Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

1000 replies

nauticant · 03/12/2025 10:30

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

OP posts:
SternJoyousBeev2 · 03/12/2025 22:15

2021x · 03/12/2025 22:10

And to add this is why I am confused about the decision for the WI.

TW have been permitted as a matter of policy since the 1970s and therefore all members knew what they are signing up for. So I don't understand why they have decided to make it single sex again when they had a system that was working well.

Because they are not operating legally and they were facing legal action. They are a charity and have a charter that they cannot just decide to change. However they also didn’t want to change their charter as they want to stay woman only but in name only.

2021x · 03/12/2025 22:16

Catiette · 03/12/2025 22:08

Honestly, that was one of my thoughts, too. I think the original question was intended to be rhetorical - correct answer: it would be wrong to be forced to out myself. But so many such groups are hosted in women's own homes. If I were hosting a stated women's book club, and a male attended, I could feel unsafe and would certainly feel misled. That the poster asking this felt the answer was self-explanatory suggests this hadn't occurred to them. In other words, transwomen and women are different. We each need the right to our own words and spaces!

What P is arguing to me seems to be, despite tens of pages so far, pretty simple. To permit "women" to have a word of their own that excludes males who self-identify as women is authoritarian overreach by a (necessarily sinister-sounding, with a capital "S") State that contravenes the norms of democratic society. Yes, transwomen and women can mix in a multitude of contexts. Yes, they can enjoy each others' company. But transwomen must be able to call themselves women. MUST.

When you get down to the bare bones of it, it's laughably absurd and deeply ironic. Fundamentally (another reoccurring word-family that's apt here on several levels), P wants to deny 51% of the population any word of their own. At all. And that 51% would be the half who only just got the vote less than 100 years ago, note (which seems relevant, given that democratic values are central to their convictions). And as such, by logical extension, P argues that a democratic society now should in fact deny this group the ability to distinguish and name themselves, and thereby to advocate for their needs and rights.

Meanwhile, other posters are repeatedly pointing out the infinity of ways in which transwomen and women may still enjoy each other's company, with the only limiting factor being that this isn't under the descriptor "Woman", as that word's long since been taken and remains urgently needed. They're patiently explaining the law, the ethics, the philosophy and the biology of this. Again, and again, and again. Only to face the same old rhetoric, with little nuance and no meaningful acknowledgement of their points.

I sure know which of the two viewpoints being presented in this thread sounds inflexible, sinister and even somewhat authoritarian to me...

Edited

I see this similarites like this about the debate about abortion.

Most women are pretty disturbed about the idea of abortion, but most women (and even a lot of men), understand belive that you cannot make that decision for other women.

This is where Emma Watson could have pushed discussion forward, in her when speaking to her trans friend. When she said she wouldn't have a problem with the person she was talking to in the toilets, she could have followed it up with "but I cannot make that decision for all women". I think that is the point that JK Rowling should have focused on rather than going off on a weird tangent about class.

Namelessnelly · 03/12/2025 22:16

2021x · 03/12/2025 22:10

And to add this is why I am confused about the decision for the WI.

TW have been permitted as a matter of policy since the 1970s and therefore all members knew what they are signing up for. So I don't understand why they have decided to make it single sex again when they had a system that was working well.

Working well for whom? For the women who wanted a single sex group and didn’t get one?

Viviennemary · 03/12/2025 22:18

PrettyDamnCosmic · 03/12/2025 16:59

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.

There is no such thing as gender reassignment. If people want to live as a different gender/sex that's up to them. But it doesnt make them of that sex.

2021x · 03/12/2025 22:20

SternJoyousBeev2 · 03/12/2025 22:15

Because they are not operating legally and they were facing legal action. They are a charity and have a charter that they cannot just decide to change. However they also didn’t want to change their charter as they want to stay woman only but in name only.

