My WI group folded this week

Glad it's not just me that's confused.

There have been a number of threads about how a group or event could be advertised as being for women and TW. And am not going to try and remember all the points about this.

But the EA applies if someone wants it to.

ie if in a local area someone organises a yoga session for women and trans women and no one complains nothing happens.

And I suspect that very few would. I dont think women who wanted a genuine women only yoga group would complain, in the same way that they might about a rape crisis support group.

Equally I doubt many men would complain.

This is really the reality isn't it. All of this is happening because a few men are insisting on their right to be part of of a women only group because the motivation is them being validated as being a "woman".

And as came up in the earlier threads, clubs and associations (check!) are exempt from the EA.

So a local women's group that is a stand alone group, can have membership rules that suit their needs. equally women only (biological) or women and trans women. (I think this is only up to a group or association of maximum 25 members). Just as there are now "Men's Sheds" groups.

If anyone has bookmarked those threads (about a year ago) as they went into a lot of detail, they could be useful.

Also with have the actual details not my fuzzy memory.

Well put. That’s precisely what they have been doing. The goal, as you say, was always to colonise womanhood and make sure that women are prevented from having anything for ourselves. And they have done very well.

We also have a zoom meeting with the CEO soon.

I can't wait!

I did sign the form but hadn’t noticed the link below the signature re the policies. Have read that now (had to reset password as don’t usually go on the site) it reads as being very slippery - says membership is only for biological women but also lots of stuff about supporting transgender women in wider ways.

We had emails from the National Federation a couple of months ago upset about the fact they were going to have to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, one from the local Federation carefully stepping around the subject and saying they were waiting for clarification and one later saying there was to be a new form to sign. Our branch president (very TRA) sent links on our WhatsApp group to Guardian articles, a link to the Good Law project fundraiser and an offer to join in a zoom meeting with the CEO if we were upset or concerned about new ruling. Absolute crickets in response, thankfully - people just sat on their hands, a bit baffled why she was going so overboard on this and thinking it was an overstep of her responsibilities. We are a big branch and haven’t had any resignations since.

I wouldn’t entirely be surprise if in the future they change their entire constitution to being for women and TW.

i don’t think there’s a way to do this that is compatible with the EA2010, even if a majority wished to do so.

They are. But very grudgingly.

And I have no doubt whatsoever they’ll announce at some point that X number of their members have said they want TW to be admitted.

I wouldn’t entirely be surprise if in the future they change their entire constitution to being for women and TW.

Yes the declaration could literally be one line

“ I confirm I am a biological female”

all the rest is unnecessary.

But the WI HQ have NOT made clarifications publicly available to ALL members. They shouldn't need to - their policies should be fully clear and the declaration that we are expected to sign should make it clear that we are ONLY saying we were born female. It doesn't say that though.
I feel they are deliberately muddying the waters and actually, that's not the actions of an organisation I want to be involved with.

There's another thread about this, I think, where the poster clarified what the statement meant, with WI HQ.

But surely that then becomes discriminatory towards men who don't identify as women?
The group becomes open to women and SOME men but not others.
If a man who didn't identify as a woman wanted to join, surely they wouldn't legally be able to turn him away for being the wrong sort of man?

I think even without the word Women in the name, if your rules state membership is open only to women and trans women then the outcome is the same.

And I agree re clarification on the law. So many people seem to have absorbed the various Stonewall-law based policies rather than reality

So are they going to uphold the law or not? I’m confused 🫤

I would think if you had a group name that did not include the word 'women' you could choose who you accept for membership. A local open air community sauna used to have an event where women and trans women only were accepted, with an event name without mention of women.

I reiterate the comment I have made on a number of threads since the Supreme Court judgment. It should never have come to this, the law should have been clarified by the then government at least five if not ten years ago.

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?!?

This is belief discrimination - your group should sue them for all you can.

Maya Forstater was asked about this ridiculous WI demand at the recent Liberal Voice for Women conference and she said it was belief discrimination. Although Maya isn't a lawyer, Akua Reindorf KC was sitting next to her and seemed to be smiling in agreement.

You can watch the question and answer starting at 01:17:40

Also get Sex Matters and Nick Wallis or other journalists involved.

Insurance is incredibly easy. I was secretary of a dog breed club for a few years and we had to have 3rd party etc. in order to hold shows, fun days, educational settings and group walks. I was astonished by how simple it was to get and how cheap.

I've not read all of the comments but surely this is discrimination for them to ask you to sign something saying you believe X? In the same way as if they were expecting you to sign to say you believed in a specific religion as a requirement of membership? It's discriminatory against all those with opposing views / beliefs which are protected?

Im tempted to sign as ‘blahblahblah” and see if anyone notices

As I have said on other threads I think the TWAW is really were the LGBT+ advocacy lost a lot of public support, or just indiffence. When TW were participating and disproportinately outperforming females.

Unlike gay rights other peoples opinions do not affect a persons sexuality, Trans-rights rely on other people behaving in a way and that is a step too far. Most people don't really care that much about peoples identity, but they do care when they have to change foundational understanding of their lives.

I woukdn't want to be forced into signing things. Whether or not I agree with it. It's a daft move. Forcing folk to sign things or else.

Posting this request from a journalist on the other thread for the form...
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5496673-the-new-wi-equality-diversity-and-inclusion-policy-its-worse-and-includes-the-thought-police?reply=151327938&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share