Fighting Gender Ideology in the WI

[WomensInstituteDeclaration]

People on this thread are well aware of the ideological capture of the Women's Institute by the trans lobby. We are fighting back and need your help!

Please can you sign the petition to demand a moratorium on trans women joining the WI, to have a debate about this direction, and a vote.

The request has been formally turned down by the Board of Trustees of the National Federation of Women's Institutes, after a formal submission in February this year.

There is a question to ask whether or not you are a member so we can disaggregate the results.

DM us if you want to get further involved, especially if you are a WI member who disagrees with the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy 2021 and share as widely as you can too.

Thank you for your help.

Sarah

It still doesn't matter if you don't always know. Not always knowing does not mean that single sex spaces are unworkable.

We know this because our entire society works mostly on taking people at face value, and questioning people who don't meet the criteria asked for.

I was constantly "misgendered" when I was a child based on short hair, unisex clothes and not having grown boobs and hips yet.

If I'd wanted to go to Cubs (back then it was single sex) I might possibly, if I'd tried really hard and wanted to lie about it, been able to go, certainly for a short while. If I'd been found out then I'd have been asked to leave.

So yes, a single-sex WI might potentially have a transwoman join and the deception not be discovered. You're right, it's more likely if it's your Mermaids woman's child who'd been on puberty blockers than if it's Pat who started expressing their true self in their 50s. It might happen.

But just because Jackie joins and isn't found out, doesn't mean that we lose the right to say to Pat, you are a transwoman and this is a female only space. I'm sorry that this hurts your feelings but that's the rules. And if Pat happens to be a very masculine looking female then that is easily cleared up.

It gives the Pats of this world terrible sads that the Jackies sometimes pass. They used to call them "Truscum" (might be passe now) and demand that we treat them all the same. Which I'm happy to do - no access for any of them, and if they want to lie and cheat well that's on their conscience. We don't need a 100% success rate to say no.

The thing is though, they don't want to lie and cheat - this is all about getting us to throw open the doors and welcome them all in as women exactly the same as us, and I feel like your argument on this thread "you can't always tell" is trying to do the same thing.

I still don't get how you'd be sure in real life. For example, you've known already that the actors are trans women, you're identifying them retrospectively. You don't know if the last who served you a coffee this woman was trans or not. You don't know if the guy on the check out was a trans man etc.

So it isn't really a workable ban then, that was my point, and the only point I've made on the thread. I think it would be very hard to enforce without challenging everybody. And then, as I understand it, trans women with a GRC wouldn't need identifiable as trans anyway?

You may not know with a brief glance, but after a few seconds, you can tell that there's something which doesn't add up and your brain does it's thing and you know.

@TinselAngel Yes, we will be exploring that in a future submission. We believe this will be a long road as the current Board of Trustees are quite wedded to being 'progressive'. It's brilliant that people here are coming up with both new ideas and reinforcing ones we've already had. The comments have been invaluable.

You must have a very low opinion of trans people if you think they will deliberate flout rules and push themselves into places where they are not permitted to be.

I think you're working off a different definition of "workable ban" than most other people.

Is this from the same playbook as "you can't give me a definition of female sex (that I accept) therefore sex doesn't exist!"?

I think the definition that is generally accepted of "workable ban" is one that picks up the vast majority of unwanted behaviour and stops it. Which saying that WI is for biological women only would do.

Is this different to if two lesbian members were in a relationship that ended & both wanted to carry on going to meetings?

Not at all. I think most trans women would carry on happily not being members if there was a ban.
I was just wondering how you could stop a trans woman who was determined to join (maybe making a political point for example) and I realised you couldn't. Which has made some people very defensive!

Are you accusing lesbians of disrespecting boundaries as well now?

Surely one of the two lesbians would simply go to the next nearest WI - most women don’t want to hang around causing upset to their exes.

And if they are still friends, then they can just attend together.

Indeed.

And there is no need to check anybody's genitalia, no matter what TRAs may have you think.

Nature and evolutionary necessity have designed our brains so that we can tell at a glance which members of our species are male and which are female.

It doesn't just allow us to pick a mate - it very often stops us getting assaulted or killed. Mother Nature is the biggest TERF out there, bless her.

I'm not making the argument of chucking out safe spaces? I've been discussing whether it is viable, wondering how you'd go about it in practice.

That's jumping the gun. First you need an agreed principle that WI is for women and not for everyone who decides they're a woman. Most people will follow the rules anyway, and those who don't wont be able to gain legitimacy with "I'm a special rare underprivileged kind of woman and you all have to listen to me".

However... I am not a lawyer but the effect of GRCs is messy. In most situations it is illegal to demand to see a GRC. The original assumption was that GRCs would be too rare to be a problem but nowadays potential self-id and the ever-widening intrepretation of who is "trans" blow a hole straight through that. Making WI open to anyone who says they're a woman may simply be an attempt to avoid a nasty legal shitshow.

Does it matter if they pass or not, they shouldn’t be there. They shouldn’t be sneaking into women’s single sex spaces. They shouldn’t be lurking around for validation or cheapies or whatever their motivation is.

