Page 34 | I wonder what the WI are going to announce on Woman's Hour in the next few minutes?

nauticant · 2025-12-03T10:30:37+00:00

Apparently it will be a matter of the greatest seriousness and sorrow.

Seethlaw · 03/12/2025 20:27

ByCraftyMaker · 03/12/2025 20:13

I’m glad you live in a country where you have that option. But if you were really worried, wouldn’t you use a gender neutral facility?

Show quote history

Oh, right. I didn't think of that possibility because we don't really have that here. But yes, indeed, where a gender neutral facility would be available, that's what I would use.

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 20:27

Shortshriftandlethal · 03/12/2025 20:26

What I find disturbing is your total lack of concern or empathy for actual women -and for their legal protections and rights. I don't know if you are male or female, but whatever the case you don't actually seem to have much bandwidth at all for what could be considered female interests and priorities, or the reasons we have single sex space, services and categories in the first instance.

What you are calling "extremism" is simply a recognition of everyday, common sense, biological reality and its consequences. You seem to think that being able to distinguish between one type of thing and another is an extremist act.

There is nothing to stop you from hosting your own private events to which you can invite and include anyone you like or choose.

Edited

Show quote history

What I find disturbing is your total lack of concern or empathy for actual women -and for their legal protections and rights.

🙄🙄

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 20:29

BreatheAndFocus · 03/12/2025 20:20

it is a demand for a total prohibition on any women's organisation, service, facility, that chooses to welcome/ include trans women

I ask this genuinely not to be snide, Puppy, but have you actually read and taken in all the replies explaining this to you, not least the one you appear to be replying too? You’re misrepresenting the situation. Whether this is due to a lack of understanding or a purposeful attempt to misrepresent things, I don’t know.

You’re misrepresenting the situation

how So?

BonfireLady · 03/12/2025 20:29

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 20:13

It's not hyperbolic it is what you are advocating for and more than one poster on this thread has at least been honest about that.

It is what is happening- hence the announcement of girl guides yesterday and WI today.

it is a demand for a total prohibition on any women's organisation, service, facility, that chooses to welcome/ include trans women.

It is not what the SC said in their judgement and not what I believe they contemplated/ intended.

Edited

Show quote history

it is a demand for a total prohibition on any women's organisation, service, facility, that chooses to welcome/ include trans women.

I've not seen anyone say that these organisations should be banned.

I've seen plenty of people say that these organisations are not single-sex organisations if they allow members of the opposite sex to join. So if that's what you mean by women's organisations prohibiting males as members, then yes..... that's the point. That's what being a women's organisation means.

Shortshriftandlethal · 03/12/2025 20:30

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 20:27

What I find disturbing is your total lack of concern or empathy for actual women -and for their legal protections and rights.

🙄🙄

Show quote history

Not being able to square yourself with the reality that the rest of the world inahbits is not going to do you any favours. Laws are not made on the basis of personal feelings, but on group dynamics which have been observed over time.

MalagaNights · 03/12/2025 20:30

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 20:23

Sure, and your organisation has every right to enforce that as a membership rule. Many other orgs may not require this kind of proof - but that's beside the point.

The point is that - and your case is an excellent demonstration -/your organisation accepts you as polish because your DGF was. Thats their rule for membership/ being polish,

Now- What if the State said- that doesn't make you polish- you are only 1/ 4 polish! Or- you don't have a polish BC. According to the definition of "being Polish" in British law you have to be a polish national at birth!

Would you say your organisation should now be legally required to exclude you or else disband as a
polish org and admit any person of any ethnicity?

Edited

Show quote history

The law doesn't define Polish but it does define women.

That's your real problem isn't it?

You disagree that the definition of women in law is a biological female.

You think it should be whatever some people want it to be.

Tough. Female people need legal protections so we need to be defined in law and the word for that is women.

BonfireLady · 03/12/2025 20:31

MyAmpleSheep · 03/12/2025 20:12

The law allows organisations to choose to be single-sex if they can demonstrate that doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

In fact the law allows associations to choose to be single-sex for any reason, good or bad, or even for no reason at all. The "proportionate means" test applies to various forms of lawful discrimination, and is not relevant to single PC associations.

You can have an association whose membership is open to women for any purpose and for no purpose.

Edited

Show quote history

Good point, thank you.

