Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

I know this is all about the WI, but I'm kind of bored with Schedule 16. What's your view on Schedule 3 26-27? Can you shoehorn opposite-sex people with GR back into those SSSs, and if so how?

Ironically, (putting aside the question of whether these rules apply to associations or not) I think under the EA to be a TW-only org they'd need to be claiming exemption based on gender reassignment AND sex, and since SEX under the EA exemption rules means biological sex, that means an exemption to discriminate in favour of people with both the PC of male sex and gender reassignment.

I think the man would only be able to claim discrimination if he was actively discouraged from joining. If the WI advertised itself as open to men and women I don't think he could claim on the basis of name alone.

I think the women may be able to claim misrepresentation not sure about discrimination

A previous poster linked to guidance which used the Black Jazz Musicians Club as an example where they can discriminate on the basis of national origin but not skin colour. This means that black in the name of the club doesn't mean that you have to be black to join. This makes me wonder whether using woman in the name of your club requires it to be a female only club

Quite.

And what would the legitimate aim be if the WI included men with a ‘gender identity’ and excluded all others (bearing in mind that men with a gender identity seem to retain all the stereotypical manly traits that make women appreciate a bit of time without them)?

A trans turned up to my MIL local WI a few months ago. They were warned 10 minutes beforehand, he was called 'Mandy' and allegedly strutted in wearing stilettos, a short skirt and red lippy, effectively a parody of how women dress. Bear in mind the average age of this group of women sits at around 73 and they were glass painting so it was completely inappropriate and uncomfortable for all in attendance.

Personally, I think it is unacceptable.

My mum has been in the WI for over 20 years. It used to be that, if you were a man who was happy being a man, you could attend a specific event or talk( and pay a guest fee) but you couldn't be a member. If you identified as a woman you could join as a member. We all live in beautiful , rural Herefordshire so, up to now, they have never been confronted by a man in a frock wanting to be a member ( they're all too busy farming)

I do think there are women who, last century (or roundabout), began with feeling terribly uncomfortable at the thought of being in the company of lesbian women, then at some stage discovered (by accident, or deliberatly stepping outside their comfort zone) it was just like sharing the company of any woman. Then when this other kind of marginalised woman(*) came along they proceed with the assumption that their discomfort is prejudice, and they will discover that the company of trans women is just like that of any woman, in time.

Except transwomen are men 🙄

Ah so maybe this is the loophole. Exclude males as members but allow them in as 'special guests'?

Is the the clowns driving buses argument?

Check the Highway Code. If a clown approaches a roundabout on the left, should they signal?

I always think clowns are an apt metaphor for so many of the arguments being proposed by men determined to breach women's boundaries.

The clown-bus is a wonderful metaphor and I'm grateful to the Guilty Feminist for it.

MissScarletInTheBallroom · Today 12:09

What legal qualifications do you have, out of interest?

25m swimming against the tide of knowledge: F - Blue Star For Dogged Determination.

Yes, of course. That’s why it hasn’t worked. We don’t feel more comfortable or get used to it, in the way that might happen with any other prejudice.

It would possibly explain why some people who have been homophobic in the past are extra keen to display their trans-ally status. A 'protest too much' response. See also fawning, and stating that 'trans people deserve love' - a statement that is toe-curlingly false, patronising and reckless in equal measure.

Several posters have said that if the womens institute became mixed sex they would need to change their name.

I refer those posters to "Mumsnet".

I certainly think there are people who entered organisations and professions in the 80s who were too insecure to speak out against the homophobia they saw around them, who seized on the trans movement in the twenty-teens as a source of redemption (by which time they were in positions of senior leadership).

When you've had an irrational reaction and you know it's irrational after the fact how do you trust your reactions in the future? The women who objected to lesbians in spaces will struggle to rationalize their feelings now.

Homophobia is unfortunately quite common, transphobia isn't though - it's not about trans but about sex.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-poor-example/

Humza Yousaf's wife is providing another object lesson. She is offering 'women-only' therapy sessions, but including men with 'trans' identities.

And many women initially were open minded, open hearted and willing to embrace this and welcome men with trans identities on exactly these grounds.

However many rapidly found that these men are not just like women, do not behave like women, and it often does not end well for the women or the group. Hence the closing down and destruction of many women's illness support groups (for women only conditions) and lesbian groups disbanding officially and going underground. In one case, well documented, men with trans identities actually pursued the group to the private home of one of the women, a measure taken to escape them and their behaviour at a rape support group, and the men tried to get police to permit them to force entry. Sarah Summers tried a mixed sex rape support group and had to leave due to the inappropriate behaviours of a man present. It's not unusual for the inappropriate behaviours to be political and also to be sexually harassing.

These are evidenced facts. This whole mixed sex women's thing has been thoroughly destruction tested on women over the past decade and has not gone well for women to put it mildly. These are not new idea that no one has tried yet, what on earth do you think made women push these court cases for years to try and re establish their right to meet as a women only group? Either its being poorly informed or intentionally disingenuous.

With all due respect, @WhatNextCatsAsDoctors, an awful lot of people have either deliberately or innocently been misinterpreting the Equality Act for the last 15 years.

The Supreme Court judgment supersedes any contradictory interpretation which might have been adopted prior to now, which is why many "big orgs" like the one your infallible friend works for will now need to go back to the drawing board and rewrite their policies in accordance with the actual law.

It is astonishingly arrogant to come on here and say that you're the only person who understands the law, despite the fact that (a) everyone else here disagrees with you, (b) some of us, unlike you, are actually lawyers, and (c) the best lawyers in the field agree with us on this point and not you.

I don’t have the same view of the law as you do. So we don’t share that. See how it works?

Oh good grief, it's like all the previous posts never happened.

No, they cannot declare themselves to be women only and still include men. For all the reasons patiently explained over, and over, and over, and over. Would trying this in Latin or French help at all?

Rumour has it if you play a Mr Menno track backwards these days you can hear Akua Reindorf repeatedly screaming FFS.