Page 3 | To think it is not at all sad that the Women's Institute is now only for actual women?

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 2025-12-03T11:36:29+00:00

^“Incredibly sadly, we will have to restrict our membership on the basis of biological sex from April next year,” Green said. “But the message we really want to get across is that it remains our firm belief that transgender women are women, and that doesn’t change.”^ [[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/dec/03/womens-institute-no-longer-accept-trans-women-members-april https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/dec/03/womens-institute-no-longer-accept-trans-women-members-april]] Tellingly - they still think women can have a penis.

AccidentallyWesAnderson · 03/12/2025 12:20

S1ngS1ng · 03/12/2025 12:13

That’s ridiculous. A few anti trans bullies don’t speak for the whole of MN. There is nothing to celebrate and many think it’s a sad day. Feel so sorry for those elderly trans members battling a double whammy of loneliness and exclusion now barred from attending. They’re doing no harm by attending and many will miss friends now barred from attending .The WI being forced to do this is so petty and nasty and the glee from a few on here is revolting. Just shows the mindset of a few. Feel sorry for WI they’re between a rock and a hard place.

Show quote history

It clearly states MN feminist forum. Not the whole of MN. Maybe the WI should’ve followed the law then. They harm the women who just want one fucking space to themselves without the presence of men larping as women.

There are plenty of groups trans women can go to and there’s nothing to stop them starting their own. Stop with the hyperbole.

S1ngS1ng · 03/12/2025 12:21

PacificState · 03/12/2025 12:17

Hmm OK I'll bite. For what it's worth I'm generally gender critical: I think bio sex is a real thing, that it forms the basis of women's oppression, and that the pretence over the last ten years that it doesn't matter/doesn't exist has been injurious for women.

But I think the insistence that an entirely voluntary association should exclude transwomen against the wishes of its board (and possibly its membership) is disproportionate and risks looking unnecessarily cruel. Nobody HAS to join the WI, and nobody will be denied crucial services if they don't join, so it feels like taking a sledgehammer to a nut. For what it's worth I feel the same about Park Run: it's a fun project whose whole purpose is inclusion. (If you want to compare competitive run times, there are dedicated sports clubs you can join for that.)

I think this is a flaw in the SC judgement (consequential on the drafting of the Equality Act) that over time might undermine the whole sex-realist project. It makes sex-realist action look cruel, disproportionate and obsessive.

What matters is that women must be able to access single sex spaces and services where they really matter, eg for healthcare and critical aspects of wellbeing (refuges, rape crisis centres, mental health services). Competitive sports are off in a category of their own and most people don't dispute the need for single sex provision there. Organisations for children are also in a separate category IMO.

Conflating those things with voluntary associations for adults, whose purpose is to provide general socialising and support is a category error, in my opinion. And risks being politically disastrous in the long run.

Absolutely!

Original poster

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 03/12/2025 12:23

PacificState · 03/12/2025 12:17

Hmm OK I'll bite. For what it's worth I'm generally gender critical: I think bio sex is a real thing, that it forms the basis of women's oppression, and that the pretence over the last ten years that it doesn't matter/doesn't exist has been injurious for women.

But I think the insistence that an entirely voluntary association should exclude transwomen against the wishes of its board (and possibly its membership) is disproportionate and risks looking unnecessarily cruel. Nobody HAS to join the WI, and nobody will be denied crucial services if they don't join, so it feels like taking a sledgehammer to a nut. For what it's worth I feel the same about Park Run: it's a fun project whose whole purpose is inclusion. (If you want to compare competitive run times, there are dedicated sports clubs you can join for that.)

I think this is a flaw in the SC judgement (consequential on the drafting of the Equality Act) that over time might undermine the whole sex-realist project. It makes sex-realist action look cruel, disproportionate and obsessive.

What matters is that women must be able to access single sex spaces and services where they really matter, eg for healthcare and critical aspects of wellbeing (refuges, rape crisis centres, mental health services). Competitive sports are off in a category of their own and most people don't dispute the need for single sex provision there. Organisations for children are also in a separate category IMO.

Conflating those things with voluntary associations for adults, whose purpose is to provide general socialising and support is a category error, in my opinion. And risks being politically disastrous in the long run.

Thats not the problem here.

The problem was they let SOME males in but not ALL males.

You have to, if you are a sex based org, let in ONE sex or BOTH. NOT all of one and SOME of the other.

OP posts:

ContentedAlpaca · 03/12/2025 12:23

5128gap · 03/12/2025 11:52

I think its good to post this here. Its an interesting topic and more people will see it here, as not everyone goes on to the FWR board.

Show quote history

putting this poll here will canvas a wider range of opinions. Consigning it to FWR would make the vote outcome pretty inevitable.

S1ngS1ng · 03/12/2025 12:24

AccidentallyWesAnderson · 03/12/2025 12:20

It clearly states MN feminist forum. Not the whole of MN. Maybe the WI should’ve followed the law then. They harm the women who just want one fucking space to themselves without the presence of men larping as women.

