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.

It's the law - if an organisation is for women, that doesn't include men (with or without a special ticket). If a changing room is for women, then no men are allowed. Rinse and repeat.

No need for wailing, seething or complaining. Nice and simple.

Transwomen are male, they are men, they are not women.

That is just a fact, recognised by the law.

Any organisation that accept transwomen is, ipso facto, mixed sex. And discriminatory, if accepts some men and not others.

Nooooo males with a trans identity are excluded from women’s group because they’re not women. Doesn’t matter how people feel about them. It’s the law. If they’re thst upset, why don’t they set up the Transwomens Institute. Then everyone will be happy won’t they?

Well duhhhh

thank you for confirming that what you are seeking is an outright prohibition on any women's groups/ organisations that are inclusive of trans women.

As mentioned upthread, I'm an RDA (Riding for the Disabled Assoication) coach. A few years after its foundation, carriage driving was included so the registered charity name is technically Riding for the Disabled Association Incorporating Carriage Driving A UK Company Limited. This wasn't sneaked in, and nobody has ever had to pretend driving is the same as riding.

Nobody wants to ban the WI- just ensure it is either properly single sex, or clearly labelled as mixed sex.

You are simply unable to comprehend that some women see trans women differently to you

Could you perhaps explain the difference? What is the thing that makes a woman different to a man, but like a trans woman?

and don't see trans women as being the same as men.

Again, hope they aren't employed in healthcare.

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

I'm not trying to make it illegal. The legislation already exists. If you want to change the legislation, you need to campaign to remove women's rights.

A transwoman is a man.
A transman is a woman.

If I identify as a dog, the Battersea dogs home will not take me in.

The WI is a trans inclusive organisation, as is Girlguides. They welcome females who identify as trans or non binary.

Its a really silly decision. They're not accepting any more members who are trans. But does that mean the ones that are members can stay members. It doesn't particularly bother me if trans people are allowed to join. But the WI constantly saying they're women when they are not is wrong.

Nope, they have been told that males who identify as transwomen can no longer be members from April 2026

No it doesn't. When their membership for this year expires in April 2026 they can't continue.

They don't need to be prohibited. Just clearly labelled as mixed sex. You seem to be implying that transwomen only care about the "women's" in the club name, not the actual activity that takes place within?

No. There can be groups thst include males with a trans identity. They just can’t call themselves women’s groups and they will have to let men without a trans identity in as well. So a mixed sex, all gender group. Why would that upset males with a trabs identity?

How do you know? Have you done a survey?

Why would anyone need to ‘fight for the right’ of transmen to join women’s organisations when they already have that right? That’s like saying we should fight for same sex marriage… oh wait, we already have that right too.

A transwoman is a man.
A transman is a woman.

That's literally the ONLY necessary and sufficient condition to be trans.

You can only be a transwoman if you're a man. You can only be a transman if you're a woman.

You only need to be a man to be a transwoman. You only need to be a woman to be a transman.

Thus: transwomen are men, and transmen are women. It's basic logic.

There is no definition in UK law of a "trans woman". Men who want to be women so much that they are transitioning to the opposite gender enjoy the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

A simpler, 5-step summary for Puppy.

1. Women had a word of their own and the right to gather by themselves. They kindly accommodated men identifying as women in some contexts.

2. Men identifying as women wanted more, and removed women's right to have a word of their own and gather by themselves.

3. This forced women to take these men to court, which led to an explicit, hardline clarification of the law making 1) no longer possible in the same form.

4. Women's groups are kindly suggesting alternative ways to accommodate men identifying as women.

5. Men identifying as women are furious and perceive this as akin to religious fundamentalism or authoritarian regimes.

I mean, it's an object lesson in the consequences of overstepping the mark!

And it also rather beautifully models men's gendered expectations of women, and women's patient accommodation of these expectations.

Above all, though, it demonstrates the need for women to retain legal recognition and protections from men as a class in their own right.

yes and they also welcomed trans women, until logics such as yours insisted that there must be a total, absolute, state-imposed prohibition on any women's group/ organisation that welcomes/ includes trans women.

I have been a WI member for years. There are no trans members in our branch. I'm absolutely bloody delighted about this, not sad at all. But no one has asked me.

No, we'd like to retain the option of a single sex provision alongside a mixed sex option where appropriate, and if chosen.

The WI welcomed transwomen. But not other men.

It was therefore illegally discriminatory.

No, the law as explained by the SC recognises that men can have a GRC and this makes them legally a woman (and they cannot be discriminated because of this status). But that legality cuts no ice when a service is for women (or men) only, because sex, woman and man are defined as biological, and identified at birth. So basically a GRC - which no-one can ask to see - is a bit pointless. It won't get a holder admitted to a woman's single sex space and those single sex spaces (which includes clubs etc and Lesbian dating apps) are legal.
A woman is a member of the sex which produces large gametes. We all know what a woman is - and it's not a man however he identifies.
It's a (shrinking) minority that thinks otherwise - and it will shrink further as the repercussions of allowing men into women's spaces becomes more and more obvious.

Because when a women's group admits men it ceases to be a women's group.

Again what is the thing that women are supposed to share with trans women that they don't share with men that makes it so impossible for the WI to admit other men.

Maybe the leaders who are sad and regretful about this decision might like to canvas their members for their opinions. I think they might be surprised how many are actually delighted. Though not necessarily about the Sisterhood groups.