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

@Farinthepast thank you for sharing your experience.

You are working on the assumption that transwomen will ignore a rule that says the Women's Institute is for women.

Why would they?

Clutching at straws.

Assessing whether a plan or proposal is viable - "Capable of working successfully; feasible" - is how one decides whether it's "worth doing".

Sure, you can probably think up examples of things worth doing even though they are doomed to fail - to highlight a political point, to learn something, to see how far you can achieve it, to crystallise a loss for tax efficiency - hell, since in the long term we are all dead you might even say living is ultimately not viable 😂but we'd both know (a) that's deliberately looking for unusual examples to make the point, and (b) they are still viable actions to achieve the actual goal.

Perhaps all you meant an expectation that no bad faith male will ever gain access to a female-only WI is not viable, without making any statement about the viability of the Woman(female) only version of the WI itself. But given that you argued against many posters making that exact point it seems unlikely.

However, if you meant "The WI can't 100% guarantee that no male deliberately misrepresents himself to circumvent the woman (female) only membership criterion, but that's not a significant reason not to assert the principle that WI membership is only open to female people and the reasonable and valid expectation is that only female people will attempt to gain membership even if the control sometimes fails", I do apologise, and please feel free to make that unequivocal statement now.

I can only give you the dictionary definition of viable and you can invent whatever from there.

I was wondering how an exclusion would work that was all. It would be difficult to enforce even if you could get a motion passed. I can see why it's upset you if you feel strongly about it.

In my opinion, in today's world I don't think you'd get the exclusion agreed in the first place. But if you did get a debate organised, followed by a vote, and that vote didn't go your way - would you then leave it and accept trans women as members?

I left the WI due to this issue.

'difficult to enforce'

I'm having visions of women wrestling interlopers to the ground.

Again, why do you imagine transwomen are going to try and deceive or force themselves into a group when its been made clear they're not allowed?

If a women's group said clearly it was for women only, then transwomen would respect that, surely?

I'm struggling to see how you make a general distinction between the definition of Viable and the concept of Worth Doing - can you please clarify by explaining whether you, using your definitions in which the two concepts are clearly different, think a female-only WI is (a) Viable, and (b) Worth Doing?

I mean, I feel like I've done the heavy lifting for your here and given you arguments already. All you need to do is say either "yes that is what I meant" or "no, actually this is what I meant" and you can clear all this up.

I realise you think it's obvious and I'm sorry to be so dense, but the number of people who appear to have "defensively" reacted to something you were not intending to say implies that it was quite widely misunderstood.

Because otherwise I'm afraid I'm going to have to carry only using the common understanding that something that is not viable is not worth doing, and concluding that you are in fact backpedalling from a bad argument.

Absolutely.

But they think they pass because they spend so much time in trans echo chambers online. See Reddit r/transpassing. It's absolutely laughable.

I was wondering how an exclusion would work that was all. It would be difficult to enforce even if you could get a motion passed. I can see why it's upset you if you feel strongly about it.

Bless you. Yes, I do feel strongly about poor logic, especially when it's being deployed to marginalize and disempower female people in a political, professional or social space.

I do not, however, feel upset that the possibly that having female-only inclusive space that is 100% guaranteed, at all times to be inaccessible by a male engaged in deliberate deception may not be viable, means having a female-only inclusive space that is politically and socially accepted as female-only, from which most males will voluntarily self exclude and from which males found to have entered dishonestly can then be actively excluded is also not viable, because obviously the former does not imply the latter.

In my opinion, in today's world I don't think you'd get the exclusion agreed in the first place. But if you did get a debate organised, followed by a vote, and that vote didn't go your way - would you then leave it and accept trans women as members?

If, if, if....

Actually I'd prefer to leave the WI to go their merry way and simply be free to set up new female-only provisions where that expectation is clear from day one, in a society that respected female people's need for and moral right to single sex provisions.

If, if, if I did that, do you think it would be respected? Do you think trans women would say "fair enough, we are not female, this isn't intended for us and we are no more excluded than any other male"? Or do you think it's "not viable" because some male might theoretically see it as his right and duty to insert himself into my space anyway, and if I can't provide 100% certainty I don't deserve anything at all?

Is it 'viable' to have laws against rape? After all, there will always be men who won't respect women's consent and boundaries - may as well legalise it, right?

I think you are struggling, but because you're operating in this echo chamber, a concept sneered at in the post following yours. How can you see there might be trans echo chambers without realising you're a member of one here? There's been a lack of logic, a lot of sneering & herd mentality. I don't think you'll get a ban passed, like I said, but I did wonder if it was even workable even if you did. I don't think it seems to be. But quite a few posters think this can't even be discussed. Crack on, I think it's all a bit academic nowadays anyway.

'We're not going to listen when you say 'no''.

’What about the lesbians’ was YOUR weird argument, not mine 🤦‍♀️

Former wives shouldn’t have to worry about ex husbands Self IDing into the WI.

I don’t think you know what an echo chamber is.

Mumsnet doesn’t have a block user function, it certainly doesn’t have a block chain function. It has very little algorithmic function beyond the ‘trending section’, half a dozen thread suggestions.

Mumsnet doesn’t feed up similar content the way Instagram does, it doesn’t have the snowball and pile on function that Twitter has. Unlike Facebook, we aren’t already connected via friend and family networks.

Mumsnetters are mostly UK based, but we’re from all over the English speaking world. We are mix of ages, sexual orientations, ethnicities and social classes. We have no shared political allegiance, we range from communist to conservative (although lots of us feel politically homeless).
There are even some men kicking about (and a few posters who pretend they aren’t men).

We constantly share a range of stories from various print, online, TV and podcast media.

This is not an echo chamber. It doesn’t even begin to meet the definition of an echo chamber.

Humans aren’t clownfish. We can’t change sex.

They will know because 9.9 times out of 10 its immediately obvious when it's actually a man larping as a woman.

Herd mentality 😂

As if most sensible women couldn't possibly all have the same sensible opinion on the matter.

Yep, we're all just sheeple, and you're right, it's impossible to tell just from looking at someone whether they're trans.

Lol.

This whole trans fad is getting increasingly tiresome. How many years do we give it?

male skeletal structure & female skeletal structure are markedly difference. No amount of surgery, hormones, make up & wigs can disguise it

which is why we don’t need to look in people knickers - you know the way we never have had to to distinguish sex in adults

Echo chamber: an environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.

You come here, because you all believe that trans women are men. You might have different backgrounds and political views, and you might bring in a range of stories but any voices who don't think trans women are men are shouted down and your existing views are reinforced.

we live in the real world, we aren’t teenagers shut into bedrooms in virtual reality headsets.

Women occupy social lives that cross generations, we have kids and grandkids and elderly parents, and we talk, to everyone.

This is just an information sharing point, it’s
not a validation station 🤣

No, anyone saying transwomen are women are not shouted down, but to bring logical, reasonable arguments as to why they think that. The fact they get huffy and flounce when they can’t isn’t the fault of members in this hoard, but their poor critical thinking snd debating skills.

Board goddamit 😂😂

because you all believe that trans women are men

We believe it in the same way we believe the Earth is round. We believe it because it’s a fact.

Do you believe that facts are only something heard in an echo chamber?

We can has horde?

You come here, because you all believe that trans women are men. You might have different backgrounds and political views, and you might bring in a range of stories but any voices who don't think trans women are men are shouted down and your existing views are reinforced.

The basic premise of a 'transwoman' is that they are male.