Women’s Institute (WI) will no longer accept trans women

[PeonyPatch]

I personally am glad about this because biological women deserve protected spaces, but I dislike how the CEO seems to regret this decision. What kind of CEO doesn’t stand with the new supreme ruling?

They are having 'sisterhood' groups so a trans option to get around it.

This ⬆️

It’s just bizarre isn’t it?? The ingratiating nonsense pisses me off so much!

Like you, I don’t know a single person who is on the TRA ‘side of history’. And my circle is as diverse as they come…so where are all these people, and why do ‘we’ have to be so accommodating by giving up female only spaces?

If they bother. I bet sisterhood groups won’t be considered validating enough.

So separate from the WI?

Still run by the WI but separate groups that accommodate trans women is my understanding. Can they not create the TWI?! 😉

Although, @EmpressaurusKitty you are probs correct in that they won’t be “validating” enough. And herein lies the issue. Trans women want to encroach on women-only spaces because it validates them (or gives them sexual gratification I’m sure in some cases). They don’t want to be “othered,” even though they’ve kind of done that to themselves in my opinion. You can’t force your ideology onto people, it won’t and shouldn’t be possible to do that.

I admit to being completely baffled by it all. There are humans born 'female' and humans born 'male' - and if my ropey knowledge is right, we are all 'either-way' until X weeks when something or other throws a dice and we go the way it chooses. (You can see I am pretty ignorant, but...). I have no problem accepting that some humans wish to identify as 'the other gender' from the one they were born as... It's all the shouting and fighting and legal and political stuff going on that I can't follow. Surely there's room for all of us - and a way of generally accepting us all? There are so many instances of 'different = bad' (whether colour, religion, gender, politics - whatever) - can't we just accept that in a world of countless millions, there's no such thing as a standard human being?

I think people want a space where they can meet with like minded people. I think it’s important to have specialised community groups if I’m honest. For some women, they may feel safer with other women… or for religious reasons etc.

I also think it’s possible to follow what you’re saying in that we do generally accept all others but we can still have focused spaces as well.

There are very few women only spaces in my world , WI is the only one I am part of. It is a very different vibe and quite unique.

Oh we can. We certainly can accept there are millions of ways of being human. That’s a hell of a lot of facilities to build though isn’t it? I mean, we could separate by sex, but I'm up to everyone having their own personal toilet in every single building. I mean, how do we categorise these millions of different humans?

Great news, but hate the bad grace of their messaging.
Just for anyone not familiar with the obfuscatory language imposed by gender ideology: what's happened is that the Women's Institute has said that men cannot join, because they are men, and it's a women's institute.
This is not about trans people. It's about male people. As with any organisation, if they want to be mixed sex, they can change their rules, but then they would have to be clear that they were not a 'women's' institute.

Gender is not a PC in the EA 2010 so no claim would succeed on that basis.

What cases specifically are you referring to as I would love to read up about them. Anyone can attempt to sue for anything but it doesnt mean that the cases have any merit.

Women are celebrating because the WI were allowing a self selecting group of males to join which was acting against their charitable aims and therefore acting outwith their reason for existing. They were actually illegally discriminating against men who dont have a trans identity but who may have wanted to join because of an interest in a particular activity or topic.

Exaaaaactly.

Your post sums it up basically.

Erm, sex is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act. What are you talking about?

@PeonyPatch I know that sex is a PC...but gender is not and the poster I was quoting stated that women were suing on the basis of gender.

Maybe they meant sex?

confusingly, gender reassignment is protected characteristic too

@PeonyPatch he might have, but if talking in terms of the Equality Act its best to get the actual characteristics right, after all we are always told that sex and gender are different things and our sex based rights are very important.

The PC of gender reassignment is to protect people from unfair treatment in jobs, education and services because they are trans, ie to protect someone from being sacked just because they announce they are transitioning but it doesn’t endow the individuals with the sex based rights of the opposite sex (despite what some people try and claim). So it’s important that we are clear what the actual PCs are. Denying a transwoman access to a female only space is not discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment; it is legal discrimination on the basis of their sex,which is why they are being denied membership of the WI.

Some people deliberately try to muddle the characteristics of sex, gender reassignment and sexual orientation in order to try and embed and legitimise gender identity as a characteristic. Some people would like the EA 2010 to be amended to replace sex with gender identity.

You articulated exactly what I think about the differences of the characteristics too! 👏🏼

One slight amendment to my previous post about not having any sex based rights of the opposite sex, a transwoman could potentially claim sex discrimination by perception if someone discriminates against him becuase they think he actually is a woman and was treating him less favourably on that basis.

It really needs clearing up and it hasn’t been thought through properly because both protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment are at conflict with one another. This has been the issue all along.

Yes, this is in the EA for other protected characteristics eg if someone is perceived to be gay and bullied at work. I don't see how they could remove thus for one PC and not others.

They are not a conflict if interpreted correctly . Gender reassignment and sex are completely different but part of the TRA playbook to confuse the language and conflate sex and gender doesn’t help. What could and should be tightened up is the PC of Gender reassignment and exactly how and when that is applied because to say that even someone considering reassignment is covered by GR and no medical changes are required.

A transwoman is not being discriminated on the basis of sex or gender reassignment by being prevented from using female single sex spaces.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it be removed?

It always amuses me that some men find women wanting and needing women-only spaces confusing and "entitled" - for most of us, it just shows even more clearly why we need them, really. But for the terminally confused, like @NumbersGuy, here's some easy-to-understand statistics/proportions...

So a transwoman has protection against sexist treatment if people perceive them to be a woman and discriminate against them on that basis, i thought some people on this thread were not happy with that. Apols if I got that wrong.

That’s a good thing. Of course they’d have to prove any bullying and discrimination was because they were actually seen as a woman and not treated badly because they were trans.