Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

1000 replies

SingleSexSpacesInSchools · 03/12/2025 11:36

“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.

Women’s Institute will no longer accept trans women as members from April

Exclusive: CEO says decision taken with ‘utmost regret and sadness’ after supreme court ruling on definition of a woman

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/dec/03/womens-institute-no-longer-accept-trans-women-members-april

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
SabrinaThwaite · 03/12/2025 13:01

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.

And yet the SC were clear that any terms used in the EA 2010 had to have the same meaning throught the Act - so women are biological females and men are biological males for all purposes. The Act specifically refers to Associations having the ability to restrict membership to persons with a single characteristic.

So, if you say that you're a single sex association that only accepts women as members and does not accept men (like the WI), then guess what - you can't accept men who say they are women and not accept all other men.

AgDulAmach · 03/12/2025 13:01

Daaaaahling · 03/12/2025 12:59

That's not true.

No - recognising that woman is a real category based in biology, that by definition, excludes all men - has not changed many of the problems that women face. You're right in that respect.

But it's not true to say that nothing has changed. Changes have already happened, or will happen, because of the tireless campaigning of feminists.

Changes such as:
Women in prison no longer being at risk of rape from their fellow inmates who are male.

Women not being able to question being body searched by a man - a man with an erection maybe, or a man giving them a strange leer, or a man who terrifies them just because he is a man in a position of power over them. A man who is subject to less scrutiny because he calls himself a woman.

Likewise for women in women's only refuges, homeless shelters. Sexual harassment and assault from males is one less thing for these women to worry about.

A man, generally won't be admitted into the same open ward space, and if, heaven forbid for some unavoidable clinical reasons he is, and he takes advantage of that situation to rape another inpatient - the hospital won't gaslight his victim & mislead the police by denying that he exists.

If you are raped by a man, you wont have to talk about that experience in detail with a man dressed up as a woman, in order to access counselling and support.

You won't have to refer to your rapist, as a woman, though he raped you with his penis, in the court room, after he cynically appropriates a female identity in order to access yet more vulnerable women to abuse.

If you participate in a women's sporting event, and you are the best woman there - you don't have to watch whilst your trophy, medal prize or award is given to a man who is dressed as a woman, with whom you cannot compete due to your biology.

I'm sure I could think of more examples. You are correct - this is a chunk of a larger whole - but women cannot protect their sex based rights if the terms woman and sex are actually rendered meaningless, and they don't actually exist legally as a class. So this clarification is fundamental to women's sex based rights.

Edited

Well done for stating this so clearly. The fact that you have to do it at all horrifies me. It's so obvious and yet women have to beg for basic respect over and over and over.

Brefugee · 03/12/2025 13:01

ApplePie16 · 03/12/2025 12:39

But none of the core issues have been sold.

VAWAG hasn’t fallen. We still have far right nuts trying to take away our access to healthcare and abortions. Nothing, and I mean nothing, has changed for women.

that isn't what the SC ruling was about.

You seem very confused.

Hons123 · 03/12/2025 13:02

Yes, common sense prevailed, yes, it was madness before, yes, we return to normality, but PLEASE PLEASE let us not be gleeful, let us even not go there, they are ill people after all, severely ill, so let us not be too triumphant about it, it is just a return to normality. Where I live, there is one lonely 6ft6 man, in his 70s now, who has always dressed as a very unkempt woman, see him in Tesco all the time, always alone, beyond sad, does not bother anyone, obviously never applied to participate in women's Olympics, always uses a disabled toilet. He breaks my heart for some reason, I feel so sad.

PacificState · 03/12/2025 13:03

@ProfessorLadyDrKeenovay 'The problem is, the boundaries of women's spaces were comprehensively eroded in a breathtakingly short period by self ID/Stonewall law. We were let down and gaslit by every major institution - the BBC, NHS, Police, with "her penis" etc - and even by those set up solely to serve women (Fawcett Society, Engender, Edinburgh Rape Crisis etc).'

