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.

You cannot run a legal system that defines people's physical attributes by "what I claim I feel like inside".

To even get to this point they would need to define "woman" as something other than 'any adult' because otherwise all you're saying when you "feel like a woman" that you feel like any adult, male or female.

At some point the definition of woman needs to refer to being female, at which point it's automatically transphobic.

Or it refers to "feminine " which is laughably sexist.

By 'interference imposed by the State" I premise you mean the law?

Oh absolutely, me too. That's why I don't want to eliminate the possibility of being trans from society . Because being trans is both real and material.

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

There's case law FFS 😠

By going out of their way to accommodate our exes they’re still saying fuck you to any trans widows who might have wanted to join.

That that claim is completely fabricated, ridivulous bollocks.

It was also obvious from the fact it also provided protection for trans identities. If a transwoman was a woman as per the law's wording, it wouldn't have been necessary to protect a trans identity.

Your argument boils down to: men are the oppressed. Ours boils down to: men are not the oppressed.

The Supreme Court agrees and so does the law. You can fight for the right to claim men are oppressed if you like. But you’re like the KKK claiming white people were oppressed.

I think it’s a childlike you can’t tell me what to do. It’s the law so they have to follow it. They can’t be rational about it.

I wonder if Petra Wenham will be spearheading these ‘sisterhood’ groups. If there’s an appetite for them they’d be better off forming a Trans Women Institute surely?

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

FFS!

It's not because they are trans. It's because they are men.

If the WI really really believed this, they would change their organisation rules allowing anyone to join.

I think about this a lot too. I think it's because some women (like some men tbf) have a need to be seen as a good, caring person and they have been duped into thinking trans people are the most marginalised demographic ever and that it's just like being gay, by a very effective PR campaign.

The approved way to assert this goodness is by identifying naysayers and opposing them by doubling down, calling them bigots and pushing the "most oppressed victims" narrative in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

At a deeper level, there's a man-pleasing element where women who do this convince themselves that they are being kind and caring towards a genuine (somehow) "woman trapped in a man's body" who is even more in need of their protection and support than a normal woman. But IMO unconsciously they are sucking up to what they instinctively know to be a demanding, potentially aggressive male in a female space.

Whereas we all know that under the Equality Act 2010 as sex can only mean sex at birth that "trans women" remain the men that they were born.

Yes of course, I agree , they are bound by equalities legislation. That is precisely the issue, that (interpretations of) equalities legislation have become increasingly anti-democratic.

Of course people can be trans.
They just can’t change sex.

The law is promoting the inclusion of women in a group for women by removing men, men being the reason some women might feel excluded (perhaps victims of SA or religious women who are not allowed to join mixed sex groups).

You are utterly wrong. TW are being excluded because of their SEX. Because the WI relies on single SEX exemptions in the EA2010 to be for women only.

I think everyone should boycott it. The statement clearly says that they believe the delusion that TWAW, and they are starting a programme in 2026 to circumvent the law, and allow men to attend groups, as “sisterhoods” simply without formal membership. Sounds like a slap in the face to me

Trans (and non-binary) people are still very much eligible for WI membership, as long as they are female. The protected characteristic in question is sex, not gender reassignment.

IIRC, the WI had previously stated that female trans people were excluded from the organisation, which actually was illegal discrimination towards those people on the basis of their protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Hopefully they will soon be able to clarify that this discriminatory policy is no longer in effect.

And the issue here is that (interpretations) of equalities legislation have become increasingly anti-democratic.

You do know that some rando’s ‘interpretation’ of equalities legislation isn’t as valid as the SC’s, right? That yours is an opinion and theirs is the law? It really sounds like you don’t. And, please, do campaign for a country-wide vote on whether or not TWAW, to make sure it’s thoroughly democratic.

Heavens, don't be stating actual facts now.
What about the poor men's hurt feelings?

I know someone who is a member of the branch where that man who was on the cover of one of their magazines, gave a talk. She said that no-one was interested in his talk but they couldn't say because they have to be careful what they say. It would seem like those women would have expressed their disapproval if allowed to vote anonymously.

Excellent news

Is this the dominoes starting to fall for women's only groups?

I hope so.

Not at all - it's restored democracy to women.