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

I'd be interested to know if any TRA groups are campaigning for transmen to be allowed to join the Freemasons.

Single characteristic association are permitted otherwise things like Deaf clubs would have to admit non hearing impaired.

It become a challenge if someone has a GRC. This was part of the problem with GRR if I remember correctly.

The gnostics like Keir Starmer and LOJ will tell us.

Absolutely. If they admit males, they admit all males. At least be honest.

'Transgender women should be allowed to remain Freemasons if they joined as men, the largest UK lodge has said.
Expelling masons for transitioning was "unlawful discrimination", the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) warned.
Women who transition to become men should also be allowed to join, its new gender reassignment policy states.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45030075

Another WI campaign (which I voted for but it didn't win!) for car seatbelts to be tested on female bodies; they are currently designed and tested on male bodies and proportions only.

And I wonder how many transwomen have actually kept their Freemason membership, and how many transmen have been allowed to join. Not many I wager, it is one thing for an organisation to say they are welcoming and another to put it into practice - unless of course you are an organisation which was designed for women in which case you lie down on the floor so your betters can walk over you in their lady shoes.

Why can't women meet unchaperoned? Why does this idea threaten males so much?

There are issues with men only clubs, because men hold the economic and structural power in all societies and whilst the urge for a man to be with fellow males isn't necessarily bad, it is sometimes impossible for these clubs not to become the seat of business deals. Class comes into play here too - a working man's club or dart team for example isn't equivalent to the Masons or financial executives playing golf together.

Similarly a club for black people would be understandable whereas a club for white people would present issues. A club formed around the basis of being trans would be absolutely acceptable.

Pronouns.

Is that not discriminatory against cross dressers, too?

Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/17/transgender-womens-institute-admission-members-backlash/

I've always argued that men's clubs should not be outlawed. Freedom of association also means freedom not to associate and I do not believe that the "power relations" argument cuts it.

If one deploys the power relations argument in order to force someone else to associate with them then they themselves are vulnerable to anyone who can claim relative disadvantage.

Since trans people are the "most marginalised" group then their victimhood card trumps any "cis" person's.

Right of association must be unqualified.

Agree, mach2.

It would mean GRC holders could join the WI but not self ID if the clarification to the Equality Act along the lines of biological sex goes through in the way I think is proposed.

I don't know you could argue enough about legitimate aims for campaigns for women's rights and protections if they aren't your central purpose. It would be ok for a dedicated women's right group I think if their stated aims were about biological differences causing social disadvantages but the WI probably couldn't make the same claim because they have a much broader base / purpose (think about stated aims / purpose descriptions in charity descriptions to get an idea of where I'm going with this).

A woman's facebook forum could sling out males from a group about breastfeeding but probably not knitting or reading.

It's all about central and legitimate aims to discriminate that will be the crux of the exemptions to the Equality Act in the case of a GRC but these probably wouldnt apply for self ID.

That's why GRCs would still matter and why Self ID would be a disaster and it all could still be a problem for certain women's only groups. It depends on how you frame yourself and why you exist.

In my mind trans and cross dressing is the same. It's playing dress up make believe at being the other sex. I'm really disappointed in the WI tbh.

I think there is quite a different mindset between people who consider themselves trans vs and cross dressers. I think the next generation are doing trans their own way (of course); DS's 'trans' friends don't actually dress differently to how they used to, they are still in jeans, trainers & hoodies with no make up. They have long hair (always did though) & girls names. I can't ask too much detail as we quickly start to disagree.

A woman's facebook forum could sling out males from a group about breastfeeding but probably not knitting or reading.

Why isn't female companionship enough of a legitimate aim, though?

Drowning only effects a few folk. Is that a reason to remove all life
belts from beside deep water? Heart attacks/defribrillators likewise.

Years ago I knew women who found the Irish Countrywomen's Association (WI equiv) a godsend because their controlling husbands would not let them go unsupervised to any function or occasion (even family visits or church meetings) where they might encounter other men.

It would be good to think that the criminalisation of coercive control in relationships meant that that could no longer happen, but I wouldn't bet on it. Women, particularly women held hostage by family circumstances, need places to meet other women.

In theory for the same reason you can't have male only clubs for companionship anymore.

It's possible you could argue the point in a court, but I genuinely think you would find it hard to stick and it'd need (an expensive) legal precedent to get through I suspect.

how Could you see the harm when your eyes are shut tight.

Poetic. I will remember that line.

Crossdressers are trans according to Stonewall:

Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman, trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/list-lgbtq-terms

That says trans people may describe themselves as cross dressers. That's not the same as saying cross dressers are trans.

Mixed-sex space always becomes male dominated space. The WI isn't just about jam and knitting, it's always been very involved in women's education and feminist campaigning. Single-sex spaces for women aren't just about physical safety and bodily privacy, there's a political and social aspect to them too. Imagine if, for example, union members were never allowed to meet unless at least one of the bosses was present too.

This makes me angry as I know several women for whom the WI is their only social life and time away from taking care of men. I remember hearing women talk about the early decades of the WI and how difficult it could be to get their husbands to take care of their own children so they could attend meetings and how suspicious some men were of what women were plotting when men weren't there. They don't want us to have anything of our own. If men don't want women in a space they don't have to bother with laws, they just have to make that space so hostile and intimidating to women that women self-exclude. If women want a tiny little space we have to plead for our rights.

(I don't think either should be allowed in the WI btw!)