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.

I believe that this will be the case. Because they cannot discriminate against male people who do not describe themselves as women by allowing in one group of male people and not the other.

What traits would the women and TW groups discern upon to define themselves?

What traits are shared by all born women AND all trans women, but no men and no trans men?

I'm sure they'll conveniently gloss over this and we'll never get a straight answer. 🤔

Law needs specific definitions of words to function.

'Women only' has a specific meaning in law.

If you call yourself 'women only' and then admit trans identifying males and not other males you are discriminating.

If you don't like it, campaign to get the law changed.

We have a choice between "TRA logic", which is illogical, or reality-based logic, which is logical. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the Equality Act 2010 is incoherent using "TRA logic" (i.e. sex means gender identity) and coherent using reality-based logic (i.e. sex means the physical reality we each have). It is a legal principle that Acts of Parliament must be assumed to be coherent if that is possible. Hence sex means biological sex in the Equality Act 2010, because if it didn't there would be illogical outcomes such as "transmen" not having any pregnancy or maternity protection in law.

Have you read the Supreme Court judgement in FWS vs Scottish Ministers? It's very clear and easy to follow.

I am not sure this would be legal, not sure.

If it was legal then - surely - they would have to refuse access to any woman who claimed not to believe that they have a feminine GI and allow any man who said he did, which would make it a really bizarre mixed sex group based on whether you were willing to say some meaningless words on the door.

And it might work.

But the men seeking validation as women might find that men are there (to piss off the men in dresses) whilst women are not there because women who want women's groups want women's groups, at other times they want normal mixed sex spaces.

So you think it should be fine for an association to set itself up with a membership criteria of all men and any straight woman under 25, if those are the sorts of people the leaders of the organization value and want to associate with in their meetings?

The point is , Jamie , that groups for people of Chinese ethnicity groups are , in practice, open to all people who identify / understand themselves to be Chinese, regardless of genetics or identity documents , or whether they look white or black (as many Chinese people may well do), or otherwise.

and it would be utterly wrong for the government to impose rules on these organisations to restrict who they should
define as being of Chinese ethnicity for the purposes of determining their own membership.

So too should the same democratic, liberal and humane principles be applied to women's groups,

I'm rather late to this thread so I don't know if you're still here.

While the WI may have put out various statements on the topic, the only thing that matters is what their constitution (and any policy incorporated by reference into the constitution) says.

The fact that they never got around to changing the constitution to include trans-indentifying men (or also to exclude trans-identifying women) I think speaks volumes as to how they realised that this would go down if it were to go through their normal process for changing their constitution.

Yes the word women has a defintion in the law. Is that what you object to? You think groups should be able to define women however they like? Just make it an identity?

How would women protect single sex spaces and organisations?

If you can outline legislation that would allow women to have single sex spaces and would allow women's groups to admit trans women and trans men, but exclude other men, and the rationale for that discrimination, please write it and campaign for it. You might actually get very little pushback because men may not care too much that they are going to be discriminated against. Go for it.

But we are happy to know we can again have single sex spaces defined and protected in law and don't care enough to join your indignation for the poor men who can't now join the WI.

Have you been equally excercised for the past few years when women couldn't have the groups they wanted? Or is it just the men that has got you so worked up on this?

But would that matter? As long as they were sufficiently clear about the terms of membership (interests etc) , why wouldn't they welcome a few men who meet the requirements but don't identify as women?

Women are now able to join the Garrick, but as far as I understand they still have to be a Garrick kind of person, so I don't understand why the Sisterly Souls couldn't have a similar selection process.

(I also suspect that very few women actually want to joint the Garrick)

Tell you what, why don't you go and bother to read the SC judgement for yourself?

And then come back to us who have actually done so.

The whole point of arguing about the definition of what 'women' means, is to stop women from being able to separate themselves from men.

You can have groups with men to your heart's content.
You can undress with men in changing rooms to your heart's content.
No one is stopping you. Define 'women' however you please.

