Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

I think it's a demonstration of what was found by the inquiry into actions by certain members of the Green party, where after hours and hours of trying to talk about it they concluded that it wasn't lack of information or explanation; there just wasn't the capacity for understanding.

This is not a political view point that can cope with reality; reality is a threat and unwanted. So are other people having rights and boundaries.

Oh I agree

but I suspect their argument pre SC ruling would have been ‘we legally have to let them in’ and we don’t fancy standing up to narcissistic bullies

But what is their excuse now they know that's not the case?

They will flounder on as long as possible using the same warped logic as cat tried until they really have no where to go other than say no to the men or open it up fully, which is what I suspect they do as they really are coming across as too cowardly to say No to the men.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom

Even if "female without gender dysphoria" were an identity (which I dispute), how on earth would it be the same identity as "male with gender dysphoria"?

That's the million dollar question that the whole "cis woman" edifice was constructed to hide, isn't it?

Once you see it, you realise that all the "meet half way, got to be a middle ground, reasonable people compromise" is still based on the sexist idea that some men are so unmanly, whether by surgery and choice or personality and bearing, they really are more woman than man. And that is so so SO disrespectful to women.

But as soon as they've opened it up to all men, trans women will no longer be interested in joining it.

I actually suspect that things like this will be permitted because it will be called just too mean in sentimental terms to say no to these men and upset them. It will take guts to insist that for example the WI re name themselves if they want to admit men - although that's a very simple thing to do, it's just changing the terms to meet the reality.

But to bend on this would be a naive, silly action that does not take into account ten years of evidence that this political movement has no good will, is fiercely manipulative, and will exploit every single inch given. If an organisation is permitted to say they are single sex and 'kindly' incorporate some men granted special exceptions because awww bless, that's the wedge that will march any man who wishes back into all women's spaces. And we're back where we started, because as the judgment shows, you cannot separate these men into groups, and to do so anyway means you've abandoned women, their needs, their feelings, the whole purpose of that space and resource for them, because you thought the men were so much more important .

No need to justify a lesbian hiking group, a men’s golf club or a women’s welders group, if it’s an association under section 7 of the EA.

The rules are different for associations.

This is so important.

Part of the reason that TRAs are so dogmatic and crazy is the fact that either trans women are women - in which case they need to be called for cervical smears just like any other woman and their penises need to be accepted as being lesbian penises if they are same sex attracted women - or they are not women.

TWAW is complete capitulation. The closest I can think of to compromise is "TWAM for all purposes, but we will tolerate your public displays of transvestic fetishism and autogynephilia, and we will NOT encourage men pretending to be women to be treated socially in the same way that whites pretending to be black are treated". And even that is more "bending over backwards" than it is compromise, given women get nothing out of said compromise.

Well said, both posts.

There'll be women in the WI who will have fought for and enforced the trans inclusion policy against many others wishes. It'll be about saving face for them. They'll have writting policies and argued points that have proven to be untrue.

Then theres the women who will have to tell men they have to leave - some of these men might be pretending that they are women and not men with gender. So yhsts a difficult conversation.

These women will be under so much pressure to bend to these men especially if the members arent vocal about being happy about being single sex.

I can see politeness killing WI.

What are they going to do about the men who have already joined?

It makes me furious to read the mission and see the photos of those women who set up the WI over 100 years ago. This was not what they were fighting for. They did not want this.

Agreed.
This whole thing has got so far because women have problems saying no to men. Not trying to victim blame as I know that the threats, intimidation and coercive control involved have been off the scale.

Presumably those in charge at the WI will eventually need to man up and start saying no to these men - or change to being the PI (Persons Institute) .

I dont think the TRA care about any organisations or values. If it doesn't include them, they cant move on and develop their own, they have to destroy it. So that will mean forcing it to include all men or making it fold.

Whatever happens WI will always be a target.

I just had to come back because I can’t stand to see a bunch of people who don’t understand the law all agree that I’m wrong and pat each other on the back! On the Section 16 point, the idea that a group must all share the same protected characteristic isn’t how the Equality Act works in practice. The Act refers to people who ‘share a protected characteristic,’ but it also allows for initiatives and measures that support different protected groups together. This is clearly reflected in Section 158 on Positive Action. An employer might run a leadership programme for underrepresented groups, and participants might be from different ethnic backgrounds, be disabled, or LGBTQ+. They don’t all have to share the same characteristic, they each have a relevant protected characteristic.

