My WI group folded this week

Apparently there is a financial issue with this. I'm sorry, I don't know the details but I think it's something to do with if your group is in credit (fees, donations etc) and the group disbands, it has to hand over all monies to NFWI (!)
I'll see if I can find out more about this.

There is an insurance issue too, but I would've thought that was something that could be dealt with fairly easily.

I hope the media will pick this up and run with it. It needs to be absolutely clear that if WI groups are folding or devolving from the organisation, it is not because members are outraged at the expulsion of trans identified males, but that they are being instructed to sign a statement that includes a clause pledging support for an ideology to which the majority of members of that particular group do not subscribe. And the WI (and, for the future, the transactivist wing of Girlguiding) need to know that they can't sneak stuff like this past us.

Not the first democratic decision I disagree with, as I can do in a democracy.

Have the members decided to form any alternative group, say the Thursday meeting club or something, OP?

Can't you cross out the bit you don't agree with and then sign?

Had not realised that WI HQ (or whever is doing this) should do anything so underhand (and I would imagine on one level not legal) to demand that you have to agree that TWAW to then say yes the WI should follow the law.

Which apart from anything else implies WI HQ is saying the law is wrong because they (and all who sign) are saying TWAW which the court have ruled they aren't!

And this is being done in public and no one is challenging them.

So many of the threads on FWR seem to be about core positions within groups being captured and then from that position of priviledge and power the trans agenda is promoted.

I am sure if it were possible to find someone with a legal back ground prepared to make a public statement, that by imposing this condition WI HQ is breaching its position.

Slippery weasels. I'm appalled.

The difficulty with this is that I suspect most of the women in my group are a bit oblivious about the issue. It’s a village group in a semi rural and fairly traditional area and we have almost nothing to do with the national stuff, so I’m not sure it’s on anyone’s radar.

I really sympathise with the OP and others who sense there is a level of manipulation going on, hence why I contacted HQ to ask them exactly what we were signing for. The reply was explicit that it was confirmation of eligibility on the basis of sex. In the end I was not willing to leave my group, something I actually feel I really need at the moment (a whole other story) when the substantive issue is resolved - men can no longer identify into the WI.

I don’t know much about th WI but if you refused to sign and just met up as a private group and did the same things what would be the difference?

Can you agree to sign the first bit and cross out the rest - if on paper?
Alternative would be to refuse to sign online form and send in a letter to HQ - be v old fashioned and groups swamp them with post?

I wasn’t willing to sign anything that WI HQ could count as proof that women don’t want women only spaces and are happy to have TW join.

i don’t trust what they’d do with that.

In the end I signed because HQ clarified it was to confirm my biological sex and I’m not willing to let their ridiculous nonsense rob me of the company of a lovely bunch of women. I made it absolutely clear in my email to them that I don’t want males in the WI and that many women are relieved that the WI is finally complying with the law.

The policy statement is all about trying to appease the TRAs that have already infiltrated the organisation. They confirm that GC views are protected by law so they absolutely cannot discriminate against people who are sex realists.

I guess what clinched it for me is that the argument is won and they have to comply with the law. No amount of word salading and silliness can change that.

Yes I think he would be

This is bonkers!

Would you have realised that this was being stealthed in if you hadn't thought to look for it? I'm just wondering whether women are signing and not realising what they're agreeing to?

The membership form to sign before we renew and pay next years fees is to confirm we are women. But it also commits us to following the policies, and in my group the only policy that has been circulated with the form is the equality and diversity policy which includes the lines

“Although our membership is only open to women registered
female at birth (biological women), we offer different ways to engage with our
movement so that we can offer support and fellowship to a wider group, including transgender women and others. Our inclusion of transgender women in activities
outside of membership is based on our belief that being a woman is about biology and
lived experience..” and also “ 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.”

and so they have managed to piss off both sides of the debate.

My group meet tonight, I’m not sure if it will be mentioned. I’d just about decided to stay, partly to support my local group which is v important to a group of elderly women, and to fight from inside. But then I read those lines again and really don’t know if I can have any of my money go to national to spend on this.

Let them disband then reform it.

What?

I was really hoping there was some crossed wires here. What was the wording of the form? (If you don't mind me asking)

Good for you for setting up another group.

You were all doing the real work of running your local group. It’s harder without an umbrella organization, but if you act quickly, you won’t lose momentum.

If enough small groups keep going they could eventually join together

Ours has closed as well. From after Easter a new private gathering every week are hiring a hall that will be by invite only. Still working out the details of it, but absolutely nobody was willing to say we felt like TW should be allowed to join.

It was me (and possibly other posters on the other thread) that emailed HQ and asked for clarification about what exactly I was signing. The reply said it was to confirm I was entitled to join on the basis of my sex at birth, so I signed.

The accompanying handwringing guff implied that they think we’re all devastated men can’t be members anymore but I made it clear I’m pleased and relieved.

They absolutely can’t ask prospective members to agree TWAW, it would be illegal, surely?

That sounds about right.

OP, can you share the form or the full wording?

I'm confused.

Are you happy your group is closing, given the impactbof the Supreme Court judgement?

Did your group have trans members?

How did your group come to be do to trans women?

Yes, I'm confused too.

I think it's so they can shut down any GC discussion inside the Wi in the future as "incompatible" with the declaration that every member has signed, and a breach of policy.

Is this some kind of new legal argument they're going for? In order to stay in the WI all members have to sign to say they want to include TW. So they can say 'look all our members agree!'?