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.

Similarly I'm not excluded as a woman because I can't use a disabled parking space without a blue badge.

Exactly. So if they called themselves the women’s institute abd let men in, males with a trans identity would be welcome. But if they don’t allow males without a trans identity, they can’t allow males with a trans identity. So they either allow all men in or none. They chose to allow none.

You seem stuck in a fundamentalist, anti democratic loop on this thread pup. Presumably you have no arguments to promote?

As Catiette so thoughtfully explained to you above :

"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).
Humans need language to describe their world. The word "woman" (and "girl") is used to describe the 51% of the population who are female.
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.
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.
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.
In this context, organisations like the WI were persuaded that it was "inclusive" to accept males calling themselves "women" as members.
Women and men who could see that the WI's original values had been corrupted in excluding women to include men, challenged this democratically.
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.
This is distressing for transwomen, who had been misled into believing they could use resources set up for the oppressed class known as women.
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".

You may be one of the minority in favour of "the authoritarian redefinition of women that denied them spaces and even a word of their own" but these Victorian attitudes to women are very outdated.
Sad times.

Oh away with your accusations calling people transphobes just because I don't want the male of the species in women only spaces and organisations.

Why would I be fighting to let some women who are already allowed into a group into a group? That makes no fucking sense. What a waste of time and energy that would be.

I was merely correcting your assertion (that was as stated at the time I responded on the post that you have since edited) that the women's organisation are being prohibited from being trans inclusive. They aren't. They can allow transmen in.

They are however allowed to exclude men, which includes those men who claim to be women.

ETA my response was to the original version of the other persons post, not the version as it currently stands

does anyone have a link to thd thread were the posters husband was taking action to join the WI as a man?

What? An organisation whose founding principles are based on supporting women having to exclude men? The horror!

It is a legal enforcement of the Equality Act. The Equalities Act includes 'Sex' as a protected characteristic. This means that 'the state', as you put it considers that female people have the right to privacy and dignity and to equal opportunities. This is what women's organisations provide.

your narrow and dogmatic opinions about what "a woman" is.

What is wrong with definitions being narrow? Do you think there should be a range of opinions on what constitutes the following:

"over 18"
"halal"
"step free"

Or should organisations be free to apply their own interpretations?

What about transmen who don't pass and feel unsafe surrounded by men (eg the transman who joined a women's walking group and then complained that people didn't chat with them). What about transmen who have become transmen to escape sexual harassment from men, not to escape socialising with women?

Puppy, please stop appropriating all these very serious and necessary words. Fundamentalism. Prohibition. Phobia. Segregation. Authoritarianism. Woman!

Just like we need a word for the class of people locked in their homes in Afghanistan, we need words like those above to remain meaningful.

Telling trans-identifying males that they can't sing Jerusalem once a month is not the same as the Deep South of the '30s, apartheid South Africa and fundamentalist terrorism.

I actually have a lot of sympathy with transwomen caught up in this right now, but your posts are so extreme that they make it harder to take this seriously.

You don't need to implicitly appropriate other issues or civil rights movements, any more than you needed to take our word, "woman".

To do so is disrespectful to the people who suffer/ed under genuinely authoritarian and abusive regimes, and it's disrespectful to the (now nameless) group who were deprived of the vote a mere 100 years ago.

Fight this battle honestly, on your own terms! Let transwomen be proud to be transwomen, in their own right, and let trans cause speak for itself, with more honesty and self-respect.

Hahahaha!

Yes. I understand. You are fine with organisations that include both men and women.

What you specifically wish to ban - outlaw completely and entirely , is any civil society organisation for women that also includes / welcomes trans women.

Add in-growing hairs... 😬

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5333650-an-update-to-the-wi-announcement-thread-my-dh-just-got-a-reply-to-his-application-to-join-them

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5377946-dh-v-the-wi-thread-2

Except they’re not, they’re men cosplaying at being women.

Yet your posts still make no sense.

The Women's institute is free to include men if they wish.

The only thing they can't do is offer limited membership to some men because that is unlawful discrimination, like a golf club only allowing women on Fridays.

I genuinely don't understand why they don't just become mixed sex if they are happy to welcome some male members. Why exclude some men because they have a different gender identity or none?

I wonder if mumsnet considers this to be transphobic?

Yes. I understand. You are fine with organisations that include both men and women.

What you specifically wish to ban - outlaw completely and entirely , is any civil society organisation for women that also includes / welcomes trans women.

What about them?

Did the transman at the walking group make much of an effort and strike up conversations? Or did she wait to see if anyone approached her? I wasn't there so don't know, but she was allowed to join the women's walk so.....?

The transmen who became transmen to escape sexual harassment from men can still socialise with women so....?

I've just read their announcement. what a sh1tshow . Read this bit "To be able to continue operating as the Women’s Institute - a legally recognised women’s organisation and charity - we must act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment and restrict formal membership to biological women only. However, this change is only in respect to our membership policy and does not change our firm belief that transgender women are women". The world has gone mad!

I genuinely don't understand why they don't just become mixed sex if they are happy to welcome some male members

this is the problem in a nutshell. You are simply unable to comprehend that some women see things differently to you , and don't see trans women as being the same as men.

You are free to feel the way you do . I see it as narrow and prejudiced , but I can't stop you.

What is wrong is you are trying to make it completely illegal for any women's group to include trans women, because of how you feel about trans women.

Can you imagine how annoying they must be!

The pp isn’t the Supreme Court or parliament. The laws are set and defined and the WI follows them.

I would not agree with this no.

If you don't see that a group that consists of female people plus male people is a mixed sex group then your grasp of logic is appalling.

Well duhhhh. Cos males with a trans identity are not women. Why would they be welcome in women’s groups? Would a person without a trans identity be allowed to join groups only for those with a trans identity? If not, why not?