The Women's Institute and inclusivity

[GloGirl]

In March the WI updated their Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policies, which makes for interesting reading.

The Women's Institute is the the UK’s largest women’s membership organisation so a fairly important voice in campaigning for women and supporting them. So, it was difficult to read that the WI "called in trans education charity Gendered Intelligence to help draft the section on transgender members in the new Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy".

www.thewi.org.uk/about-us/wi-key-messages/equality-diversity-inclusion-policy

This might explains why anyone reading the WI's Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Glossary of Terms could see definitions for the words:

Agender, Ally, Cisgender, Gender expression, Gender fluid, Gender identity, GRC, Non-binary, Transitioning

But there are no written definitions for Lesbian or Bi-sexual .

Bi-Gender of course, is defined.

(if you were wondering, the word Gay is defined as a man who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards men .)

Anyone visiting a WI, would think that inclusion policies based on race, disability or ageism might be the most appropriate topics to spend time getting right. It is a predominantly white charity with a lot of elderly and infirm members. I'm enormously proud of the WI and our members. Warm, welcoming, campaigning - the whole bunch. Many campaigns have started in grass roots WIs such as Keep Britain Tidy.

I'm deeply upset to read of the brief sentence given to breastfeeding mums in their document, but paragraphs devoted to transgender members.

But I am mostly furious at the disregard given to lesbian and bisexual members who only have a small paragraph in the Inclusivity policy and are not even graced with being defined in the Glossary.

We should all joj6and take along our husbands, male partners and they can say they are women. This would show how utterly stupid this is.

Yes, it seems to be a thing.

They could all be photographed for the front of the magazine too. It could be the most inclusive WI meeting in the country

@MrMrsJones

We should all joj6and take along our husbands, male partners and they can say they are women. This would show how utterly stupid this is.

Why would they need to say they are women? A fully inclusive WI should include everyone.

Then they need to be upfront and drop the word Women (it's only USP) from the name.

@merrymouse

Because they are a womens group

I've got a nice bit of time off now in this Twixmas Thought I would bump this thread to see if there are any more WI members who would like to write to the National Federation about this issue. I notice they still haven't updated their glossary of terms.

Not a WI member and, based on that guff I have just read in the EDI policy, I never will be. BTW why is inclusion a 'basic right', anyone know? I don't consider myself to have a basic right to join the local 'men's shed' MH project.

Sorry to digress but just wanted to point out the document I read is up for review in March 2022. Am sure some wonderful MN WI vipers can provide them with some splendid suggestions 😀

Was going to join but this out me off, so what are they going to do? Hope that more male bodied persons will join to make up for the shortfall of women who refuse to join an organisation for women that disregards them so badly?

Well, KittenKong, my two penn'orth- I expect it will be something along the lines of males joining, either as tw or as men, rising quickly to the top (this aided & abetted by the 'be kind' brigade) as males usually do in previously all-female areas, alter the essential character of the WI to suit themselves, women leave and the organisation dies.

@GloGirl Just to be devil's advocate, and I've not read the policy however:
The WI - the description is in the name - women's institute - so that would encompass all women? And I wouldn't expect there to be a paragraph on inclusivity for different types of women? (Thinking about your comment re:lack of mention of lesbian women)

Breastfeeding women with babes in arms would need a mention Also agree that focus should be to attract other women from different races/cultures & ages.

I suppose the tie-in with GI is them trying to be 'progressive', as are all large institutions but that section has been given over to GI and that's the mistake - not defining the section themselves and not asking the member's views. Although, perhaps some WI members would be accepting of TW who were truly female presenting? Although, yes, we can tell.......

It's the involvement with GI that would annoy me, knowing how demanding and bullish - and supporting Mermaids with appealing LGB Alliance being granted charitable status. All the large groups are in it for the money and power trip, and their toxicity should be avoided.

I would be diplomatic in your letter to the WI if at all possible, and highlight what these organisations are doing elsewhere.

The inclusion of TWs is another convo, I would say, for the WI members, but influence of GI over this needs to be cut.

They have a huge glossary of terms attached to their inclusivity policy, the word lesbian on it's own isn't defined but there are a multitude of other words included. It's a glaring omission and loudly speaks to who they are trying to be inclusive towards (hint, it's not their gay members)

Do the WI have an AGM? Should it be brought as a motion there? - removal of 'guidance' from GI. The pushing if gender ideology on children and in schools; WI being feminist bastion etc etc

@GloGirl

They have a huge glossary of terms attached to their inclusivity policy, the word lesbian on it's own isn't defined but there are a multitude of other words included. It's a glaring omission and loudly speaks to who they are trying to be inclusive towards (hint, it's not their gay members)

Is the term 'Lesbian' mentioned in the text if the policy? Glossary of terms usually only covers terms used in the text, and I wouldn't imagine a need to specifically mention lesbians in the policy, as women, clearly.

But I've not read it. Will take a look if I have time.

I attended my local WI meetings in the past but due to family & work commitments just didn’t have the time to go regularly. I now do and planned to join but won’t be now. Such a shame

@doubletweenqueen

Interesting, of course now you mention it that makes sense. It's lovely to have a community to hash things out with here.

They have a sexual orientation policy, without mentioning the word lesbian.

16. Sexual orientation The WI welcomes all members, regardless of their sexual orientation and no WI member should be treated differently because of their sexual orientation. For more information about sexual orientations please see the NFWI Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Glossary of Terms.

Their non binary policy is fairly comprehensive for example.