Just because one man lies and accesses a space by deception that he’s not welcome in, doesn’t mean the others who can’t deceive as successfully should gain access.

@Wonderingiforifnot but the WI is also a campaigning organisation and many of the campaigns were female-centred, older ones include Equal Pay for Equal Work, women on school boards, women on juries and women only hospital wards to name a few. If the NFWI now believes woman as a concept rather than a biological reality it can no longer argue for women only spaces/facilities.

There was a 2021 campaign promoting testing for ovarian cancer that danced around the word woman. "Every two hours in the UK someone dies of ovarian cancer. Making sure GPs and the public know what to look for will not only ensure the early detection and treatment of this disease but transform lives today and for generations to come. NFWI calls on WI members everywhere to help increase awareness of the subtle signs of ovarian cancer. " Contrast it with the 1999 resolution above it on the link "any woman". Women die of ovarian cancer, not someone who identifies as woman. If you search 77 and 78 or ovarian on the link they will pop up.

The NFWI also campaigns on violence against women and girls, but if we can not name the problem male violence how can we hope to end it.

Some of the issue is the public perception of the WI, retired women making jam and knitting, and how it sees itself an organisation which promotes women in education, politics and society.

@AmaryllisNightAndDay that's a good point, which we hadn't considered thank you.

I live near a town that has a thriving WI and I was once urged to join by the nice friendly women on the market stall they run on Saturdays. I might well have considered it once but there’s no chance now. Not while they spout this kind of nonsense:

Can men join the WI?

No. The Women's Institute is based on the idea of bringing women together, providing them with educational opportunities and the chance to make a difference in their communities. Therefore, the WI is set up as an educational charity with a constitution which states that membership is only open to women.

BUT WAIT!!!!

Can male to female transgender people join a WI and attend WI events?

Yes – anyone living as a woman is welcome to join the WI and take part in all WI activities. They should be treated in exactly the same way as all women who are part of your WI.

Can crossdressers join the WI?

No – only those living as women can join the WI and take part in all WI activities.

The cognitive dissonance must be brain-melting, surely?

How exactly does a man live as a woman? Is there a set of criteria to which they must adhere in order to be recognised as a proper TW? I thought the whole purpose of the GRC was that anyone can claim woman face ‘cos feelz?

Well, quite. I should have said the bold emphasis was mine.

(Ignoring your emotive phrasing "trans ban" for women who want women-only spaces to continue to meet their original purpose of proving single sex support, understanding and mental space for the group of people historically oppressed and marginalised because of their female sex, and also ignoring for now the question of why a specifically Women's Institute even needs to exist in the first place if it's simply based on ones personal preferences of fashion and interest...)

Would your vision of a Women's Institute open to male people who identify as women also include male people who do not identify as women but sometimes want to make jam and arrange flowers with women? If not, how would you make that exclusion workable, and why can't that solution be applied to all males?

Great post. Every point lands.

We don't need a 100% success rate to say no.

This should be pointed out every single time someone tries to argue that because we can't enforce our own boundaries all the time we don't get to have boundaries at all.

No you weren't. You were wondering if a single sex WI was viable, which is a very different thing. Saying something is not viable means it is not worth doing at all, and that is what people are disagreeing with.

A single sex space which society agrees and accepts is single sex is still vulnerable to a bad faith actor who wants to make a political point. That doesn't mean the single sex space is not viable in general. Given that, as we all agree, almost all the time, almost all male people will respect the rules, throwing away all the benefits single sex spaces offer female people all the time because we can't stop the extremely small number of times a badly intentioned and female-passing male could slip in seems a gross overreaction.

I wouldn't say that reaction is particularly "defensive", unless you meant defending the viability of single sex spaces against the overzealous assumption that the risk of an occasional incursion means the whole project must be abandoned.

There's a lot of very defensive replies to me, but this stands out! As if I've said this, what a leap! Nobody has the right to never see their ex at a public group, whether the ex is straight, gay, trans etc! Weird argument.

I've not actually seen anyone answer a question about how they can be sure they would always know the sex/gender of another person other than: they just would.

I've not argued that there should be no ban (whatever acceptable phrase you'd care to insert here) because it's unworkable. I've just said I don't think it is in practice. But that's made some people leap to a lot of conclusions and get quite combative in tone.

Leaping away again!
Definition of viable is capable of working successfully; feasible.

You've decided it means 'not worth doing' and had a rant at me about something I've never said.

@Wonderingiforifnot

I've not argued that there should be no ban (whatever acceptable phrase you'd care to insert here) because it's unworkable. I've just said I don't think it is in practice.

Sorry, but the word you used several times was Viable. If something is not viable then it's either impossible or not worth doing. So I'm afraid, intentionally or not, you were arguing that the impossibility of 100% enforcement of a female only space means there's no point in even attempting a female only space, and that's what posters were taking you to task about.

some classic “yes but” in action on this thread where no matter what answer you give there’s always a “yes but” <insert vanishingly rare but just possible scenario here> used to justify not trying to keep men out of women’s spaces