My WI group folded this week

There are going to be 'exit' questionnaires for members and closing WIs...

To do that would mean a change to our Constitution and then a vote. For some reason, the powers-that-be don't seem to want to go down that route...

A long-running Women’s Institute branch in Bristol has closed after more than six decades, with members citing a new national policy excluding transgender women

And I bet when it was set up everyone knew without having to spell it out that it was for biological women.

So it isn't a new national policy, it is the WI recognising that they broke their own rules under social pressure.

You have to ask why the WI (and other organisations) didn't just get on and either form alternative organisations that included TW, or change the aims and objectives of the existing organisation.

Why isn't anyone saying to the WI and others you were wrong. You broke your own policies.

They should apologise and say of course they should never have ignored their core values.

I have now seen (after digging about after this thread) the policy. The declaration to sign IS just to say that I was born female (or in the WI words 'registered female at birth' which in my mind is TRA speak anyway, just not quite as bad as 'assigned female at birth'). But it's also that we agree to abide by all the policies, including 'supporting the sisterhood' and all the other things mentioned by others up thread.
I will not be signing and so I guess I have been to my final WI meeting, at least until there's some new women at the top that actually care about women.
I don't care if they infer it's because I am horrified TW can't join. I can't help what they decide it means in their deluded heads as they've clearly chosen to word it in such a way that they can take what they want from it whether women sign it or not, but by not signing it, I'm at least not actually SAYING I agree.

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
I thought that it was decided that GC and GI were both belief systems and therefore nobody should be discriminated against for having either belief. How can they insist that members believe TWAW?

Among the long list of things I don't understand about gender ideology is this: how come the gender extremists managed to infiltrate the WI of all places? I get how, or at least why, they wanted to infiltrate Girl Guides, or the NHS, or the NSPCC, or the big media organisations. But who on earth thought the WI was important enough to infiltrate?

The alternative explanation is that they didn't infiltrate at all, and that the leadership spontaneously decided to embrace the idea that men can be women. What a thought.

This is so interesting. I subscribe to emails from Pink News and Good Law Project, for balance / hear their take

They're saying that loads of WI groups are closing, implying it's cos members believe strongly that TW should be permitted as members

And I couldn't understand how so many groups would fold on that basis

But it's actually cos GC members don't want to subscribe to TWAW ideology

I think WI and Girlguiding really need to pick a side. Stay single sex and mean it. Or welcome TW and other men too

Can someone write to them to confirm any man can join a Sisterhood group?

Was there any "engagement or consultation with grassroots members" when the WI decided to admit transwomen?

For example, from Pink News today on Facebook......

"A long-running Women’s Institute branch in Bristol has closed after more than six decades, with members citing a new national policy excluding transgender women.

The Longwell Green Women’s Institute voted to fold on 1 April following changes introduced by the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, which now limits membership to those defined as biologically female under UK law.

The shift follows a ruling tied to the Equality Act 2010, which the Supreme Court interpreted as defining “sex” in biological terms.

In a statement, the Bristol group said, “The decision was a result of the NFWI’s change of policy to ban transgender women from being members, exacerbated by the manner in which this was handled without engagement or consultation with grassroots members. Some members had also indicated they would not be renewing their membership for this reason. As a result, at a special meeting overseen by the Avon Federation of WIs, the majority of members voted for closure.”

The WI, which had welcomed trans women for decades, said the change was made reluctantly in order to maintain its legal single-sex status.

The fallout is being felt beyond one branch, with reports of wider disruption across the WI network, from lost venues to cancelled events. Still, former members in Bristol are already exploring what comes next, including plans for a more inclusive, community-led alternative that would welcome all women, including trans women"

This is so interesting. I subscribe to emails from Pink News and Good Law Project, for balance / hear their take

They're saying that loads of WI groups are closing, implying it's cos members believe strongly that TW should be permitted as members

And I couldn't understand how so many groups would fold on that basis

But it's actually cos GC members don't want to subscribe to TWAW ideology

I think WI and Girlguiding really need to pick a side. Stay single sex and mean it. Or welcome TW and other men too

Maybe people who identify as women? So get rid of all those boring people who simply are women by merit of being female and keep the ones who are willing to say they ID as it.

Just guessing here.

It has been hinted in newspaper articles that Labour intends to ammend the EA "to do away with "anomalies" ie that Labour thought they had stitched it up for TW by creating the concept of legal sex (those with a GRC).

If this did happen the Supreme Court ruling would no longer apply although it would mean that only one protected characteristic, sex, could be negated by another (gender re-assignment).

I wonder if you can have a constitution that is based on "identifying" as a woman. This is probably what WI HQ wants as it would be an even greater member pool. ie not just those on the pathway to or having a GRC. That's only 10,000 people. Just think how big the membership could be if was based on "identifying"

No, I don’t think so. I don’t think there’s a lawful way to create a charity to benefit that combination of protected characteristics. Even if the entire membership, the trustees, the privy council and the King all wanted it.

Oh no. Sisterhood groups are for EVERYONE. Because of that

Why is this becoming so contraversial. Surely people can set up groups that are inclusive of TW without it being part of the WI, if they feel that strongly about it.

Why do you have to sign up to other things suddenly?

They will have to change the Equality Act 2010 first. As far as I can see any charitable purpose to benefit women and some men is unlawful discrimination.

Yes. They would have to change them to benefit everyone. But at least that would be legal.

when I said “simplest” I didn’t mean simple. Just the least complex.

i don’t think it’s a good idea, or should be done. But they are hell bent on having men join that’s how they could do it.