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.

As I've been reading I've been thinking that if I were a grassroots WI member and just listened to that WH interview or read that statement, the first thing I'd be doing at the next meeting is asking the other members if they realised that this was how WI management thought, then I'd be asking how interested they'd all be in leaving the WI and creating another group! The Institute of Women as people have suggested upthread.

I understand the people wh are saying to join, as it will create a spike, but the lies and dismissive attitude coming through strongly from Green would absolutely make me want to leave if I were a member.

Agree with the poster upthread who had been to a Riding for the Disabled? get-together and noticed the profile of the average 'grassroots volunteer' - ordinary older women who get on with things and would almost certainly disagree with Green's position.

Thank you @MyrtleLion , I suspected as much. And all sorts of things including insurance (massively important for small organisations) will be dependent on their complying with that.

To say nothing of taxes.

How the hell did they get away with it for so long?

Because the only reason a man who's not a predator would want to join a women's service is to use it and every female person in it as a validation tool for his claimed womanhood. A designated mixed sex service won't do that. That's why the suggestion of third spaces as a solution has never been accepted.

Calling them 'WI Sisterhood groups' sounds like a deliberate attempt to make them unappealing to most men, which seems very discriminatory.

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

I believe under their own rules they would have to put it to their members before they changed their charitable goals in their charter. Maybe they were unsure how that might pan out.

It's a fucking insult, I know that much

"Sisterhood" actually means something to a lot of us women. The WI director and her cronies should be ashamed at their lack of awareness of women's history

Yes you're correct. Sorry that was me being muddled.

So as far as I can tell, they won’t accept people with a vagina and breasts but the wrong genes (how will they know? Blood tests and genital examination as part of the application process) but they’ll accept people with the right genes but with a beard and penis?

What?

This 'non formal members' thing is seriously dodgy. Did a lawyer tell them it was a work around? If so I think that lawyer probably needs a refresher course. Members are members. Guests are guests. Demonstrators (or whatever the WI terminology is) are Demonstrators. All of those can be considered covered by insurance of anything goes wrong.

But hazily-defined non formal members not compliant with the legal aims of the charitable organisation? If one of those burns the hall down or breaks his wrist or drops a teapot and scalds someone? not sure about cover.

No woman has a penis. If they think they're a man, some of them, at best, have an appendage made out of a bit of their leg or arm.

Someone needs to let them know that transgender women are the people they've been excluding recently, aka transmen. Although I don't see any mention of now letting transmen in (perhaps I missed it?) that presumably is part of the deal.
You can tell who the men are by how much attention is given, even in a women's institution.

thank you @MyrtleLion

What?

Jinx! 😆

FYI I have written to a number of local Men In Sheds groups.

Example one -

MiSs - "Yes we are an all male group as defined by our constitution set up for the benefit of men’s health & well-being."

[I replied]

MiSs - "Yes indeed I am well aware that women play a big part in many sheds. However when launched it was decided that our shed would be men only and in fact our constitution approved by the Charity Commission makes that quite clear."

Example two -

MiSs - "We are not actually set-up just yet - I am aiming to be up and running by October."

I replied - "Will your men in sheds group be single sex or mixed sex?"

MiSs - "I'm not sure yet, we like to be inclusive so I'm thinking along the lines of anyone who identifies as male."

I replied -
(1) In what way is it inclusive of men who want a men only group to be inclusive of women who claim to identify as men?

(2) Since the SC judgement in the case of For Women Scotland it seems to me that if you want a mixed sex group you need to call it "People In Sheds" because "men in sheds" implies a men-only group, but allowing in women who claim to be men makes it mixed sex. You wouldn't have a picture of a woman on a toilet door, and then leave muslim or orthodox jewish or female sexual assault survivors to be tricked into entering thinking it was single sex and then leaving them traumatized at facing some hulking great autogynephile dressed like a hooker would you?

(3) What does it mean to "identify as male" when someone is female?

MiSs - "Thank you for your message.
Having read your comments, some of the language and questions raised are not appropriate for constructive dialogue within this context. For that reason, I will not be continuing any further correspondence on this matter."

First define "trans" & if it's as slippery as "I feel like ladee inside" then think of a better definition.

Presumably the sisterhood groups will have to admit any men then? I actually think the WI missed a trick by not having some sort of auxiliary grouping for men, who wouldn't get full membership or to come to the main meetings, but who preferred baking and jam-making to woodworking and whatever it is Rotary clubs do.

As it is, I predict the sisterhood groups will never be set-up or immediately fold outside a handful of urban areas, and even in those areas will attract far more trans women than actual women.

Once the WI leadership realise this I expect them to wake up from their fever dream and pretend none of this was ever said or indeed happened.

I would have joined my WI but wont because of their beliefs. Same with girl guiding. Its too little too late now

That's a very good point. I suspect that the number of trans widows who would like to join will vastly exceed the numbers of trans identifying males who are being ejected.

"Women's sports governing bodies
Girl Guides
The Women's Institute
All putting into place guidance that isn't law, about restricting trans women explicitly but also the rest of us, from partaking in civil society.
When they start coming for abortion, inspecting your and your children's genitals, policing what you can wear and how you can behave, whether you look feminine enough to use the women's toilets.....What will you do?
We BEGGED you, for YEARS and you did NOTHING!
The fucking around has ended and the finding out is about to begin.
Enjoy!"

A post from a 'transman' on social media. Obviously very angry...

Women (female humans to be clear) are still women even if they’ve had a mastectomy FYI. And nobody needs to examine anybody’s genitals (why would you even think that??) nor test their genes. We can accurately sex other humans more than 99% of the time. Even babies can do it.

For the slow of thinking, the issue isn’t if someone has breasts (some men have bigger breasts than me) or what their genitalia look like (men who’ve had their penises removed due to penile cancer are still men) nor whether they’re wearing a skirt or trousers, how long their hair is, whether they like embroidery, etc, it’s whether they’re female or not. This really isn’t hard.

Bridge for sale, bridge for sale ...

And I remain clear that my strong belief is that the vast majority of trans identifying men are doing it for reasons of trouser filth of various kinds and that being the case, I don't want them having access to any space where women and girls are in any state of undress or are particularly vulnerable.

And I also remain clear that imo transmaidens are the very worst sort of woman!

🤣🤣🤣

If you were Swiss, you'd be in gaol by now!