the grounds of a protected belief.

ArabellaScott · 08/04/2026 21:20

witheringrowan · 08/04/2026 19:54

If my WI branch ends up not shutting down next week, we're going to have a venue problem, as the pub that currently hosts us says it won't allow an organisation that's not "trans-inclusive" to book a room.

Does anyone have any ideas on the legal position here - basically they are saying they won't host a single sex group. I've seen suggestions in other contexts (i.e refusing a booking for an all-female hen party) that this would count as indirect discrimination, is that correct?

Maybe ask Sex.Matters, or the EHRC?

Nanny0gg · 08/04/2026 19:55

senua · 08/04/2026 19:49

Google tells me that the AGM is 4th June. Is it possible to table Motions about the CofC and EDI policy?

Or vote on Officers, now I come to think of it.

Edited
Show quote history

Nope.

The agenda will already be set and there will be no questions from the floor

witheringrowan · 08/04/2026 19:54

If my WI branch ends up not shutting down next week, we're going to have a venue problem, as the pub that currently hosts us says it won't allow an organisation that's not "trans-inclusive" to book a room.

Does anyone have any ideas on the legal position here - basically they are saying they won't host a single sex group. I've seen suggestions in other contexts (i.e refusing a booking for an all-female hen party) that this would count as indirect discrimination, is that correct?

senua · 08/04/2026 19:49

Nanny0gg · 08/04/2026 19:37

And that you will follow the Code of Conduct and the ED&I policy which can change at any time

Show quote history

Google tells me that the AGM is 4th June. Is it possible to table Motions about the CofC and EDI policy?

Or vote on Officers, now I come to think of it.

Nanny0gg · 08/04/2026 19:44

tesseractor · 07/04/2026 19:34

Of course not……

Show quote history

No evidence of when it became official policy either, as far as the Constitution is concerned

ArabellaScott · 08/04/2026 19:43

popery · 26/03/2026 15:41

Hang on, so if you sign it's because you still think TWAW but you're reluctantly agreeing to stick with the law.

And if you don't sign it's because you think TWAW therefore you won't stick to the law?!

Classic logic.

Ah, they ought to go straight to floating the women to see if they are witches or not.

I'm so sorry, OP. What a shitshow.

Nanny0gg · 08/04/2026 19:37

OneNewEagle · 04/04/2026 17:48

All I’ve had to do is redo my form with my details and at the bottom it states that I was born a female. No big deal.

it’s a huge shame that WI’s are closing.

And that you will follow the Code of Conduct and the ED&I policy which can change at any time

Nanny0gg · 08/04/2026 19:32

JetlaggedJenny · 27/03/2026 06:09

My WI group is also looking to fold. More concerning is that they seem to be looking to join a number of ex-WI groups setting up as independent, “inclusive” women’s group. So a women’s group that includes men who self identify as women. I can’t get my head around the thought process behind that. The WI realised their policy wasn’t consistent with the law/equality act/FWS but the law magically wouldn’t apply to these new groups?!?

Because ordinary men (won't use cis) can join too

Swipe left for the next trending thread