I wonder what the WI are going to announce on Woman's Hour in the next few minutes?

[nauticant]

Apparently it will be a matter of the greatest seriousness and sorrow.

I did toy with putting R4 on this morning, but concluded that Womens' Hour would probably be dire - rats! I wonder if it will feature on Saturday? It's a shame they didn't make the announcement in time for the Today programme (It was Justin W and Emma B on duty today).

Interestingly both the Girl Guides and NFWI list Bates Wells as their Legal Advisors in their annual accounts. I suspect that there might be a few more announcements being made shortly.

The only people who can share their experience of ‘living as a woman’ are men. The rest of us are just getting on while actually being women.

Honestly, absolutely woeful. Very disappointed in Woman’s Hour for not probing the massive logical black holes and misunderstandings of legal facts being asserted by Melissa Green in this interview. They didn’t read out any listeners’ comments afterwards either.

On the contrary the vast majority of people in the UK think those born male do not belong in a female single sex space (which the WI will now be once more).

Ah but that is where you are wrong (again). They are bound by the EA2010.

They could just conduct a poll of their members and if the members vote to permit men they could change their charter but they won’t do that.

Agreed - how is this in any way controversial?

Remember the thread a little while back about the two female 'models' on Only Fans or sone similar 'adult content' website, who claimed to be transwomen to try to drum up more interest?

The unbridled hatred, anger and threats that they received from men who 'were actual women' but curiously also fiercely protective of their status of being 'special male women'.

If seems that the entitlement and freewill to identify as you wish and seek to change reality only ever goes one way.

Well I say, let the market decide. I know that a Sisterhood group can't be a valid unitary Schedule 16 association, because there's no shared protected characteristic (I've tried very hard with a protected belief approach, but it's difficult to make it work).

But the WI does have all sorts of events where men are allowed as guests, speakers, etc. So maybe this is another such event - the special men are special guests. We don't need to be curmudgeonly and encourage the unspecial men to sue. Just make sure there are plenty of other, women-only, events (this is important), and women will vote with their feet.

The way I heard her talk about sisterhood groups made me think they they will just run these more actively than the original group and get trans inclusion by the back door.

I made a reference to Vogon poetry. I believe he is counterpointing the surrealism of the underlying metaphor that women have knobs.

To be fair, contrived and pompous purple prose
is better than the rape and death threats that campaign is known for. And I think I do also prefer it to the attempts at linguistic sleight of (cack) hand where they say something like "other women" when referring to men and think you won't notice or be able to say "those are not women". I mean, at least this is funny. And it means you can bring up Vogons and even reference Tom Lehrer. "Full of words and music and signifying... nothing!"

WTAF?

All organisations have to follow the laws around membership. Since when did democracy not support the democratically elected law makers in parliament making laws around protecting people who join an organisation?

This is news to me.

@puppymaddnesswhat are your views on those billionaires in the first line?

They might try this. But if women keep refusing to be part of those groups they will have no option to focus on the core WI group

@MarieDeGournay

Christ no. We don’t want ridiculous people who can’t tell the difference between a biological woman and a bloke in a dress invading our lovely town.

(The SE is now known as the Southern Star btw, and The Skibbereen Eagle is actually a rather nice coastal pub and my local. 😁

Ah but that's an entirely inappropriate analogy . What we are dealing with is , in fact, the direct opposite , because of the outcome of the policy.

in one case you are prohibiting the exclusion of a group of people from an organisation because of their race.

In this case you are mandating the exclusion of a group of people (against the values of the organisation), because they are trans.

The appropriate analogy would be a new interpretation of law that said certain organisations- if they are designated for (say) British people - must be restricted to white people (because the state had decided that the definition of "british people" definitionally excludes those who are non-white) . This was then mandated/ imposed so that the membership of the civil society group was narrowed/ restricted against their values and purported objectives/ operations.

"Mothers" isn't a protected characteristic. It would be illegal to discriminate on that basis.

Personally I want to live in a society that is based on material reality but you do you

Yes, I fear that they will supplant the regular meetings, which will instead be scheduled at 2am and arranged to take place in a haunted mansion on an island in a crocodile-infested lake.

In this case you are mandating the exclusion of a group of people (against the values of the organisation), because they are trans.

This was on page 1. I even put it in big letters for you yet you still missed it!

This is about male people in female-only spaces regardless of whether they are transgender or not.

Why come here and lie? Just makes you look foolish.

The Charitable objects of NFWI are (my bold):
The main purposes of the women's institute organisation are: (a) to advance the education of women and girls for the public benefit in all areas including (without limitation): (i) local, national and international issues of political and social importance; (ii) music, drama and other cultural subjects; and (iii) all branches of agriculture, crafts, home economics, science, health, and social welfare; (b) to promote sustainable development for the public benefit by: (i) educating people in the preservation, conservation and protection of the environment and the prudent use of natural resources; and (ii) promoting sustainable means of achieving economic growth and regeneration; (c) to advance health for the public benefit; and (d) to advance citizenship for the public benefit by the promotion of civic responsibility and volunteering.

They will need a Members' special resolution and approval from the Charity commission to alter them.

what independent , objective measure can we use to determine women from men?

While there are simple, quick tests to distinguish a male from a female, there don't seem to be any to distinguish a "real" or genuine trans woman from a) all other males and b) males claiming to identify as trans with an ulterior motive such as predatory access to victims. The only evidence someone is trans is "because I said so".

You cannot run a legal system that defines people's physical attributes by "what I claim I feel like inside". That is not an objective definition and as the legal system constantly deals with people who aren't telling the truth, it's a ludicrous and unworkable basis to make policy on.

You can easily see this if you imagine we allowed people to self-define as innocent, having an ethnicity they do not, having an age they do not, and just accepting what they say as fact. It's not workable. This is why the SC made the judgement they did - because it was the onlt possible interpretation that could practically work.

It’s a mystery. It’s almost as if they are being disingenuous but of course that would be unkind of me to suggest that and as a mere woman I must always be kind and put myself last.

I keep asking the same/similar question and no-one ever answers so hear I go again!

Why do these women in charge hate other women so much? Why are they so keen on pandering to men constantly? Why do they want to prioritise TIM?

There's enough people on this board shouting TWAW but strangely no-one ever answers my question 🤷‍♀️.

Nice bigglys!

Of course, thinking about it when our deputy prime minister thinks women can grow a cervix and our prime minister would not be astonished to find a woman with a penis, it's no real surprise that others think this view is valid.

If men at the top of our tree think this , well it must have some substance, they think and then we have the WI gulping and crying that they believe men are women. It is all connected.

These beliefs really need rooting out because they filter down to those with an agenda and to those with no common sense.

One of them is married to a cross dresser.