Yes, I absolutely, agree with this. I was there, I was personally impacted, and it was terrifying, gasllighting bullshit. I do understand the rage - I feel it myself. What worries me is that the rage is now propelling the movement, rather than a more sober approach that (IMO) would stand up better in the longer term. I think the TRAs (the madder ones) have been exposed; I'm not saying they'll never be a threat again, but at the moment I think we're fighting the last battle instead of the current one.

ApplePie16 · 03/12/2025 13:03

Brefugee · 03/12/2025 13:01

that isn't what the SC ruling was about.

You seem very confused.

The supreme court ruling was about the equality act. It was also a waste of time and money.

AgDulAmach · 03/12/2025 13:04

Hons123 · 03/12/2025 13:02

Yes, common sense prevailed, yes, it was madness before, yes, we return to normality, but PLEASE PLEASE let us not be gleeful, let us even not go there, they are ill people after all, severely ill, so let us not be too triumphant about it, it is just a return to normality. Where I live, there is one lonely 6ft6 man, in his 70s now, who has always dressed as a very unkempt woman, see him in Tesco all the time, always alone, beyond sad, does not bother anyone, obviously never applied to participate in women's Olympics, always uses a disabled toilet. He breaks my heart for some reason, I feel so sad.

It is always very sad to see someone who is struggling with life and no doubt many transwomen fall into that category (as do many women). That's irrelevant here IMO - the SC ruling was necessary not because of the mentally ill people who do nothing to anybody, but because of calculating men who hate women yet claim to be women, who enjoy and get a buzz out of trampling on women's rights.
Winning against those fuckwits deserves glee.

DeftGoldHedgehog · 03/12/2025 13:05

Hons123 · 03/12/2025 13:02

Yes, common sense prevailed, yes, it was madness before, yes, we return to normality, but PLEASE PLEASE let us not be gleeful, let us even not go there, they are ill people after all, severely ill, so let us not be too triumphant about it, it is just a return to normality. Where I live, there is one lonely 6ft6 man, in his 70s now, who has always dressed as a very unkempt woman, see him in Tesco all the time, always alone, beyond sad, does not bother anyone, obviously never applied to participate in women's Olympics, always uses a disabled toilet. He breaks my heart for some reason, I feel so sad.

I'm relieved that common sense seems to be prevailing for most organisations now. Not gleeful.

Constant vigilance is required with regard to women's rights as the far right are dominating politics in many countries and the more rights women have (which should just be a given) the more backlash there is. It's a victory in one battle but we are still at war.

CatusFlatus · 03/12/2025 13:05

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.

That would be illegal. If an organisation is single sex you can't decide to admit a few members of the opposite sex.

In the case of the WI, it would be guilty of discrimination on the grounds of sex against any man who was refused membership whilst they allowed some 'special' men in.

It's that simple and always has been since the advent of the Equality Act.

2021x · 03/12/2025 13:05

I don’t understand the hand wringing statements. They do not feel genuine at all.

If they want to include males then call it something other than the women’s institute., but if they want to keep it as the women’s institute then why are there males there?

Brefugee · 03/12/2025 13:05

ApplePie16 · 03/12/2025 12:50

Please tell me how your life has got actually better (not through imagined scenarios and concepts but actual reality) since this ruling?

plenty of women's lives got much better after the EA of 2010. The fact that a lot of women's lives were made worse when organisations started to pretend to believe that TWAW has passed you by.

The SC ruling confirmed that the EA of 2010 refers to biological sex, and confirmed that those of us who pushed back at letting men have women things by pretending to claim(ing) to be women were right.

HTH

Brefugee · 03/12/2025 13:08

ApplePie16 · 03/12/2025 12:54

The “answers” have all been very small benefits, if they can be classed as benefits at all.

you didn't mention how big the benefits should be. Can you provide a reasonable scale?

DeftGoldHedgehog · 03/12/2025 13:10

ApplePie16 · 03/12/2025 12:39

But none of the core issues have been sold.

VAWAG hasn’t fallen. We still have far right nuts trying to take away our access to healthcare and abortions. Nothing, and I mean nothing, has changed for women.

Ok, so when do you think feminism should have been done by @ApplePie16 ?

