The Women's Institute faces revolt ...

[ArabeIIaScott]

I know this was mentioned recently on here, and the letter shared, but I can't find the thread.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11982451/Womens-Institute-faces-revolt-policy-allowing-transgender-members-join.html

This is the original thread started by the WI Declaration group itself, so worth keeping it together. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4773980-fighting-gender-ideology-in-the-wi

Oh - I see the original thread has been moved to petitions. Hadn't realised. For anyone who hasn't read the original thread use the link above. There's about 6/7 pages of comments

Here is the yahoo link to the Telegraph verion of the story. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/backlash-members-over-wi-decision-192127930.html

Great to see there is a group called Women's Institute Women's Declaration.

How long do you think it will be before we can look back and say "What the fuck was all that about?".

Too long so far. It should never have started. The first person that said TERF should have been stoned with tampons.

I can't see the harm. It will only be a few folk. Don't agree with the sport issue though. Because that is an unfair advantage.

Read the comments on the petition. Women say no

One man makes it a mixed sex space which completely changes the dynamic.

Imo you're looking at it the wrong way round. If a WI group had 20 members, and one man joined, yes, it's only one man, but he's impacting 20 women.

It adds that 'crossdressers' cannot join the WI as 'only those living as women can join the WI'.

How can they tell?

Take a women's group.

Add one male.

At a stroke, the group has become mixed sex.

Women who join the Women's Institute presumably wanted a women's group. Why can't they have that, even if it makes men sad?

This might be a sexist contribution and I am happy to be corrected. My grandmother, a wonderful woman, was in the WI.

At our Boxing Day family get together, social activities were strictly sex-segregated. The men went upstairs to play snooker in the attic and the women stayed downstairs in the lounge (to talk about shopping and make-up 🤮)

I suspect the women making up the WI are more likely than most to want genuinely single-sex places.

Quite. What's the difference between a man living as a woman and a crossdresser?

They allow men who live as women to join, with no definition of what a woman is or how a man 'lives as a woman', but they want to exclude crossdressers. They don't seem to have thought this through.

Not folk, men. A women’s group is for women. Women should be allowed to gather together exclusively in an actual women’s group without men. Women join precisely because it’s a women’s group.

That was my question at my WI, no one could answer. Funny that.🙄

I would bet my house that the women had shopped for all the food and drink, cooked all the food and would wash up all the dishes.

I absolutely take your point but to be honest, my grandmother was the strong, inspiring type. Not so much the domestic type- her cooking was....interesting. My Grandad usually washed up 😀

This is one area I don't think would be covered by the Equality Act exemptions tbh.

You'd have to demonstrate a need for women to bake cakes and make jam without the presence of males. I think you would potentially struggle.

You would be able to prevent transwomen from going to a WI residential but not necessarily from other social groups unless they could demonstrate a legitimate aim from being single sex.

So a kayaking session for women because of the difference in levels of physical ability and how women are deterred from participating in sport in the presence of stronger males who have been socialised differently MIGHT just get away with it but I am struggling to think of a specific legitimate aim the WI are trying to achieve that would be deemed proportionate in a court.

@RedToothBrush

I think the WI could exclude someone without a GRC using Sch 16 exceptions as a single characteristic association. If they have a GRC then it would be harder to argue.

Why not? Why can't women have a group just for women?

I remember the arguments about golf clubs and men's sheds, and I argued the same back then - there is nothing wrong with having single sex spaces, it's unfair to force people to accept those of the opposite sex.

Most groups are mixed sex and that's fine. Sometimes people just want to be with members of their own sex. This has been a thing since forever, it's always been important to have some same-sex groups.

I didn't see the other thread. Very pleased to see this @ArabeIIaScott thanks.

I agree Arabella.

The WI was more than just jam making and baking, it was social, it did a lot of campaigning, politicians used to take notice of it - remember when they slow hand clapped Tony Blair when he attended?

"You'd have to demonstrate a need for women to bake cakes and make jam without the presence of males. I think you would potentially struggle."
Inclined to agree. But in that case, could men without a trans identity also argue that they should be able to join? If transwoman-without-GRC is fine to come along, are you not discriminating against Dave who is bored on a Tuesday evening and John who doesn't want his wife to go anywhere without him?

I was in the WI in my early 20's. There was a group in the same town called Men's Forum, which must be the same thing but for men.

It mentions these campaigning activities in the article.

[The campaign group] points out that the WI often runs campaigns that are specific to women as a biological group, such as those opposing male violence, mixed hospital wards and the gender pay gap.

If you're campaigning against male violence you really don't want people like Kellie Maloney as a member of your organisation.

The WI was more than just jam making and baking, it was social, it did a lot of campaigning, politicians used to take notice of it - remember when they slow hand clapped Tony Blair when he attended?

Yes this. It isn’t just baking and it’s a little dismissive to suggest that here. Even if it were, women wanting to do things together should be allowed legally.

If the Equality act is preventing a woman's only group existing (the WI) then how can all the other single-characteristic groups get away with it? Men's sheds, gay men's saunas, & associations for same-sex attracted?

If the Equality Act is preventing the WI from existing, then is it the Equality Act that needs changing? Small voluntary organisations can't be expected to go to court to keep out the chancers.
The Giggle/Tickle court case is presumably on a similar point of law?