Yes, I'd forgotten that the rules are different for associations.

FragilityOfCups · 03/12/2025 20:33

Why can't we have some services that are reserved for women at birth and some organisations/ services that include both women and trans women?

I don't understand this at all.

Nearly all organisations include women and trans women. Universities, workplaces. That's.... literally what we do have.

I hadn't actually realised the extent to which this poster was ... unengaged with the facts.

2021x · 03/12/2025 20:33

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 20:23

Sure, and your organisation has every right to enforce that as a membership rule. Many other orgs may not require this kind of proof - but that's beside the point.

The point is that - and your case is an excellent demonstration -/your organisation accepts you as polish because your DGF was. Thats their rule for membership/ being polish,

Now- What if the State said- that doesn't make you polish- you are only 1/ 4 polish! Or- you don't have a polish BC. According to the definition of "being Polish" in British law you have to be a polish national at birth!

Would you say your organisation should now be legally required to exclude you or else disband as a
polish org and admit any person of any ethnicity?

Edited

Show quote history

What is you point as it relates to the WI?

Do you think that males should be permitted to join the WI and if so why do you think they should be?

EyesOpening · 03/12/2025 20:34

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 20:26

I. Understand. Your. Logic/ argument.

Show quote history

It's. Not. My. Logic/argument. It's. The. Law. Get. Over. It.

SexRealismBeliefs · 03/12/2025 20:37

Now now its very late. Food shouldn't be left out for troll identifying puppies. They tend to get over excited.

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 20:37

FragilityOfCups · 03/12/2025 20:33

Why can't we have some services that are reserved for women at birth and some organisations/ services that include both women and trans women?

I don't understand this at all.

Nearly all organisations include women and trans women. Universities, workplaces. That's.... literally what we do have.

I hadn't actually realised the extent to which this poster was ... unengaged with the facts.

🙄

Yes, of course we have any number of mixed sex organisations that are open to all women, trans women, men, trans men, etc. no one is disputing that.

what I was objecting to is the idea that women's organisations must always either include or exclude trans women. That is the black and white extremist thinking. Actually we can very easily have both types of women's orgs. It doesn't have to be all or nothing despite what the fundamentalist claim.

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 20:38

EyesOpening · 03/12/2025 20:34

It's. Not. My. Logic/argument. It's. The. Law. Get. Over. It.

Show quote history

I understand it's your interpretation of the law.
I certainly am not going to "get over it":

Boiledbeetle · 03/12/2025 20:39

Right, I'm off to the Bluestocking. At least the gerbils explain their daft beliefs, which is more than can be said for some posters on here.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 03/12/2025 20:41

what I was objecting to is the idea that women'sorganisations must always either include or exclude trans women men

fixed it for you

sorry you're finding reality and the law sooo bewildering

Seethlaw · 03/12/2025 20:41

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 20:37

🙄

Yes, of course we have any number of mixed sex organisations that are open to all women, trans women, men, trans men, etc. no one is disputing that.

what I was objecting to is the idea that women's organisations must always either include or exclude trans women. That is the black and white extremist thinking. Actually we can very easily have both types of women's orgs. It doesn't have to be all or nothing despite what the fundamentalist claim.

Edited

Show quote history

what I was objecting to is the idea that women's organisations must always either include or exclude trans women.

I don't understand. Either trans women are women, in which case it would be totally illegal to exclude them from any women's organisation. Or they are not, in which case they cannot be included in any women's organisation. It is black and white!

OneBookTooMany · 03/12/2025 20:42

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

eatfigs · 03/12/2025 20:43

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 20:37

🙄

Yes, of course we have any number of mixed sex organisations that are open to all women, trans women, men, trans men, etc. no one is disputing that.

what I was objecting to is the idea that women's organisations must always either include or exclude trans women. That is the black and white extremist thinking. Actually we can very easily have both types of women's orgs. It doesn't have to be all or nothing despite what the fundamentalist claim.

Edited

Show quote history

Why must women's organisations exclude men, gosh I wonder. Could it be because these are organisations for women?

RuthW · 03/12/2025 20:46

theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw · 03/12/2025 10:39

...in April 2026, we will be launching a national network of local WI Sisterhood groups, which will offer monthly opportunities for all people, including transgender women, to come together to socialise, learn from each other, and share their experiences of living as women.