Let me know when you think women have achieved full equality and there's nothing further to do. I won't hold my breath.

Kleeneze · 03/12/2025 13:10

ApplePie16 · 03/12/2025 12:54

The “answers” have all been very small benefits, if they can be classed as benefits at all.

the benefit of being able to ask a man to leave a single sex space is massive. Utterly massive. It allows me and other women use the single sex space with confidence. Does that not matter to you at all? Does sandie Peggie having a space to get changed at work not matter?

Naunet · 03/12/2025 13:11

ApplePie16 · 03/12/2025 13:03

The supreme court ruling was about the equality act. It was also a waste of time and money.

It's a waste of time and money to recognise women as a sex class seperate from men, in law?

ApplePie16 · 03/12/2025 13:11

Naunet · 03/12/2025 13:11

It's a waste of time and money to recognise women as a sex class seperate from men, in law?

Yes. Imagine if all those wealthy people put their time into helping people.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 03/12/2025 13:11

Naunet · 03/12/2025 13:11

It's a waste of time and money to recognise women as a sex class seperate from men, in law?

Apparently so because now men are very sad and very cross

tedlassoforprimeminister · 03/12/2025 13:11

LighthouseLED · 03/12/2025 11:58

You are hypothesising

Absolutely not

Hons123 · 03/12/2025 13:12

DeftGoldHedgehog · 03/12/2025 13:05

I'm relieved that common sense seems to be prevailing for most organisations now. Not gleeful.

Constant vigilance is required with regard to women's rights as the far right are dominating politics in many countries and the more rights women have (which should just be a given) the more backlash there is. It's a victory in one battle but we are still at war.

If memory serves, it is the slightly to far right of far right Mr Trump who started the ball rolling, no?

Daaaaahling · 03/12/2025 13:13

ApplePie16 · 03/12/2025 12:54

And that’s improved your life how?

how does this help the women who can’t afford to feed their children because they lost their job and the cost of living has spiralled? How does it help women who are waiting years for NHS appointments? How does it help women who have just been made homeless? It doesn’t. Pretending it does anything is just make believe. And that’s coming from someone who’s gender critical.

If they become homeless, they will be able to go to a women's only shelter where they will be much safer from the threat of sexual harassment and rape by men. Why aren't you getting this?

DeftGoldHedgehog · 03/12/2025 13:13

ApplePie16 · 03/12/2025 13:11

Yes. Imagine if all those wealthy people put their time into helping people.

People that work on interpreting legislation do help people in a huge way.

There are different ways of helping people.

ContentedAlpaca · 03/12/2025 13:13

Brefugee · 03/12/2025 12:58

awww then the elderly trans people can... oh i don't know - get off their arses and set one up?

but as usual it is men bleating that women won't do all the work so they can waltz in and take over.

Tough (fake) tits

Anyone who was in the women's institute with elderly trans women can still go for a coffee together, invite them round for a spot of jam making etc. It doesn't prevent friendships from continuing, it just means the formal gathering is now women only

Theeyeballsinthesky · 03/12/2025 13:13

ApplePie16 · 03/12/2025 13:11

Yes. Imagine if all those wealthy people put their time into helping people.

What would mean like JKR founding and entirely funding a female only rape support service in Edinburgh after the Edinburgh rape crisis service employed a man who amongst other things told rape survivors to reframe their trauma

that sort of thing?

Brefugee · 03/12/2025 13:14

ApplePie16 · 03/12/2025 13:03

The supreme court ruling was about the equality act. It was also a waste of time and money.

in your opinion. But you are wrong.

You can continue sharing your personal space with whomever you want. But you and all your TWAW buddies are now obliged to stop trying to insist everyone else must.

The WI could have, and i am baffled why they didn't, changed to include men and women. And i will be interested to hear why they didn't take that actual step.

I am also disappointed to see the Men's shed isn't an exclusively male space. Why is that, does anyone know?

ProfessorMyAmpleSheep · 03/12/2025 13:14

LighthouseLED · 03/12/2025 11:58

You are hypothesising

Cough, cough.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.