There are plenty of groups trans women can go to and there’s nothing to stop them starting their own. Stop with the hyperbole.

Show quote history

Oh do give over and stop being inflammatory and over dramatic. If you are saying all trans people are larping at men it’s discrimination more and simple.

There are not many social groups for the elderly and even fewer for elderly trans people- its vile.

Kleeneze · 03/12/2025 12:24

PacificState · 03/12/2025 12:17

Hmm OK I'll bite. For what it's worth I'm generally gender critical: I think bio sex is a real thing, that it forms the basis of women's oppression, and that the pretence over the last ten years that it doesn't matter/doesn't exist has been injurious for women.

But I think the insistence that an entirely voluntary association should exclude transwomen against the wishes of its board (and possibly its membership) is disproportionate and risks looking unnecessarily cruel. Nobody HAS to join the WI, and nobody will be denied crucial services if they don't join, so it feels like taking a sledgehammer to a nut. For what it's worth I feel the same about Park Run: it's a fun project whose whole purpose is inclusion. (If you want to compare competitive run times, there are dedicated sports clubs you can join for that.)

I think this is a flaw in the SC judgement (consequential on the drafting of the Equality Act) that over time might undermine the whole sex-realist project. It makes sex-realist action look cruel, disproportionate and obsessive.

What matters is that women must be able to access single sex spaces and services where they really matter, eg for healthcare and critical aspects of wellbeing (refuges, rape crisis centres, mental health services). Competitive sports are off in a category of their own and most people don't dispute the need for single sex provision there. Organisations for children are also in a separate category IMO.

Conflating those things with voluntary associations for adults, whose purpose is to provide general socialising and support is a category error, in my opinion. And risks being politically disastrous in the long run.

I don’t think them banning men is politically disastrous at all. I think the opposite. The wind is very much changing direction here. Swap sides early and you’ll hopefully retain some dignity and will reduce the chances of being sued. Can someone please point this out to the Scottish government and NHS Fife?

S1ngS1ng · 03/12/2025 12:25

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 03/12/2025 12:25

ContentedAlpaca · 03/12/2025 12:23

putting this poll here will canvas a wider range of opinions. Consigning it to FWR would make the vote outcome pretty inevitable.

Edited

Show quote history

Turns out that 98% of even regular forum goers think it should be female only....

OP posts:

Original poster

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 03/12/2025 12:26

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

looks pretty popular with hundreds of votes and comments.

Maybe some people think it's important women have rights?

OP posts:

Original poster

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 03/12/2025 12:26

Kleeneze · 03/12/2025 12:24

I don’t think them banning men is politically disastrous at all. I think the opposite. The wind is very much changing direction here. Swap sides early and you’ll hopefully retain some dignity and will reduce the chances of being sued. Can someone please point this out to the Scottish government and NHS Fife?

Show quote history

Fife decision due in a few days. near zero chance of Fife winning....

OP posts:

VickyEadieofThigh · 03/12/2025 12:26

LighthouseLED · 03/12/2025 11:58

You are hypothesising

Show quote history

Not in the least. I know women who stopped going!

Ukefluke · 03/12/2025 12:26

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

To you maybe........

5128gap · 03/12/2025 12:26

ContentedAlpaca · 03/12/2025 12:23

putting this poll here will canvas a wider range of opinions. Consigning it to FWR would make the vote outcome pretty inevitable.

Edited

Show quote history

Agree. It's very interesting to see the opinions of people who might not be so engaged with the topic as those who discuss it regularly on the FWR board.

S1ngS1ng · 03/12/2025 12:27

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Kleeneze · 03/12/2025 12:28

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Or because they dislike the presence of men?

Original poster

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 03/12/2025 12:28

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

It's not narrow or unpleasant to not want to share a female space with males.

What motivation do you have to allow males into female spaces without even telling the females about it?

OP posts:

S1ngS1ng · 03/12/2025 12:29

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

PacificState · 03/12/2025 12:29

'I don’t think them banning men is politically disastrous at all. I think the opposite. The wind is very much changing direction here.' -- I mean, disastrous in the long run: 10 years, 20 years and longer.

If GC feminism sticks to making arguments about healthcare and safety, we will embed victories that will endure. If we run around the country pushing 80yo transwomen out of the WI, all our legal victories will be overturned the moment a majority-Millennial government is elected (which won't be very long).

Pyjamatimenow · 03/12/2025 12:30

The thing is with all these places like girl guides and WI, they say nobody’s bothered about trans women joining but people don’t say. My daughter goes to guides but I wouldn’t allow her to go to the camps because I don’t know if there will be adolescent boys there, not to mention male leaders. I don’t say anything but she also doesn’t go so how many other girls aren’t getting the benefit of experiences that were meant for them?