Thats what I am confused about. I don't know how charitiable purposes change, but there must be some function in the law that lets them do that when society changes. For example Stonewall went from advocating from LGB people rights to trans-gendwhich are are completely different.

But if this system was working for the WI- why don't they change their name to WI (rather than Womens Institute) and make it a mixed sex organisation.

ByCraftyMaker · 03/12/2025 22:21

medievalpenny · 03/12/2025 22:04

Given the threats of violence and women losing their jobs and friends for expressing discomfort about transwomen in women's spaces, how confident are you that any woman deeply uncomfortable and unhappy with your attendance at what was once a women's book club would dare to say anything?

Because I would not be confident at all. Certainly not confident enough to be crowing about it online as proof that it's fine for men to insert themselves into women's groups.

If this story is true, I think your decision was incredibly selfish and disrespectful, and it is a shame that you lack the insight to recognise this doesn't prove what you are holding it out to prove.

I was worried about that and I’d never want anyone to be afraid of what I’d do if they rejected me.

I’m quite observant so I hope I’d notice if someone was uncomfortable, but the women in the group are friendly with me when they have no obligation to do that.

Chersfrozenface · 03/12/2025 22:22

TW have been permitted as a matter of policy since the 1970s and therefore all members knew what they are signing up for.

Really? Where was that made clear?

Namelessnelly · 03/12/2025 22:23

ByCraftyMaker · 03/12/2025 22:00

You’re welcome to your beliefs, but I’m pretty sure the people that attend don’t see it way

So if you had a book club for transpeople only and your friend was not trans would you take them along? If not, why not? Why have you and your friend decided to take away the other members ability to consent to making the club mixed sex by her inviting you? Do the other members not matter? Are they just support humans to you? Or don’t you believe they have the right to choose if they want to open their group up to men?

nicepotoftea · 03/12/2025 22:23

ByCraftyMaker · 03/12/2025 22:21

I was worried about that and I’d never want anyone to be afraid of what I’d do if they rejected me.

I’m quite observant so I hope I’d notice if someone was uncomfortable, but the women in the group are friendly with me when they have no obligation to do that.

How many people are in the book club?

ETA: and who organises it?

2021x · 03/12/2025 22:23

Chersfrozenface · 03/12/2025 22:22

TW have been permitted as a matter of policy since the 1970s and therefore all members knew what they are signing up for.

Really? Where was that made clear?

Thats what the article says

SwirlyGates · 03/12/2025 22:23

2021x · 03/12/2025 22:10

And to add this is why I am confused about the decision for the WI.

TW have been permitted as a matter of policy since the 1970s and therefore all members knew what they are signing up for. So I don't understand why they have decided to make it single sex again when they had a system that was working well.

I've never been a member of the WI, but I'll bet a lot of members didn't know that was part of the deal. In any case, how many trans women* were there in the 1970s? The chances of one joining your branch would have been minuscule. Unlike now.

Transsexuals, cross dressers, whatever. "Trans women" wasn't a term back then.

ProfessorBettyBooper · 03/12/2025 22:25

If transwomen had asked politely to be part of some groups with women to demonstrate support for women and to enjoy shared interests, I doubt we'd be where we are now.

But TRAs didn't do this. They demanded access to all women's groups for their own benefit. Then shouted and threatened anyone who raised concerns.

And even now that we have the SC ruling, they are still being completely centred by some people.

HildegardP · 03/12/2025 22:25

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 03/12/2025 10:34

Very odd way of phrasing, "We have for some years now been in breach of the law & our own governing document & we would have got away with it but for those pesky FWS prompting the SC to elucidate the law in extraordinarily simple prose that not even we can continue to pretend we don't understand".

nutmeg7 · 03/12/2025 22:26

2021x · 03/12/2025 20:09

I understand why it makes sense for GirlGuides to remain single sex, but I do not understand why the WI chose to keep it single sex. They already had a policy of including trans women, and I am assuming this means that non-trans men were self-selecting out anyway.