12. Non-binary members Non-binary is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity doesn’t sit comfortably within the binary categories of “female” or “male”. Gender is often expressed in terms of masculinity or femininity but it is important to think of a gender as a spectrum. Gender identity is a person’s sense of their own gender, and there are many different gender identities on this spectrum. Non-binary people may feel both male and female, something in between, or not either. They may have a gender identity that changes over time or they may not relate to gender at all. Non-binary people often use gender neutral pronouns such as they/theirs and it is therefore important to find out how a non-binary member wishes to be addressed.

A person who was assigned female at birth but who identifies as non-binary is able to join the WI. This is because they fall within our women only exemption as they were assigned female at birth. As mentioned above, the WI does not ask members to prove their sex when they join the WI.

There are a number of terms included in the glossary that arent included in the policy, for example agender, bigender etc.

I do agree with @DoubleTweenQueen that there are two separate issues here: whether TW can be members, and whether this GI-influenced policy is the right one for the WI. I would be inclined to address only the latter in your letter, otherwise you are making it easy for them to write you off as a transphobe, and ignore you.

I would highlight the concerns about Stonewall, the fact that advice given by GI and Stonewall has turned out to be wrong and unlawful, and the Forstater ruling that it is unlawful to discriminate against someone for holding GC views.

@GloGirl It sounds as though it's been put together a bit lazily, and GI have had free-reign to write the area regarding gender! That's even worse than I thought! Full-on gender woo. Laughable really.

And yes, if they point to further clarification in sexual orientation in the glossary, but it's not really there, that's poor.

For me, my anger and wrath is firmly focussed on the lobby groups. The WI are pandering without question, but there should be a proud feminist liberal approach to the TWs who are genuinely interested and wish to take part. Many TWs are also quite against the gender woo and the aggressive appropriation of their rights and inclusion by the current highly funded groups to weaponise and beat everyone with - particularly when it comes to indoctrination, medicalisation and surgery for children. I smell big money behind that.

And I would view such a move to cautious inclusion - as guided by members and carefully balanced by the executive (NOT GI!) - as appropriate (and different to that for childrens groups such as GG, for example).

I may be explaining myself badly, but I feel we need to stand firm, but fair and diplomatic, if we are to see the end of the gender and transing woo as pushed by the big groups, alongside our lgb and genuine TW brothers and sisters.

there should be a proud feminist liberal approach to the TWs who are genuinely interested and wish to take part

Personally, I strongly disagree with that, for a host of reasons, but it should be put to the WI membership (in a way that allows them to respond truthfully). One of the aspects of the approach from the WI and Girlguiding that is so objectionable is the way that each organisation's leaders have totally changed their (single sex) purpose without consulting the membership. Such arrogance.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

there should be a proud feminist liberal approach to the TWs who are genuinely interested and wish to take part

Personally, I strongly disagree with that, for a host of reasons, but it should be put to the WI membership (in a way that allows them to respond truthfully). One of the aspects of the approach from the WI and Girlguiding that is so objectionable is the way that each organisation's leaders have totally changed their (single sex) purpose without consulting the membership. Such arrogance.

The TW I’ve encountered/worked with have behaved in a way consistent with their male socialisation and dominate. Inclusion completely changes a female only environment to a mixed sex environment.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow I understand your point, however I would think inclusion and safeguarding a slightly different area for WI Vs GG. Upholding single sex membership more critical for GG, I would argue.
I wouldn't be for opening up the WI carte blanche to anyone who would wish to id as a woman, for example, but it should be up to the membership and executive in collaboration, with whatever criteria they would wish to retain, within the law of course. I don't know if it's easier to stipulate single sex only, rather than allowing some TWs but not other men. I don't know whether they could stipulate single sex, and TWs with a GRC, for example.

I just think we shouldn't alienate - it only gives the big lobby groups more ammo to damage us with.

@GloGirl Thanks for taking my points in the good faith they're meant, although likely clumsy!

@WomanStillNotAFeeling I wonder if the WI could operate a probationary period for all potential new members as some sort of screen?
I would also be concerned regarding your point, and it would be important to keep leaders and executive single-sex, although I don't know whether the law would see that as discrimination, if TWs were accepted but blocked from positions if leadership?

It may be the only possible route to keep it staunchly single-sex from a legal minefield pov

I just think we shouldn't alienate - it only gives the big lobby groups more ammo to damage us with

Personally, I think that's exactly the approach that has got us into this mess. If we give the TRA movement an inch, it will take a mile.

However, my views aren't really relevant, because I am not a WI member. If the majority of WI members want to accept TW, it should happen. But it should be their choice, not imposed upon them.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

I do agree with *@DoubleTweenQueen* that there are two separate issues here: whether TW can be members, and whether this GI-influenced policy is the right one for the WI. I would be inclined to address only the latter in your letter, otherwise you are making it easy for them to write you off as a transphobe, and ignore you.

I would highlight the concerns about Stonewall, the fact that advice given by GI and Stonewall has turned out to be wrong and unlawful, and the Forstater ruling that it is unlawful to discriminate against someone for holding GC views.

Thank you. I entirely agree.

Not surprised the WI allowed themselves to be led so egregiously in their latest policy updates. Transgender members have been welcome for a while and is a different matter to the main thrust of my frustration.

Maybe this is naive, but why does the WI need to have definitions of sexualities in their regs at all? I just don't see the relevance.

The idea of admitting anyone who identifies as a woman is very silly, if that is the approach they want they should simply admit men - after all plenty of men might be interested in their activities as well. But I suppose as long as there is this weird claim that it's difficult to define who counts as a woman, they do need to say who they will admit.

That seems different to me than sexual orientation which seems to have nothing to do with their remit.