If ‘share a protected characteristic’ meant everyone had to have the same one, then a lot of Positive Action initiatives that bring together different underrepresented groups would be unlawful, but they’re clearly not. My friend works at a big org which has a programme for developing ethnic minority people and females. And it’s perfectly legal. That’s why the legal reading here is about individuals having a relevant protected characteristic, not everyone having the same one.

But back to the WI, which was the whole point of this. The Supreme Court ruling doesn’t require organisations like the WI to exclude trans women.

Yes - we've seen the desperation transactivists have to smash women's organisations and they've been so successful. Good thing that the SC judgment is now so clear.

An employer might run a leadership programme for underrepresented groups, and participants might be from different ethnic backgrounds, be disabled, or LGBTQ+.

But a programme designed to include disparate groups from the get-go is just that, and not anything to do with a group of people who share a particular characteristic.

Flailing around like this is not helpful to the point you are trying to make.

My friend works at a big org which has a programme for developing ethnic minority people and females. And it’s perfectly legal.

But that's not the WI would be doing - we're not talking about positive action within an open membership. We're talking about limiting membership.

If your big org tried to be only open to "ethnic minority people and females", it would not be legal.

If the WI wanted to have positive action for ethnic minority women and gender-reassigned women, inside a female-only membership, that would be legal.

My friend works at a big org which has a programme for developing ethnic minority people and females

The WI is not a programme in a big organisation, it is an association that has members.

"Once you see it, you realise that all the "meet half way, got to be a middle ground, reasonable people compromise" is still based on the sexist idea that some men are so unmanly, whether by surgery and choice or personality and bearing, they really are more woman than man. And that is so so SO disrespectful to women."

and this part in particular:

"the sexist idea that some men are so unmanly, whether by surgery and choice or personality and bearing, they really are more woman than man"

The repeated claim that if men have somehow worked hard enough or suffered hard enough that some people in society believe they have somehow EARNED being considered 'female' is still reductive. No matter how you try to point it out though, those with that 'kindness installed reductiveness' cannot see it. Because their need to be considered the morally superior person they wish to be blocks seeing the logic.

That is not even considering just how cruel it is to another human being to allow them to think that going through brutal surgeries has a reward at the end of being finally considered modified enough that some women will accept them for being 'women enough'. It is the very epitome of cruelty but somehow those who take the view that this is a moderate position cannot see it.

I think it is because they dismiss the surgeries etc as respecting those people's autonomy without looking further to understanding that underneath those decisions is the coercive belief that this reward will be open to them. They only look at part of that decision rather than looking holistically at the decision with all the information taken on board, all the signals from society and messaging that is now flying freely on media, and from these groups who are supposed to be supporting this group.

It is worse though. Because in the mind of the person who seems to accept that with enough brutal surgery a man can be a woman, on one hand they identify those male people as 'vulnerable and marginalised' after the surgery. While their breezy 'live and let live' or 'it is their body / their choice' compartmentalisation has failed to understand that those male people were vulnerable to being heavily influenced to decide on the surgery in the first place. Therefore, before they had the surgery and those people don't seem to be interested at all in protecting those male people at that time.

So looking at those who make those declarations about male people who have had surgeries, they seem rather hypocritical because they only seem to start being 'kind' after the surgery and not before.

I know. I was using this as an example to explain my points about the Equality Act.

But that strengthens my point anyway. Because the WI is a voluntary association, it has more freedom to define its own membership policies.

I understand the distinction you’re making, but the Equality Act doesn’t say that positive action can only apply within open memberships. Section 158 allows for positive action to overcome disadvantage faced by people who share a protected characteristic, and it applies to services and associations too.

The WI is an association, which under the Equality Act can legally restrict membership based on sex, but it’s not required to do so. So it can also choose to include trans women as part of a policy decision, and unless that policy is legally challenged and found unlawful, it stands.

As long as they comply with the EA.

The EA doesn’t care why an association wants to be single sex, but doesn’t allow what you propose - a mixed sex organisation that puts the members of one sex at a disadvantage.

But they aren’t restricting membership based on sex if they allow some men to join.

Exactly. The WI says:

"The WI is set up as an educational charity with a constitution which states that membership is only open to women."

But membership is clearly not only open to women because some men have already joined.