Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

The constitution states that membership is open to women who have reached the age of majority. So the WI has been taking a rather expansive definition of women up to now

Except that there is that possessive apostrophe in the title of the organisation: ‘Women’s Institute’ which conveys that the institute ‘belongs to’ women. It’s not called the Institute for the Advancement of Women, so I think its name, coupled with its charitable objects, would be interpreted to mean women members…. Otherwise, men (non trans Identifying ones) would have been members since its inception in 1915?

The very fact that they have not is further evidence, is it not, that this is an organisation run by women for women?

It's rather given away that the men who belong are ones who identify as women, and have joined through wanting to exclusively be with women in a group organised for women.

I feel that you are suffering from 'the law as I want it to be'. The SC ruling is almost painfully clear and it is impossible now to interpret the EqA in a way that allows an organisation that includes all women and any man with the PC of GR.

Also, the SC neither wants nor doesn't want to make a space for charities/services who want to provide services for women and transwomen. The role of the SC is to provide a final ruling on the meaning of legislation. It has done this.

ETA
It would be up to Parliament to introduce or amend legislation if it wants to allow organisations to be allowed to admit all women and transwomen but exclude all men who aren't transwomen.

That would be against the equality legislation. If you can legitimately discriminate against a group for example men you can't add some of them back in because that then negates the ground on which you discriminated in the first place.

Thoughts...

The SC wasn't making a decision based on what would be fairest or most socially desirable. They had a binary choice (oh the irony!) about the interpretation of certain words in the Act. They weighed up the implications of the two alternatives and chose the one that was (warning: I'm about to use a technical legal term) slightly less bollocks than the other.

This means we are now stuck with 'single-gender entities', no matter how ardently desired by their participants, being against sex-discrimination law. (I'm enjoying the schadenfreude, but at the same time, it doesn't sit that easily with my libertarian side.)

Anyway, here's to secret ballots. And to our male allies applying to join the WI/swim in Kenwood Ladies Pond/whatever, and then suing when they get turned away.

Am posting the text version of the image posted in OP which will be unreadable for many with visual impairment or using a talking browser.

NFWI statement on Supreme Court ruling
The WI works to connect, empower and support women, and we are committed to treating all our members with respect, dignity and understanding.
In light of the Supreme Court ruling and interim update from the EHRC, we are taking time to consider carefully the implications for our organisation.

While we consider and understand the impact of the judgement, our existing inclusion policies continue to apply.
We encourage all members to continue supporting each other with respect and care at this time, as we have done throughout our 110 year history.
https://www.thewi.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases

I think this is unlikely to remain the only option - but will need testing. I think that overall the Supreme Court will want to make a space for charities/services who want to provide services for women and transwomen.

I don't think it will be that easy, and not allow any group of 'all men and women with x PC'.

Sex and GR are two separate PC, and arent any easier to force together than any other.

The question will always remain, what differentiates male people with particular philosophical beliefs about themselves and other male people?

Why should one group of male people get access to a group that no other male people gets access to, yet all female people get access to?

The fact remains, those male people cannot be separated out from the rest of the male population of the UK for special access just based on the fact that they say they are female people, but are materially not female people. And so it will remain discriminatory for the rest of the male people to be excluded.

I wait to see how all the wishes in the world makes any difference to being able to discriminate based on an identity belief.

@CautiousLurker01 See OP’s post immediately above yours, also replying to/quoting mine.

What matters is what their constitution says about membership, which I had not had access to when I commented previously. @Itsthecatsfault says that the constitution says membership is for women over the age of majority, so that is what is relevant - and what needs (in line with the SC ruling) to be interpreted as biological women (if they wish to continue to rely on the single sex exemption to restrict their membership) OR be changed in a non-discriminatory way, which presumably would have to be “people” over the age of majority.

Your point about the apostrophe in the organisational headline is logical (& in line with what is in the constitution) but not the determining factor. It’s the wording of the constitution that is key.

Okay, GC women of the WI: time to contact Sex Matters and Naomi Cunningham and take the WI to court. They can be the test case that will encourage les autres to obey the law.

As soon as you open the Crowdfunder I'll bung £200 in.

Yes, I bet as I type now, their are some men currently held in male prisons preparing a case to bring to court, as to why they are not allowed to be in women’s prisons, as currently there are some men in there…so why not them?

What needs are you catering to that women and transwomen share that other men don’t?

And this is it.

You wangle the boundary to be 'kind' because bless, it's only some men who really want the experience of being women among women,

and that blows apart the boundary the protects Sandie Peggie from having to get undressed without a man having the right to stand and watch her against her protests, protects women from not havig to suffer male sex offenders in their prison, and protects women trying to recover on hospital wards. And lesbians wanting to meet among themselves. Or women and girls being permitted sports of their own. It goes on and on and on.

Sentiment is going to have to go in the bin.

My local WI closed, and another club with identical offerings appeared in its place. Presumably they left the WI federation - I have no idea if it was this problem, or it was other problems with WI.

Very fed-up with the phrase "consider carefully". Seems to be the go-to phrase for institutional ostriches.

Its shows how saying no to men is so difficult. Even if they have the law on their side.

TRA are always saying its such a small number of people who want to be included, yet WI arent willing to say no for the benefit of the majority of their members and for the organisation itself.

Having said that, theres only supposed to be 20 tw playing football, but there have been 300 on the bbc crying about not being included. So maybe there are thousands on the WI.

They might open it up to women and people who hold the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

That number of 20 seems very low considering I thought we were told that there was 72.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/sport/labour-to-fix-the-mess-in-womens-sports/

I have been wondering where they have all gone....

But that wouldn't be compliant with the Equality Act

Yes, because, in practice, making single-gender entities possible had the effect of abolishing many wanted and needed single-sex entities (even the ones mandated by other laws). Because overreach.

You could argue that a single-gender entity is justifiable as a belief community. Happily, TRAs won't go for this, because they want to force us all to follow their beliefs. They're just not live and let live types.

Tell us that you haven't read the thread without telling us that you haven't read the thread.

Well, that's put me off. 🙄

My dsis is a member and had been encouraging me to join, but that's a hard No from me until they stop this nonsense.

I would have imagined that any males in women's prisons should have been removed straight after the SC judgement.

They couldn't call it the Women's Institute, I don't think. It would have to be The Institute for Women and Transwomen. The SC and Sex Matters have been quite clear. If you call a changing room the Women's Changing Room, it has to be for women only. If there's a man in there, even if he identifies as a woman, it's no longer for women only.

Basically, turn the clock back to 2010.