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 have a right to be wrong.

Of course its mixed sex! That was the whole point of the SC ruling. Women are female and trans women are male, with or without a gender recognition certificate (hence why its not called a sex recognition certificate)

Heavens! First the GG announcement, now this and it's anyone's guess who will be next. I wonder if there are enough smelling salts in the world to cope with all the vapours being had (especially on Reddit)!

I hope those setting up the Sisterhood groups go off and do that and leave the WI alone. Those as with the GG who are so utterly devastated at being unable to work with men and boys with trans identities and having to work with just women and girls and seeing this as something terrible - please, don't have anything further to do with single sex services for women and girls. Go and leave them to people with actual passion for this half of the human race and their interests and needs, instead of seeing them as a mere backdrop cloth on which to enjoy the more interesting people.

This was of course the inevitable result of all women and girls instititutions, groups and resources being intentionally captured by trans activists and either destroyed or taken over by activists who forced out any leaders or members who dared speak up for women and girls. Of course they are going to be devastated. But they were trying to commandeer all women's resources and refocus them entirely on men. Thankfully at last this has failed.

Transmen do not have penises. They have fleshy attachments made from skin and other female body parts. Not a penis.

This would be laughable if I didn't think you might actually be this daft

"My organisation" was how she put it. Should rename it the MGI and have done with it. Or, at least, set up an MGSisterhood and leave the WI out of that side of her plans.

From peerages to sport, the GRA repeatedly recognises that trans women are not women.

This sounds like a "You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own FACTS" moment.
And the law is based in fact. It kinda has to be to work.

Then you must certainly campaign for mixed sexed toilets and for anyone to be able to drive or claim a pension at any age, to say nothing of all those exclusionary disabled parking spaces.

You might struggle to get support thought.

The question was whether the secretariat of a long-established membership-based organisation, with charitable status, can unilaterally change the organisation's basis without consulting the members. Or the charity regulators.

It seems very unlikely that the secretariat had the right to do either of those things.

With respect, I don't think you've read the quoted text properly.

Biological women do not have penises.

Transmen do not have penises.

Only biological men (which includes transwomen) have penises.

Some biological woman have had a part of their arm removed, rolled into a tube and attached to their groin. That is not a bloody penis, that is arm skin repurposed.

Mixed sex organisations are not prohibited by the state.

If you don't think an organisation comprising of women and trans women is mixed sex, I can only hope that you don't work in healthcare.

Arm skin re-purposed. 😂

If I was arm skin I would be quite disappointed to become a flesh roll attached to a woman's pubis mons.

I'd like to be out waving about.

The legal situation had been muddled by widespread promotion of the idea that 'woman' means 'man'. And indeed that 'man' means 'woman'.

The Supreme Court clarified that that is not, and was not, in fact or law the case.

If you believe transmen have penises do you also believe snowmen can smell through their carrots?

Whoops! I forgot the link

https://online.fliphtml5.com/gphbd/fgtw

The paragraphs I quoted are from the document headed
"Press Summary
16 April 2025
For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent)
[2025] UKSC 16
On appeal from: [2023] CSIH 37"

The link is perfectly safe to click on, it goes to a PDF hosted on the Supreme Court's site supremecourt.uk

A group for Women has to be for Women (ie female adults as defined in the EA). There’s nothing to stop the Women’s Institute changing themselves to the People’s Institute and allowing both sexes to join.

So, hardly ‘undemocratic’, is it?

We exclude people all the time for legitimate reasons: under 18s excluded from Over 18s clubs and pubs; adults excluded from registering as pupils at primary schools, etc etc. A single sex organisation can legitimately exclude the other sex.

Transwomen aren’t women because they aren’t female. Transwomen are, by definition, male so will be excluded from groups for female people only.

your logic dictates that an organisation that comprises women + trans women only is prohibited by the State.

It's awful what they are trying to con children into believing nowadays - poor kids think they can change sex - affirmed by stupid parents who are unable to tell them fact from fiction.

Reality needs to return. Children must not be sold a lie. Mental illness must be treated as such. Let your sons wear dresses and grow hair as some men have always done, that's fine, but stop with the they are girls now, they aren't and will never be so. Fragile young girls often with autism are not and never will be men.

See, I know a few women who would be right into that 😂

Of course that is prohibited by law as that would exclude male men.

Totally, you can't get a decent tan in the pants of a confused woman.