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 am wondering what will happen to the topics the various WI branches might choose in the future. Perhaps discussions about menopause, say, will be deemed as not inclusive? The same would apply to anything about being of the female sex.

This might not happen, depending on the presence or absence of trans activists, but I have seen a tendency towards this in several feminist spaces in the last decade.

If we redefine 'woman' so that it's not being female but some mysterious abstract female soul, then the activism of the group won't, ultimately, be on material aspects of being female.

As I said this might not happen. But what might happen is a different mix in the leadership. Male people tend to take over, even in female-dominated occupations and organisations.

I’m looking forward to the day when males hold all the positions of power in the WI. Which won’t be long. Look at Edinburgh rape crisis…. Headed by a male. Many womens officers posts are held by males. Bet within 5 years the leadership committee of the WI is 70% male

From that article

I know from speaking to so many of our members that they feel that we are enriched by that, that we learn something about being a woman through the eyes of transgender women.”

That's marvelous. Some women are enriched by being mansplained "women".

You realise why equality takes so long when you read this shit.

Michael Foran is a professor of law at Glasgow University. I am aware of that. But he also has personal and political biases and these do inform how so called experts "interpret" laws. And gave wrong advice about associations.

Dont forget it was at the same committee that we got lengthy legal "expertise" droning on about women's "safe spaces".

If people like this disagree, ordinary people are not going to risk it.

Exactly, but the worse thing is knowing (the link to this is on an early thread) is that a loyal female party member who helped draft the EA, spoke about how wonderful it was they had created the exemptions, without in anyway recognising that she showed her bias by thinkg women only deserved exemptions. ie no where and no one would have thought it acceptable that someone could "identify" as being Black, and that only on a few occassions could an actual Black people be allowed to associate with other Black people.

Up until I heard her say this I just sort of accepted that silly old male fuddy duddies hauled out of some legal library had created the stupidity of parts of the EA. But her complacent explanation made it clear that the EA was drafted by people with a bias. And that was against women's sex based rights. And it was a woman doing this. And a member of the Labour party.

What can a male teach women about being a woman… unless it’s.. “this is north what a woman is”? That is horrendously misogynistic and if I was a WI I’d be extremely pissed off

Exactly, but the worse thing is knowing (the link to this is on an early thread) is that a loyal female party member who helped draft the EA, spoke about how wonderful it was they had created the exemptions

That is interesting. I have no legal
knowledge and just try to follow as best I can.

It is an outrage that these are exceptions that have to be wrangled over.
It is dreadful if as you say a women has contributed to setting it up this way.

Which early thread, do you remember?

Oh man

if they carry on like that I’m going to have to leave

Loyal should have said Labour.

I haven't rewatched it, and am not sure that anyone would be surprised by what is said, but most commentators aren't that blunt.

The commentator is Ayesha Hazarika, former aide to Gordon Brown(?) and not sure why she should have a role re the EA.

I haven't re-watched and it probably is that revelatory to others, but it really made me think, that someone was so casual and unnaccountable for this.

Think this will work https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4730605-standing-for-women-glasgow-5th-feb?page=38&reply=123724090

@IwantToRetire

Seconding scrolling leaves, I've looked at other WI threads but can't see a link.

It would be helpful if you could find it for us.

You are blooming right about it being biased.

Ahh thanks

That episode of Jeremy vine is unavailable.

This is the woman referred to by @IwantToRetire

She seems to think it's all a bit of a laugh. Everything is a bit of a laugh in fact.

If you search Ayesha Hazarika equality act you get boast after boast about "I wrote the equality act" before leaving to be a stand up comedian.

Okay then. The joke's on us..

She has a good laugh about bigotty voters in the independent article below (she was a team Brown bigot spotter obviously) and how Labour just need a good joke writer (I'm paraphrasing) to outsmart the bigotty bigots.

inews.co.uk/opinion/labour-needs-to-get-its-act-together-on-the-trans-debate-its-not-going-away-1550646

No, Ayesha, not going to wash in afraid. It's a year on and the penis question is now sticking to your forehead.

I wonder if Starmer recruits similar standard of advisors?

Thank you
IwantToRetire · Today 18:57

I found where it was linked and this is it, but unfortunately, after signing up to Channel 5, it seems there are only more recent episodes of Jeremy Vine available.
I’ll try You Tube in case anyone put it there.