They were not forced to because of the clarification in the ERA, they could have still have called themselves the WI and changed some paperwork around making it mixed. They chose not too and I would like to know what was their reasoning.

Perhaps their constitution requires membership approval for a change as fundamental as this to their foundational statements about being for women and women’s companionship and education etc.

And maybe those at the top realised that the membership wouldn’t choose this if given a free vote, especially if they understood that it meant making it mixed sex ie open to all men.

So like many aspects of “trans rights” it was brought in under cover, deliberately not asking the rank and file members.

Chersfrozenface · 03/12/2025 22:27

2021x · 03/12/2025 22:23

Thats what the article says

Until I can see documents verifiably from the 1970s to the 2020s stating that policy clearly, to prove that members knew what they were signing up to, I'll be calling that part of the article retconning.

Boiledbeetle · 03/12/2025 22:29

2021x · 03/12/2025 22:20

Thats what I am confused about. I don't know how charitiable purposes change, but there must be some function in the law that lets them do that when society changes. For example Stonewall went from advocating from LGB people rights to trans-gendwhich are are completely different.

But if this system was working for the WI- why don't they change their name to WI (rather than Womens Institute) and make it a mixed sex organisation.

Because the WI aren't stupid. They know that banning men will only lose them a few yearly subscriptions from the men who lose out. Making it mixed sex could potentially mean vast swathes of the women who keep the charity afloat with their subs, time and donations might leave.

They chose the option that has the best chance of keeping the money coming in

2021x · 03/12/2025 22:29

ByCraftyMaker · 03/12/2025 22:21

I was worried about that and I’d never want anyone to be afraid of what I’d do if they rejected me.

I’m quite observant so I hope I’d notice if someone was uncomfortable, but the women in the group are friendly with me when they have no obligation to do that.

To give you some insight. Women do not have the physical strength or speed to be able to fight or run away (flight) from a man. Therefore women manage their fear is that they will freeze (i.e. not say anything to not rock the boat) or they will fawn (be nice to someone so they relax and therefore reducing the risk of physical violence).

I have no doubt that some of the women do not care, but I also know that there will be some that do and they are just trying to work out how they are going to go about this and you have essentially transferred some of your stress about your sex on to other people to deal with.

You are letting your own internal feelings override your ability to empathise with the women in this book group. We know that they attend a womens only book group, meaning their expectations are that there are no men present. There will be a multi-tude of reasons for this. You are behaving disrespectfully towards them by not giving them taking away that option from them.

This is not about you as a person, this is about the interactions between males and females.

2021x · 03/12/2025 22:30

Boiledbeetle · 03/12/2025 22:29

Because the WI aren't stupid. They know that banning men will only lose them a few yearly subscriptions from the men who lose out. Making it mixed sex could potentially mean vast swathes of the women who keep the charity afloat with their subs, time and donations might leave.

They chose the option that has the best chance of keeping the money coming in

This is certainly an option, I wonder if there were other options as well that we just haven't thought about.

nutmeg7 · 03/12/2025 22:30

SwirlyGates · 03/12/2025 22:23

I've never been a member of the WI, but I'll bet a lot of members didn't know that was part of the deal. In any case, how many trans women* were there in the 1970s? The chances of one joining your branch would have been minuscule. Unlike now.

Transsexuals, cross dressers, whatever. "Trans women" wasn't a term back then.

Exactly. It was “old school” transsexuals or transvestites. I dislike the framing of what was happening 40 years ago in today’s terms, it’s disingenuous. No-one framed men who identified as women as actually being the opposite sex in the 1970s.

2021x · 03/12/2025 22:31

Chersfrozenface · 03/12/2025 22:27

Until I can see documents verifiably from the 1970s to the 2020s stating that policy clearly, to prove that members knew what they were signing up to, I'll be calling that part of the article retconning.

OK, I will also be interested to see them when you find them.