The law protects women from activists destroying their ability to meet or have access to resources without men present. It prevents them from destroying non consenting women's boundaries and forcing men upon them. It prevents those activitists from denying women anywhere to be without those men, however that affects them.

And that's a bit odd. To put it mildly.

Blimey what? It's precisely what you are demanding,

Woman: I'm a woman because I'm an adult human of the female sex class.
Trans-identifying man: I'm a woman because "trust me bro"

Womanhood isn't based on vibes and spinny skirts and the law reflects that, take it up with the Supreme Court if you don't like it.

If it was legal then - surely - they would have to refuse access to any woman who claimed not to believe that they have a feminine GI

Yes.

But the men seeking validation as women might find that men are there (to piss off the men in dresses) whilst women are not there because women who want women's groups want women's groups

According to the WI there are plenty of women who would wish to join such a club.

they answered someone else asking the same by refusing to answer because they had decided that no matter what they said they reckoned they would get called an idiot, fool or penis panderer! So they weren't going to answer

So, make of that what you will.

@puppymaddness You said earlier in this thread "In this case you are mandating the exclusion of a group of people (against the values of the organisation), because they are trans".

This has been corrected several times by PPs, that is - in law, trans-identifying-men are not being excluded because they are trans, but because they are men, and the WI is, by choice, a single sex organisation for women.

And that is the law, as established in the Supreme Court, that, in law, sex means biological sex, woman means biological woman, - not how a person may 'identify'.

I know the discussion has moved on, but it is worth reiterating. Because it is notable, and revealing, than neither you nor the WI seem to have ever considered trans-identifying-women (so-called 'transmen'). Trans-identifying women are legally entitled to join the WI, a women-only organisation, because they are biological women, and cannot be discriminated against by the WI. Why aren't you cheering this on, that 'transmen' can join the WI? [without a legal battle].

Because of course, nobody thinks of it or cares, because 'transmen' are merely women and don't matter. Trans-ideology is invariably centred on trans-identifying men and men wanting to invade biological women's spaces, sports, etc etc.

Again, also previously pointed out, the WI choose to be a single sex organisation. They could avoid all the hand-wringing today by simply changing policy to be open to both sexes, which would allow trans-identifying-men to join. Simples. The law isn't forcing them to do anything.

If you are an organisation subject to the EA2010 you can choose to operate a mixed sex environment (provided it is not indirectly discriminatory to do so) or a single sex environment (provided it meets a relevant exception test in the EA).

What you may not do, contrary to Stonewall law and now established by FWS, is pretend that actual single sex environments are always unlawful OR misleadingly label an environment as single sex whilst actually permitting a particular sub-set of men in also.

In hindsight I'm not sure why everyone felt the need to jump through so many legal hoops when they could simply have asked Judge Judy to sum it up: "don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining".

If you think it bothers me what you think of me you are very much mistaken.

That pp is demanding I engage in a conversation with them about how they see trans women: I have declined as I know very well it is futile. Their mind is made up and their intentions are entirely insincere:
it's immaterial to the point that I joined this thread to make which concerns the principles of a democratic society.

If there's a group for Chinese women and a white bloke with evidently no Chinese heritage joins, the group are legally allowed to exclude him.

If then a black bloke with evidently no Chinese heritage wants to join and they let him, then they have discriminated against the white bloke.

They either let them both join and admit it is not a group for Chinese women, and anyone of any race and sex can join, or they maintain the criteria for Chinese and women.

Yes Chinese heritage has more fluid boundaries than sex but it's not nothing.

Do you really think anyone can identify as Chinese andChinese people have to accept that as reality?? Really?

Do you really think trans men want to join the WI? Would they actually be allowed to join or would the part of the judgement that says you can exclude a trans person from a space of their birth sex be used?

Women's bollocks or men's bollocks? I suppose you might mean the dog's bollocks, but bollocks are undoubtedly an entirely male phenomenon.

@FranticFrankie The style is indeed familiar/ recognisable.

They may not want to join but they are legally allowed to.