Ukefluke · 03/12/2025 12:31

I personally wouldn't be a member The Women's Institute or have a child in the Girl guides until they apologized for their grudging implementation of biology. It's offensive.

If a so called so and so named organisation has no idea what a woman is and does not protect woman's rights then it doesn't deserve the name or my subs.

ApplePie16 · 03/12/2025 12:31

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 03/12/2025 12:26

looks pretty popular with hundreds of votes and comments.

Maybe some people think it's important women have rights?

Show quote history

I just think it’s sad that the ruling classes have succeeded with their division tactics.

Notice that the Supreme Court ruling came out and nothing was solved. Violence against women and girls is still an issue. The NHS is still crumbling. We still have a housing crisis.

But for some reason this is the issue that will make or break the UK.

PumpkinTwistyWindToots · 03/12/2025 12:31

LighthouseLED · 03/12/2025 11:54

I feel sorry for the 80 year old mentioned in the article who has been a member for years.

I think it’s fair enough to restrict membership in the future, but there ought to be an exemption for those transwomen who have been going for years without any issues. These are not activists - they are people just trying to live their own lives.

No, there should not.

PumpkinTwistyWindToots · 03/12/2025 12:33

LighthouseLED · 03/12/2025 12:00

They’ve allowed it for decades. Why kick long-standing members out? That doesn’t seem fair.

Yes, don’t allow transwomen in future. But let those who joined more than a certain number of years ago (so aren’t part of any takeover / point-making group) stay.

Show quote history

Because it's a women only organisation. It's really not that hard to understand.

AccidentallyWesAnderson · 03/12/2025 12:34

S1ngS1ng · 03/12/2025 12:24

Oh do give over and stop being inflammatory and over dramatic. If you are saying all trans people are larping at men it’s discrimination more and simple.

There are not many social groups for the elderly and even fewer for elderly trans people- its vile.

Show quote history

Take your own advice. You quoted a statement and turned it into dramatic and accused those of standing up for women’s sec based rights as ‘anti-trans bullies’. Followed up by how trans women are going to be excluded and lonely because they are being denied access to a group based on SEX, a group they didn’t and don’t belong to based on this very one thing. They wouldn’t be in this position if it weren’t for people like you indulging in lies and delusion. What is stopping them from setting up their own groups?

No, I’m not saying ALL trans people larp as men. I’m saying trans women larp as women, as they are men. It’s not difficult to understand.

I think what’s vile is prioritising men with special feelings over women who just want a space to themselves. What about the women who have self excluded from groups because there are men there? Are you bothered that they might’ve felt lonely and excluded?

Luckily the house of cards is gradually falling.

Daaaaahling · 03/12/2025 12:34

PacificState · 03/12/2025 12:17

Hmm OK I'll bite. For what it's worth I'm generally gender critical: I think bio sex is a real thing, that it forms the basis of women's oppression, and that the pretence over the last ten years that it doesn't matter/doesn't exist has been injurious for women.

But I think the insistence that an entirely voluntary association should exclude transwomen against the wishes of its board (and possibly its membership) is disproportionate and risks looking unnecessarily cruel. Nobody HAS to join the WI, and nobody will be denied crucial services if they don't join, so it feels like taking a sledgehammer to a nut. For what it's worth I feel the same about Park Run: it's a fun project whose whole purpose is inclusion. (If you want to compare competitive run times, there are dedicated sports clubs you can join for that.)

I think this is a flaw in the SC judgement (consequential on the drafting of the Equality Act) that over time might undermine the whole sex-realist project. It makes sex-realist action look cruel, disproportionate and obsessive.

What matters is that women must be able to access single sex spaces and services where they really matter, eg for healthcare and critical aspects of wellbeing (refuges, rape crisis centres, mental health services). Competitive sports are off in a category of their own and most people don't dispute the need for single sex provision there. Organisations for children are also in a separate category IMO.

Conflating those things with voluntary associations for adults, whose purpose is to provide general socialising and support is a category error, in my opinion. And risks being politically disastrous in the long run.

Voluntary organisations can lift their sex restrictions if they want to. Men can be admitted into the WI. Men can be admitted into the women's race - it's just not legal to admit only a limited selection of self appointed men.

I think the reason organisations don't do this, is because they are aware that a significant number of men might join and behave in a way which is disrupting / harassing / intimidating or undignified for women. Which is the exact same thing that can occur when trans identified men join. Self declaration as trans identified, doesn't seem to reduce that risk. I have never seen any evidence that points to trans identified men as being less risky to women.

Men may as well be asked to self identify as "safe" or "nice" or "not a pervert" or "unusually bad at running for a man".

Womens participation is important. If an event or organisation is advertised as for women only, I think women do have a right not to be missold. If the women's institute wants to be open to men, they can be open to all men. Being open to "trans women" amounts to the same thing as any man can adopt this status at any time regardless of his appearance or behaviour.

For the record I would find it upsetting for a man to compete in any way within the women's park run category. It's cheating. It would ruin the event for me.