Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

That could be because they have actually finally looked it up, realised they were wrong but rather than admit their error, they are pivoting. But I couldn't possibly say for sure.

Ok, got you.

What this thread is demonstrating is that no matter how clear the SC and the EHRC think they've made things, we are going to need flashcards.

They are going to need to provide one of those 'Easy Read' guides to the law, with illustrations and very simple, straightforward language.

They'll need to provide examples like so:

Q: 'Can women and transwomen be included in an organisation that says it's for women'?

A: 'No.'

designnotes.blog.gov.uk/2021/10/11/easy-read-is-hard-to-get-right/

Words can mean different things in different contexts. And there’s no point trying to ‘catch me out’. It wouldn’t be a victory anyway, we are people sharing different points on a forum. There are no winners or losers.

we are people sharing different points on a forum

Okay, that made me laugh. I see what you did there.

Miles behind but properly laughing at this

See that’s where we disagree. Because of all the reasons I’ve outlined (which are more reasonable, rational and well understood than you’re all trying to gaslight me into believing) there absolutely is circumstances and ways the WI could still include trans women.

more reasonable, rational and well understood than you’re all trying to gaslight me into believing)

see? entertaining

and I did go back and look at the Morecambe and Wise Adre Previn sketch which makes me laugh out loud every time so that was good too sunshine.

https://vimeo.com/479336770

plus I'm now going to write to the charities commission to air my concerns that the WI aren't adhering to their charitable aims.

so a productive few hours really.

Yes. The circumstances would be to no longer say they were women only and a single sex association.

@WhatNextCatsAsDoctors you've said several times in this thread that many legal experts share your opinion. Could you link to any barrister, lawyer or law firms explanation of why what you say is correct

@BernardBlacksMolluscs PLEASE stop calling me belittling nicknames when I’ve repeatedly expressed this is inappropriate and frustrating. It’s like you are getting off on doing it to make me feel small. You haven’t really made any good counterpoints to anything I’ve said, just name calling.

I’ll repeat what I said yesterday: I thought this forum objected to women being called things they don’t want to be called. But I guess that doesn’t apply when people make points you don’t agree with, or aren’t fully aligned with. I don’t understand how anyone is supporting you on this. I’m actually enjoying people raising counterpoints, I’ve found this interesting, but DON’T call me sexist patronising nicknames I don’t want to be called.

I don’t know why no one else is with me on this. I think it says a lot about this forum.

There is a way WI could include transwomen and that is by becoming a mixed sex organisation but that would mean any man could join

Interesting that you deliberately chose to go out of your way to use the term "different points" to refer to what is being shared.

Normal English would be "we are people sharing opinions on a forum".

I believe that you deliberately and misleadingly chose to use "different points" in order to imply entirely different things are being shared, not one thing being share (opinions).

But of course all of this is irrelevant because the EA specifically says share A (singular) PC (singular).

I don’t know why no one else is with me on this. I think it says a lot about this forum.

What it says is that we can be arsed to do a bit of research and have at least basic reading comprehension.

I suspect they mean "sharing" in the online sense - sharing a tweet, sharing a photo, etc - ie posting it. Hence "sharing" different opinions.

Generally very uncalled for. But I was l talking about no one being with me on it being inappropriate @BernardBlacksMolluscs keeps calling me belittling nicknames.

They could also become a transwomen-only org and exclude women, or a trans-only organisation and exclude all.women except transmen.

What they can't do is remain a women's organisation and admit transwomen.

Yep.

The only issue is continuing to pretend to be a single sex org while not actually wanting to be one. Easily fixed, they just have to pick one. Mixed sex or single sex, free choice.

I could say I don't know what all the fuss is about, but I know exactly. 'Women have boundary. Me smash it.'

"I can assure you that it’s one programme. And it’s a very large organisation so I’d be surprised if they weren’t given sound legal advice"

@WhatNextCatsAsDoctors can I introduce you to the NHS, ERCC, Westminster Council, the Green Party... I can go on.....

Several posters have said that if the womens institute became mixed sex they would need to change their name.
I'm not convinced that they would need to do so as long as they make it clear that they are mixed sex.
I understand that if a toilet/changing room says womens then it must be single sex but is there anything legally that would require associations to only use female/male terms if they are clear that they are mixed sex.

Interesting - so share in the sense of ‘send’.

But the meaning is still that we can then all view the same flies, not that I can see some and you can see others.

I have read your posts with interest. I honestly have tried to see where you could have a winning argument (not least because I think it important to know if there are any loopholes that could be exploited).

But, sorry, I don't see them. You cannot logically simultaneously exclude a whole group whilst at the same time including some members of that group. As NC says it's not peanut free if it includes a peanut.

As far as I have ever observed in my many years of existence ‘sunshine’ is mainly used as a snarky comment to a man. Like ‘pal’ is used as well.

Could a man not argue that he is being discrimated against because he is made to feel less welcome and or encourage not toajoin, because the name of the mixed sex group explicitly suggests that men like him (men who don't claim to be women) are not welcome?

Could a woman not argue that they joined because they were lead to believe it was single sex, and they were lied to?