After intro ads go to 1:40
www.channel5.com/show/jeremy-vine/season-2023/episode-27

Ayesha Hazarika's claim to fame re the equality act is all over the internet @ScrollingLeaves , she's been dining out on it for years by the looks of it.

Im still baffled looking at their trustee board how they got themselves so stonewalled Board of trustees

as for saying women can learn from
men about womanhood - they cannot fuck off far enough. Can they even hear themselves. ?

How did someone like Melissa Green become CEO of NFWI?

There's a wider problem with the model of umbrella orgs. We've seen it with Women's Aid, Rape Crisis, GirlGuiding etc. and I've seen it in other contexts too.

The people at the top who work for the federation are on the career charity-go-round and are completely out of touch with what the member orgs are for, what they're trying to do and what they are facing. They don't give a shit as long as their next charity move is a step up and looks good on the CV.

Melissa has a professional background in the third sector, with senior leadership roles in a number of national membership and volunteer-led organisations and with a focus on children, families and communities. Melissa’s previous roles include Head of Adult Support at The Scout Association, Interim CEO at Bliss, the special care baby charity, and Director of Operations at The Fostering Network.

https://www.thewi.org.uk/about-us/who-we-are/senior-staff/melissa-green

The member orgs are subscribing to a franchise, a bit like Wimpy restaurants. They are reliant on their federation membership for funding but in return there's a certain amount of branding they must accept and certain lines they must toe.

The whole model appears to benefit the charity-go-round careerists like Melissa, at the expense of the member orgs and ordinary members.

Absolutely this.

https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1405272067340046342

Here's the lovely Ayesha characterising a thread by Karen Ingala Smith as wanting a punch up.

It's a gravy train all right for the likes of Green. Just no gravy for the poor members of the WI she "represents".

I wish she could hear herself, "biology and lived experience".

Yes, the biology is what creates the lived experience.

Any man claiming lived experience makes them a woman certainly doesn't have biology as the causal factor, and it all starts and stops with biology.

My heart as a man really goes out to all of you re the wholesale assault on everything you hold dear.

https://www.abi.org.uk/events/2019/9/insurance-tax-convention-2019/speaker-biographies/ayesha-hazarika/

And the pink bus no less!

Ayesha you are truly spoiling us!

Working with Harriet Harman to lead Labour’s pink bus campaign to canvas women’s votes, Ayesha forcefully promotes equality and diversity in all her work.

Clown world.

@Hepwo and @IwantToRetire

I found this You Tube Excerpt from a Jeremy Vine Show with her mentioning the exceptions in the Equality Act.
https://twitter.com/jeremyvineon5/status/1635975760040153093/mediaviewer

I just cannot understand how such an important Act can have been in the hands of someone like this.

I remember from my grandmother reading about all the women's issues the WI had campaigned of on its 75th anniversary, well ahead of many others on some of them.

If the WI ceases to be representative of women and no longer the force it was, I think it would be a loss.

https://thecritic.co.uk/cowardice-calls-to-cowardice/

Sarah Philimore has written about Ayesha. She now has her therapist on speed dial in case anyone mentions the terrible mess of an Equality Act she's so proud of.

Oh dear, she's the idiot that wrote this in the Standard.

I’m part of a wonderful Facebook group of older women celebrating confidence in our “hot girl years”, AKA the menopause. Trans women are not only welcome, they are cherished — we have all learned from their stories and world class ability to accessorise.

Vote Labour!

Please tell me that this quote is a parody?

Is Ayesha important? She seems to just be a pundit.

The EA is HUGE and complex. A great many people had input.

how wonderful it was they had created the exemptions

To be 100% fair, there are some welcome exceptions in the EA which were not there in the previous Sex Discrimination Act.

I'll have to go back and find the references but there were amendments to the SDA from the late 90's that infringed on women's rights.

Back then it was not only understood that there was 'a process' but it was assumed that someone would complete their transition, at which point they were to be treated as their preferred sex regarding single sex spaces and occupational requirements. No exceptions.

This was before the GRA so this was in one sense self-ID but in another sense not, because it applied to people who had completed their transition, which was understood as 'had all the operations'.

There was no equivalent of Schedule 3 para 28 in the SDA.