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.

The husband of a Mumsnetter was suing the WI. The batshit poor quality of their legal advise was so disappointing. I’d ask for a refund if I were the WI.

I’ll go take a gander to see if I can find what they’re called.

There's nothing anti-democratic about keeping the WI for women only.
It sounds perfectly logical to me.

But also a country with a massively religious patriarchal history, so unsurprisingly the men can have whatever they want

Surely the sisterhood has to be a mixed sex added extra which will not be popular with women, nor popular with men who claim a TW identity. The WI will just have to keep their fingers crossed that men who don't wear dresses don't turn up.

You are arguing that it should be for "any adult", or is there some additional membership criterion you would implement that doesn't rely on the undefined word "woman"?

You seem strangely unable to answer this extremely basic question and instead go off spluttering about democracy.

(We all know why you can't say but it's sometimes fun to watch sexist people dodge the question)

Ironically once they become the Mixed Sex Institute they cease to be of interest to TIMs.

Leigh Day - ha ha 🤣

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5377946-dh-v-the-wi-thread-2?reply=146152484&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

🎉🥳🎊🪩🎈✨🎆

The legal argument they were going to rely on seemed very odd. And basically underlined how they hadn't included any other protected groups in their thinking either.

@another2cats husband will be back on the case if he can’t join the sisterhood.

They should rename it SiblingInTheHood

I was also tempted to give the announcement on the WI Facebook group it the thumbs up and celebrate emoji.

My WI signed a letter condemning the SC decision earlier in the year. I was upset by it (although kept it to myself) as it was just such nonsense. The ignorance of how equality law works and benefits it gives women was being chucked out of the window in order to be seen to be “kiiiiiinnnnnddd” and “inclusive”

Well the point of single sex spaces for women is that they are there to be destroyed, so of course TWs are going to lose interest in destroying something once there is nothing left.

This is why I would rather poke my own eyes out than be a communications manager these days... Lordy!

I know a lot of transwomen and they'd never dream of attending a WI event. They just want to get on with their own lives thanks.

This just demonstrates to me that it's a few unhinged TW players making a lot of noise and shoving their pickles where they are not wanted.

….but they have changed their membership policy anyway? Just for shits and giggles…Oh my gosh this is comedy gold.

I understand your logic loop entirely . The issue is that it only works if you accept its premise that trans women are men. This does not reflect the opinions/ values / understanding of the women's institute, nor a significant component of British society. Are we allowed to have competing perspectives and understandings of things or not? Or do we want to live in a society where one side of a political debate imposes their understandings and definitions of things on the rest (backed through legal action funded by billionaires) and uses that to restrict the operations/ memberships of civil society organisations?

Indeed, when people behaved, there was a tacit acceptance of sorts. When they started threatening violence, that disappeared.

This comment shows that you did not read the judgement in full yourself. It was anything but shallow.

That interview with Melissa Green was unbelievable- CEO of the bloody Women's Institute saying she’s so sad about the law saying they are not allowed to be including men any more.

Honestly WTF did this person say in their CEO job interview to get this job? She can’t even represent the most basic legal facts properly, despite saying the WI have spent money on their own legal advice. What a waste of membership fees.

Massively transphobic and sexist of Melissa Green to use 'trans' to only mean transwomen in this way. The WI is in no way ‘stopping being trans inclusive’ as she just officially put on record on the BBC- WI will still be just as open to transmen as it always has been. But of course they don’t matter to people like Melissa Green..

Unless Melissa Green literally means that she’s now going to be taking the same approach as Girl Guiding UK used to do of kicking out members who were girls who said they didn’t feel like girls.

In which case I would happily stand with any transman who is currently a member of WI and if Melissa Green’s actual words are literally meant, would now be being (unlawfully at this point) asked to leave WI because of how they identify.

What a total train wreck of an interview.

You have to be male to be referred to as a transwoman. Men are adult human males. This is just earthly, biological reality. The 'politics' bit is where you try to impose a post modernistic concept of the self onto an unwilling population.

Are we allowed to have competing perspectives and understandings of things or not?

Not if they contradict the sex based rights that society have given to women (and men) and LGB people (and heterosexuals).

Do you support the right of racists to have white-only companies who neer emply black people, or is that a competing perspective that you disagree with?

Yep, why are they then at such apparent sadness.

How are transwomen women exactly?

what independent , objective measure can we use to determine women from men?

Plus, you do realise that trans-ideology has been funded by american billionnaire dollars for many years. By some of those middle aged male billionnaires who decided, mid life, that they fancied being a woman ( Rothblatt, Pritzker etc).That JK Rowling has decided to put her wealth to good use in the service of women and girls is another issue. Most of the court cases currently being brought were crowd-funded, anyway.

I was amused by
puppymaddness
I hope the SC are taking note of the ridiculous consequences of their shallowly thought-through judgement.

It reminded me of
'The Skibbereen Eagle has its Eye on The Tsar',
a headline which appeared in a very small local newspaper in 1898, which is used as an example of 'almost comical self-aggrandisement'.

I'm sure at this very moment Lord Hodge, Lady Rose, Lady Simler, Justice Reed and Justice Lloyd-Jones are reading your posts with a growing sense of dread as they realise that they didn't do their job properly, rattled through the process without looking into it properly and got it completely wrong. Resignations will surely follow.

In fact, why not just scrap the whole Supreme Court mullarkey and give the gig to puppymaddness, who clearly not only has a better knowledge of the law, but also a better work ethic than these slipshod judges with their shallowly thought-through judgements?

Alternatively, there may be an opening as editor of the Skibbereen Eagle..

Yet the Supreme Court and everyone of sound mind who understands basic Human Biology begs to differ! Funny that. 🤔😂