SternJoyousBeev2 · 03/12/2025 22:32

2021x · 03/12/2025 22:20

Thats what I am confused about. I don't know how charitiable purposes change, but there must be some function in the law that lets them do that when society changes. For example Stonewall went from advocating from LGB people rights to trans-gendwhich are are completely different.

But if this system was working for the WI- why don't they change their name to WI (rather than Womens Institute) and make it a mixed sex organisation.

They don’t want to be mixed sex. The high heid yins want to include TW and pretend to still be single sex.

I expect the majority of their members want to be single sex and actually be single sex not the pretendy kind.

As for charitable status I have no idea how Stonewall were able to pivot from LGB rights to identity bollocks. But I have never looked at the charitable aims so don’t know how far they have drifted. But a charity set up to advance and promote various opportunities for women and girls shoots themselves in the foot if they become mixed sex.

Chersfrozenface · 03/12/2025 22:33

2021x · 03/12/2025 22:31

OK, I will also be interested to see them when you find them.

I've a feeling we'll both be waiting in vain.

Catiette · 03/12/2025 22:33

ByCraftyMaker · 03/12/2025 22:21

I was worried about that and I’d never want anyone to be afraid of what I’d do if they rejected me.

I’m quite observant so I hope I’d notice if someone was uncomfortable, but the women in the group are friendly with me when they have no obligation to do that.

Huh. ETA, sorry for the crazed bold and random asterisks. I may feel strongly, but that wasn't my intention! Hopefully it's all gone now...?

You keep coming back to your own perception of these women's interiority as the deciding factor, Crafty. Can you see that some readers here may see that as denying them meaningful autonomy? You're making the decision for them. You may be trying to do so sensitively and empathetically by reading the room as carefully as possible... but you can't avoid that fact that all you have to work with is their external signifiers of support, and your interpretation of these. The moment you join the club, their actual subjective reality becomes secondary to your own. You can never know their true views on the situation for certain.

And, yes, that's a sad fact of human experience (and one I struggle with, always trying to guess others' thoughts and emotions!) But it's precisely because it's a sad fact of human experience that society functions by respecting the various ways in which others delineate their boundaries. This would include permitting females the use of the word "woman" to be able to distinguish themselves, and respecting its application.

It's worth mentioning that it's transactivism, and the utter intransigence of posters like P, that have led me to take this harder line. TRAs have taught me that, to such as P, gracefully conceding your own (potentially, yes, entirely welcome) attendance at the book club is seen as synonymous with offering up the word "woman" itself on a silver platter. And that, women can't afford to do.

SwirlyGates · 03/12/2025 22:33

ProfessorBettyBooper · 03/12/2025 22:25

If transwomen had asked politely to be part of some groups with women to demonstrate support for women and to enjoy shared interests, I doubt we'd be where we are now.

But TRAs didn't do this. They demanded access to all women's groups for their own benefit. Then shouted and threatened anyone who raised concerns.

And even now that we have the SC ruling, they are still being completely centred by some people.

I've just been reading posts on facebook saying that the WI and GG had trans women and girls for years with no issues but have now given in to bullies! Beggars belief!

(Plus the usual rubbish about gender critical people being obsessed with what's in people's pants - nothing about males dominating groups and interrupting or patronising the women. And you'd think they'd never heard of trans sex offenders).

2021x · 03/12/2025 22:34

SternJoyousBeev2 · 03/12/2025 22:32

They don’t want to be mixed sex. The high heid yins want to include TW and pretend to still be single sex.

I expect the majority of their members want to be single sex and actually be single sex not the pretendy kind.

As for charitable status I have no idea how Stonewall were able to pivot from LGB rights to identity bollocks. But I have never looked at the charitable aims so don’t know how far they have drifted. But a charity set up to advance and promote various opportunities for women and girls shoots themselves in the foot if they become mixed sex.

It would be intersting to get those board meeting minutes though to see what they were using to make those decisions.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.