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

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

“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

Tellingly - they still think women can have a penis.

Also, the AIBU board is for questions of reasonableness, it’s not the “Board for People Who Don’t Approve of FWR” this is a perfectly reasonable AIBU like many others. People can also vote.

Perhaps those accusing women protecting single sex spaces of being bigots should look in the mirror.

After all, they are the ones blindly holding onto idealogical views and who are utterly intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.

I am quite confused then how Maddy ends up on the feminism board so much then. It didn't seem to educate Maddy on who trans men were. I can only assume that all this time Maddy believed feminists were discussing excluding female people from single sex provisions and maybe that is why Maddy has said it is 'toxic'.

The vote is overwhelming that OP is NBU. Of 997 voters, 91% believe it’s perfectly fine for WI to be for women and not men.

I truly don't understand how they can tell us that women who are religious, vulnerable, traumatised or just plain benefit from a single sex space (they are often the only place women can get help if they're being abused, even if that isn't the primary purpose of the space) should have no right to it unless men permit it, and then think we are the bigots, dinosaurs and phobics.

Jasvinder Sanghera wrote in Shame about how she started a women's only group, ostensibly about women's health so nobody would object, and it did cover that, but really more about creating a safe space where women who were being forced into marriage would be able to get help. What a fucking toxic bigot.

Still not got an answer to the question upthread.

Isn't this the type of post on threads that Justine said she was wanting to stop?

Yes. I will say it's been a blinder of a strategy really, so much progress made by feminist women over the last 100 years almost undone.

I said on another thread that the last 20 years or so have been really eye opening to me on just how many men really hate women, and just how little female people actually matter when it comes down to it.

The recent wins in tribunals, the SC judgement, and even the shift in GGs and WI has been an incredible relief! Like a suffocating weight lifting just a little, there is hope that things are getting slowly but surely better. Public opinion is changing due to the overreach by men's rights activists because they are now realising it unfairly benefits men, and they are waking up to the predators who have leaped at the opportunities afforded them by this insane ideology.

I have major issues with the tone of GG & WI statements, and I'm a little worried about how this supposed "Sisterhood" initiative is going to work and be lawful so I'm keeping a hopeful yet sceptical eye on how that all shakes out.

Every day is a nail biting wait to hear how the Sandi Peggie vs NHS Fife and Dr Beth (Theodore Upton) tribunal goes.

It's all been really quite frightening how easily everything was taken from women, and how easy it was to gaslight people globally that this was progressive and right, and that anyone making (entirely reasonable) objections or asking the wrong questions was the worst person since Hitler, but I feel more hopeful than I have for a while.

I think more women are realising that it's ok to speak up, it isn't actually hateful or unkind. They are realising that all these insults are toothless attacks, the name calling doesn't mean anything and doesn't reflect reality. Just like how the ideology doesn't reflect reality, sex is binary, fixed and it really does matter sometimes.

There are always going to be issues where one type of people are perceived as being discriminated against when groups are restricted.

There are loads of groups near me that have restricted membership in some way. Disability groups, carer groups, groups for specific religions, age specific groups, groups restricted to people on low incomes or in particular postcode areas etc. The vast majority of these a trans or non binary person would be welcome, as they should be. The only gender specific groups we have locally are brownies and football groups. Sadly there's no cubs because it closed due to lack of interest from parent volunteers.

The over 65s in our village are having a Christmas lunch for free this week. I haven't ever contemplated complaining I'm not allowed to join. I'd love to learn pottery and there's a group near me for disabled adults... it's a shame I can't join in but I understand why and would never ask to join.

As long as there are opportunities for clubs for everyone locally that seems fine to me.

I agree with your analysis of what others are thinking here, but I think there is an issue though with your own logic.

It's actually not about who was treated badly in the past. We can't claim social privaledges because our ancestors were treated badly in the past, it doesn't entitle us to some kind of social compensation.

I think that approach is bound to produce problems and is responsible for a lot of the issues we see in what broadly gets called "woke" thinking. For example, thinking we need to give advantages to people of certain races to offset disadvantages their ancestors had in the past. Illegal in the UK, officially, but this is the thinking in DEI circles. Like Kendi's assersion that "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination".

