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.

Weaponising suicide is one of the lowest things I have seen in the debate about Women's rights and Trans rights, morally speaking. I've only seen it from the shrieking 'Trans women are women, no debate!' side of the fence so its strange that anyone can take the position of womdering how women who are pleased about this can sleep at night.

Green needs to step down if she wants to pour her energies into this group. She has clearly shown where her priorities lie, and it isn't with women

You seem to be on the wrong thread. And here’s a hint for you, no one is making you read our comments.

and yes we are delighted for women who will now no longer have to be unwilling participants in men’s fetishes. Zero guilt here.

shut the door on your way out please. 👋

Fresh from the parallel thread in AIBU (and clearly the Batshit signal has gone out in all the usual places) i have a question:

(have not read the WI statement in full)

Why didn't they just say: ok from now on we are inclusive of anyone who wants to join of whatever sex?

What protected characteristic (s) would all members share? Because that is the key element for associations of more than 25 members. The easiest route would be for groups of less than 25 who would just be classed as a friendship group and would not be covered by the EA2010.

Indeed.

What other group threatens suicide when lawfully (or even, for that matter unlawfully) excluded from a group?

Women have been excluded from all sorts of groups (like rape crisis centres for example) due to Stonewall policies. They haven't made these kind of threats.

The manipulation is off the charts.

Yep.
pretending to comply with the law while in practice continuing to break it.
how the heck did the WI come to be run by people who don’t understand what a woman is? How on earth will they decide which males they will and won’t allow in these ‘other activities’?

I was intrigued to read this sentence in the Guardian article (my bold):

"In 2023, the WI said it would continue to “celebrate” the lives of the transgender women enriching its membership, after reports it was facing an attempt by an internal group to overturn inclusive policy – in place since the 1970s and made official in 2015 – which allows transgender members to join the organisation of more than 175,000 members."

If anyone has any info about this internal group please do share.

”You are all what is wrong with the world”

Really? You think all the worlds problems could be solved so easily by refusing entitled men access to spaces for girls and women. If only all those women raped and abused in Nigeria, Darfur and other places where being a women is more dangerous than swimming with sharks or the women in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia denied basic human rights could solve their problems by saying they didn’t want TIM intruding into their lives.

Be thankful that “your girls” are living in a society where we are able to push for the rights of women to include our rights to single sex spaces ratified by the law of the land, be thankful your girls are entitled to education, to vote, to travel independently, to make decisions about their health, their finances, their future careers, their relationships.

Yes, compared to the discrimination and abuse women in other parts of the world face daily, banning TIM from a Womens social group seems a small victory. But it is a victory against the tide of anti women rhetoric that has been the hallmark of the trans movement.

And, btw, if the WI really wants to further Sisterhood it would do well to encourage our government to put moral and financial pressure on the nations it deals with who are oppressing womens rights , not making ridiculous statements that it believes that TIM are women.

It sounds as though they are thinking of using WI funds, from member subscriptions etc, to pay for this new 'Sisterhood'.

Surely that's not legal? It certainly isn't ethical.

I’m pulling my girls out after this announcement.

For the love of God, keep your girls where they belong, mate!

And keep out of women's spaces, it's the law.

They've taken this action in order to avoid costly legal bills...but if they continue in the vein they'll still be taken to court.

But they would not have to simply "hope that men who wished to present as men would not join", they would also have to hope that women who did join the Women's Film Club were not looking for a film club for women, they were looking for a mixed sex film club.

It is hard to see what the exemption could be other than "we permit any association's right to call itself what it likes, and allow in whoever it likes", leading to the "Good Women's Club" (a group for good women, otherwise known as anyone who is or claims to be a woman, so long as they are white and able bodied) being perfectly legal.

Well, the schadenfreude would be delicious, and it would be quite a blow to GI theory ( I guess people don't really think you're women then eh?).

But suppose the groups are a roaring success, and happily coexist with the regular women-only meetings?

I'd say fair's fair, each to their own.

Apparently there was a group of members who objected to men in the WI. I came across it on Google earlier.

I think it was 1000 strong.

So it's load of bollocks that no-one complained

Im sure they have to pretend they are women friendly but let's face it, they dont want women there. Same as I dont want men in the WI or in the women's toilets. Its perfectly healthy for men and women to have their own spaces that exclude the other, as men and women are equal, but different, and both groups benefit from some time apart and from some time with other men/women. As anyone in a long term relationship will tell you. We're talking about once a month, like the once a week/month 'boys/girls night out'

Not to mention where it is more serious, like women's rape shelters and women's prisons, where vulnerable women need to be protected from a minority of predatory men or TIM. And ask gay men how they feel about TIW in their spaces ....

There are all the other days in the week/month for men and women to spend together and multitudes of mixed sex hobby and social groups like eg my Thursday night poker group.

Yep. I said back in April that change would only happen when it starts to cost organisations ££££.

These organisations don’t give a shit about women but they do care about the money they will lose if they don’t comply with the law.

Years ago I was in the ICA, the Irish equivalent of the WI. Membership included a number of married women with husbands who were jealous and controlling enough they their going out to mixed-sex events would have caused trouble and abuse at home. The easy answer is that they should have LTBs, but as we all know, children, business responsibilities, extended families and so on can make that less simple.

As it was, they were able to attend a single-sex space once a month and meet other women, discuss their problems with them, build support networks, learn skills. The presence of a male sisterhood would have stripped that away. Maybe that's what they want, to prevent women from supporting women.

There's no way the members want men in their organisation.

Even the smallest experience of trans identified males shows you that.

This is an out of touch management.

They've never polled their membership. Because they know the answer.

It's all moot now, of course. But when it wasn't, they could've polled for opinion.

They didn't.

So long as trans'men' and men are included. Why should some women not be allowed in a group for "women"? Why should some men be excluded from a group that includes men?

A charity must follow its Objects. It cannot do anything outside its Objects and the WI's Objects are:

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.

It is notoriously difficult to change a charity's objects. There would have to be an Extraordinary General Meeting with the removal of "women and girls" as part of the change. The Charity Commission would need to grant permission. And the name would have to change. I don't see the WI members or the Commission agreeing to that.

And therefore, under FWS, any organisation established for women and girls must be for biological women and girls (how unnecessary that word is) and men must be excluded or it becomes mixed sex.

I imagine the WI's lawyers have told them this, interspersed with:
"but what if we..."
"No."
"Perhaps we could..."
"No."
"Or maybe..."
"Definitely not."

I wonder if the Scottish women’s institute are taking a similar approach?

they do care about the money they will lose if they don’t comply with the law

Yep. And the backlash against the WI has already started on the TRA side.
Despite Green stating "I hope [...] the transgender community will know that we stand with them" she's being accused of not standing with them and of only being interested in the money (i.e. avoiding financial loss)

I can't imagine it is. I'm always That Person who turns up to the AGM of organisations I'm in and asks 'why do the figures in column 4 of the annual financial report not add up to the total given?

Not with our current treasurer btw, she's a qualified accountant, her books balance.

I very much wonder how they are planning to fund this 'sisterhood'.

Do any WI groups own their own meeting spaces? Were any of them funded from bequests or donations? Were any of those conditional? How is that going down with whatever is the UK eqiv of the Charities Regulator?

It all sounds as dodgy as the assertion that they had transgender members 40 years ago, before gender was invented.

I agree transmen should be allowed in women-only groups. The comment was otherwise directed at the hypothetical of a)women-only group and b)women's group with transwomen 'guests' existing side-by-side. PP have been coming up with different scenarios for that to happen eg <25 members, change the law, bend the law (but no-one sues because we're happy we've got a) to attend instead), and so forth.