Doesn't the WI only meet monthly anyway? And how can they exclude other men from these special meetings?

No, WIs do not meet once a month. We have about 9 events a month.

FragilityOfCups · 03/12/2025 20:47

what I was objecting to is the idea that women's organisations must always either include or exclude trans women.

Sorry, but you need to be clear in what you type. I know you think any old words can be substituted for others, but if you do that you can't communicate.

As you refuse to let anyone know (that pesky communication again!) what it is you mean by the word 'women', I'm going to assume you mean 'all adults'. So, again, an organisation for 'all adults' (what you think of as 'women') would include trans women.

If you mean something else that isn't 'all adults' you will need to make that clear so I can understand what you mean by 'women's organisations'.

If you mean 'organisations for piano-players' then there would be no discrimination on sex.

If you mean 'organisations for left-handed people' then there would be no discrimination on sex.

If you mean 'organisations for people experiencing disability' then there might be discrimination on disability.

The only way there would be discrimination by sex is if sex was an eligibility criterion.

You don't think that sex is related to whether someone is a woman, so what do YOU mean by 'woman's organisations'? What eligibility criteria are YOU talking about in these orgs if it isn't sex?

JanesLittleGirl · 03/12/2025 20:47

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 19:23

Yes. I do. Where it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

It is my firm belief that this is what the SC judgement intended to provide
for- to allow exactly this.
Not to mandate a total prohibition on women's organisations ever being allowed to be inclusive/ welcoming of trans women. I do not believe they intended/ contemplated the latter for a second: because it's fundamentally antithetical to British democracy.

Show quote history

You may want to refresh your reading of EA2010 Schedule 16. It doesn't mention proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 03/12/2025 20:51

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 20:37

🙄

Yes, of course we have any number of mixed sex organisations that are open to all women, trans women, men, trans men, etc. no one is disputing that.

what I was objecting to is the idea that women's organisations must always either include or exclude trans women. That is the black and white extremist thinking. Actually we can very easily have both types of women's orgs. It doesn't have to be all or nothing despite what the fundamentalist claim.

Edited

Show quote history

But why do these two different concepts, different people grouping for different reasons, have to both have the name "woman"?

Why, when you reject the fundamental basis on which "woman" has been understood for - well, for all of humanity's existence - do you still care so much that that one specific word, out of all the possible words there could be, has to be the one that gets used for these men you care so much more about?

Clearly you think there is a connection between female people and these trans "women" and the other "women" who define themselves as such based on some feeling rather than their sex - but what is it?

medievalpenny · 03/12/2025 20:51

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 20:13

It's not hyperbolic it is what you are advocating for and more than one poster on this thread has at least been honest about that.

It is what is happening- hence the announcement of girl guides yesterday and WI today.

it is a demand for a total prohibition on any women's organisation, service, facility, that chooses to welcome/ include trans women.

It is not what the SC said in their judgement and not what I believe they contemplated/ intended.

Edited

Show quote history

Please could you quote the part of the judgment which you are referring to, thanks.

nicepotoftea · 03/12/2025 20:52

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 20:23

Sure, and your organisation has every right to enforce that as a membership rule. Many other orgs may not require this kind of proof - but that's beside the point.

The point is that - and your case is an excellent demonstration -/your organisation accepts you as polish because your DGF was. Thats their rule for membership/ being polish,

Now- What if the State said- that doesn't make you polish- you are only 1/ 4 polish! Or- you don't have a polish BC. According to the definition of "being Polish" in British law you have to be a polish national at birth!

Would you say your organisation should now be legally required to exclude you or else disband as a
polish org and admit any person of any ethnicity?

Edited

Show quote history

You seem a little unclear on how the legal system works.

For legislation to have any point, there must be recourse to the courts, and the meaning of words does have to be agreed.

If a case went to court, a judge would have to decide what 'Polish' meant and with sufficient appeals, it might go all the way to the Supreme Court, just like the For Women Scotland case.

JanesLittleGirl · 03/12/2025 20:52

puppymaddness · 03/12/2025 19:28

The maternity rights of trans men have never been under any threat and it's not something that has been of concern to that community.

Show quote history

Except that any pregnant transman with a GRC would be liable to prosecution if they procured an abortion as the Abortion Act only covers women.