That's toxic thinking imo that simply sets up new social hierarchies which target differernt individuals.

The reason for separate spaces for women and men is more about the underlying realities of being a sexually dimorphic species. Sexuality can be socially disruptive. We don't want to live in a society like chimps where sexuality is inserting itself into our social interactions all the time in places like work, it already happens even when we try and keep a lid on it, because it's such a powerful drive. Sexual assault is part of that reality too, but not the whole of it or the root cause. The root is the nature of having two sexes.

As long as we remain human with human bodies that reproduce the way we do, there will be some differernces between the sexes, and our reproductive class will have the capacity to influence social relationships. We manage that through social structures and conventions.

That is such a blanket question anyway.

I would always respect someone by using their chosen name and chosen pronouns. Whether they want to wear a dress or slum it like me in just jeans that doesn't bother me at all. I would like to see them included in all relevant aspects of society. I would like things put in place to help them feel safe. I am more than happy for tax payers money to be spent on providing specific trans services.

I still don't think trans people should be in women only spaces. I'm also curious how many trans men are complaining about not getting into male spaces?

Yes because they too are “women”.

Bored of TRAs trying to use transmen as some kind of gotcha that it would be better to accept transwomen into our spaces rather than transmen, as apparently we’ll all be terrified of their manliness.

That is just pure specious lies.

Very glad to be corrected, thanks and sorry to OP. I'm watching far too much through a red haze atm as the Supreme Court are being ignored. Bet it wouldn't have been if they'd won! Only I won't find anyone to take that bet.

I know quite a few transmen. They're all under 30 and they have been through a lot, including adverse childhood experiences.

I support them as my sisters however they identify. There is nothing 'bonkers' about feminists standing up for female people.

Such as?

Well I'd love to understand why posters like you don't think women should be entitled to single sex spaces and services.

Instead of whinging about 'mean girls' do you care to answer that?

I would think a lot of us would agree with that. I don’t want trans people to be marginalised or treated unfairly in society, when it comes to education and work, welfare, housing etc.

I do want single-sex spaces to be respected and the rights of women and girls to be upheld.

If the WI cannot permit trans women to be members then there’s nothing to stop TW setting up a new equivalent or joining an existing one that’s open to both sexes.

I wouldn’t dream of going to a trans gender support group and telling them they must admit me even though I’m not trans and don’t agree with their ideology.

What, women standing up for their rights and sometimes agreeing with each other? That's right, Lady, we sure need less of that in the world, don't we? So depressing...

I'd also still like an answer to my earlier question. What trait is shared by all born women, and all born men who say they're women, but no born men and no women who say they're men?

We're getting endless insults and accusations but no bloody answers.

The misogyny baked into the responses on here is awful.

Women agreeing with each other on women's rights makes them 'mean girls'. Seriously? 🙄

Saying men can't change sex is taking the piss out of people and backslapping?

Yeah right. The only folk insulting anyone in these discussions are those with body dysphoria and their fans/allies.

”Women agreeing that the earth is round is “depressing”. More news as it comes.

But @LadyFreja rather than sniping from the sidelines like a mean girl yourself, how about you make the case why women should accept men as “women”?

“It's depressing to see the FWR regulars all slapping each other on the back and communally relishing in taking the piss out of people who don't agree with them. You're all acting like means girls at school. It's on brand though so unsurprising.”

“I thought this was the king of behaviour MN was supposed to be cracking down on?”

You mean the poster who was deleted for posting a bullying style post about how toxic people discussing this issue are, and for expressing reasonable opinions? One who has a history of posting in the vein? That poster?

Yes, I believe that MN is cracking down on that type of posting. By all means report any post you feel meets your set tone criteria.

Calling people responding to the bullying when it is implied that their opinions are the ones that are ‘toxic’ ‘mean girls’, possibly also could be what Justine wants to get rid of too.

Gosh. Look at that. That post was deleted.