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.

Imagine, you've spent years feeling the sun on you in summer, the snuggliness of a fleecy top in winter. Then suddenly with no warning you're crammed down the front of a pair of pants, that constantly smell of pee because the urethra in women is shorter and trying to lengthen it hardly ever works, for all eternity, or until you develop necrosis and fall off.

Poor repurposed arm skin.

It's really very simple. In 10 steps...:

1. Humans are sexually dimorphic (NB. to preempt fussing, with a minority of outliers in the form of a minority of DSDs, as there are no absolutes in nature).

2. Humans need language to describe their world. The word "woman" (and "girl") is used to describe the 51% of the population who are female.

3. Women are systematically discriminated against. In the UK, they have had the vote for 100 years, and the right to resist marital rape for about 30.

4. As such, women set up organisations to fight for and uphold their rights and to enjoy space from the oppressor class, men. Such groups included the WI.

5. In the last 20 years or so, an influential minority of activists decided that "women" now no longer deserved any word to distinguish themselves from men.

6. In this context, organisations like the WI were persuaded that it was "inclusive" to accept males calling themselves "women" as members.

7. Women and men who could see that the WI's original values had been corrupted in excluding women to include men, challenged this democratically.

8. Now, the authoritarian redefinition of women that denied them spaces and even a word of their own, is being recognised, and women's rights restored.

9. This is distressing for transwomen, who had been misled into believing they could use resources set up for the oppressed class known as women.

10. When transwomen return to women their previous resources, language and right to distinguish themselves from males, most women will support them.

This is, frankly, generous of women, given numbers 3, 7 and 8 above.

I understand your logic. It is an antidemocratic and fundamentalist logic that endorses State prohibition of all trans inclusive women's organisations.

Yes, it is not lawful to discriminate against men in this way.

A club cannot refuse membership or grant membership on less favourable terms (such as by applying different conditions or fees) because the person has a protected characteristic

However, there is nothing preventing any club from being mixed sex.

The WI could use the necrotic skin in craft project - a Christmas wreath perhaps, to mark the SadTimes.

As long as they're not excluding men, it won't be. It's quite clever tbf. As they've created something that most men will self exclude from because they don't have experience of 'living as a woman', but TIM will access. I doubt its anymore illegal than having a society for people who want to share their experience of playing the trombone or reading Shakespeare. If you don't have it, you won't go.

To stretch over their pots of jam.

Like those nice red and white checked things you sometimes see. But...... not.

There is nothing to prevent a single sex organisation being trans inclusive. It just can't include people of the opposite sex.

I laughed at Prohibition initially - yet another period in history inappropriately appropriated (that was fun to type). But then I thought of lesbian bars etc. going underground and it felt less funny and more apt, but not in the way Puppy intended. Speakeasys for the time when women's right to speak for themselves as a sex class was no longer easy.

As above

Women's organisations are trans inclusive. They are not being prohibited from including trans people.

They can have 100 transmen as members and will still be a women's organisation.

But the second they allow a transwoman in they become mixed sex.

ETA Bloody autocorrect

"Women are systematically discriminated against. In the UK, they have had the vote for 100 years, and the right to resist marital rape for about 30"

Although we will have to wait till 2028 for the centenary of women voting on the same terms as men.

So predictable

That is not a trans inclusive women's organisation. If trans men typically wanted to join women's organisations they wouldn't be trans men.

Predictable yes. True. Also yes.

Trans inclusive also yes. Transmen exist you know.

Thanks! I originally put that, but edited out the details to keep things really simple.

I mean, it says it all.

1920s - women denied a voice as a political class (no vote of their own - men tell them what they want)

2020s - women denied a voice as a political class (no word of their own - men tell them what they are)

Plus ça change, eh?

Trans men exist yes. Nobody is fighting for their right to join women's organisations except transphobes who want to use them to uphold their fundamentalist logics that justify banning all women's organisations that include trans women,

If an organisation includes some men then it is no longer a women's organisation. It is now a mixed sex organisation and as such should re-define itself.

😂

Nobody wants to ban women's organisations and groups. Quite the contrary. Most here are very much in favour of them and can understand why they exist.

Again, I really don't need you to explain your logic to me. I understand it completely. It's fundamentalist and anti-democratic because its consequence is an endorsement of State prohibition on women's organisations that include trans women.

I've not seen any sign of a need to fight for the right of transmen to join women's organisations.

The only nominally women's organisation that has refused them membership, to my knowledge, is the WI.

Ah, sorry. I was skimming while waiting around for my children to arrive. You're correct. Silly me.

For some reason I thought (mistakenly, because I was skim-reading too quickly) that this was a link from the previous poster and I had then compounded things by getting myself in a muddle between the 2022 and 2025 judgements.

I think all my post did was cause confusion unnecessarily. I will report it and ask for it to be deleted.

And @Chersfrozenface I do recognise your username so would have clicked on the link if... if my brain had actually been working and I'd correctly spotted it was you who had posted it... 🤦‍♀️

But they can include trans women, just as long as they include other men.

It's transphobic to welcome trans people...

I would think you were taking the piss now, but this is exactly where the absurdity leads if you insist on it. Like Isla Bumba declaring that she didn't know if she was a man or a woman and everyone talking about women's penises with, presumably, straight faces.

I'll give you people this, you definitely go down with your ship.

Even by your own shaky logic you must see that that makes us 'man-phobes' not 'trans-phobes'. It's the maleness of transwomen that we don't want to encounter in female-only spaces and societies, not their transness.