Potential WI Schism

[Igneococcus]

I know there is WI thread but a cannae find it right now:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/c73091fd-d02e-4951-8866-3add883013cf?shareToken=8cfa38d472492bacc9f602cc068c4536

My sentiments exactly 🤣 #letthemspeak

I could assemble a similar collage of images with skeletons or skulls.

The sad thing is that this needs to happen.
And go to court (again) and the charirties commision etc.

And when it comes out that the WI should be woman only or lose its charrities status my worry it that whatever is left will be a target for trans groups such as bash back, who will no doiubt make whoever is left suffer for being a woman.

@MooPointCowsOpinion no one advocates for strip searches and to take it to that extreme shows your lack of constructuve argument.
Basically you believe a male who says he's a female is therefore a female and we don't. It's that simple.
And it's about more than safety, it's comfort, dignity, familiarity, the same reasons why men set up make only clubs, but you're not berating them, just women.

And who's fault is this?
If it's actually true, because when you click on some of these stories they happened a while ago and in different countries so blaming the SC ruling is inaccurate.
Why are we always blamed and asked for solutions to a problem we didn't cause?

But you can’t class “transwomen” as women. They are not women. They are males. So therefore men . So you go and set up the Persons Institute, and those who want a Women’s institute can have that. Sorted. You can have your mixed sex group and women can have their single sex group. Everyone is happy.

I know some transwomen pass. After all, I dye my hair and do other things to pretend I’m not menopausal, or to ameliorate the impact of female ageing. I don’t however attempt to join a group funded for women under 30, and if I had a friend of that age I wanted to meet up with I’d suggest we do one of the 8,000,000 other things on offer in life.

Reading this thread has made me realise I am hopelessly naive. I thought the genital inspection thing was just supposed to be a 'gotcha' because of people claiming they can't tell whether someone is male or female without that (despite it being very easy to tell, often even at quite a distance). It didn't occur to me that it was some blokes getting off on the idea of it that were putting that out there...

I should have realised when reading the tribunal threads when so many women were saying they couldn't tell without checking chromosomes, that the genital inspection was just a male fantasy reply, given that women apparently can't tell even then, but I didn't spot that then...

Edited for typos

A judge recently told a dear friend of mine that it was “six of one and half a dozen of the other” in a custody case where her ex husband had drugged and raped her repeatedly, as well as choked her and slammed her into a wall.

This is absolutely horrible MooPointCowsOpinion. Your poor friend.

This very same man could also decide to identify as a woman at any moment. He may have had secret feelings, who can know.

Do you realise that you are arguing in favour of allowing this same man access to any and all women’s spaces just based on his say so?

Imagine this actual man now and what you know of him. What would you do if you found out that he wanted to join your WI with his claimed womanly feelings? What would you say if you found he was using women’s toilets or was trying enter a women’s refuge? Because under your arguments he absolutely could simply on his say so and you would be one of those supporting and enabling him.

Any man could be some poor woman’s abuser, even if no one else knows it.

Your posts show you have a very entrenched prejudice towards women who don’t agree with your ideological view that somehow a group of male people become female people. Were you aware just how much your characterisation of those women is based in hatred?

If you hate women who disagree with you as much as the language and hyperbole you use indicate, why are you part of the WI where you will meet women who disagree with you on this frequently? It really does come across that you and your friends need to start a small group just for you so you can avoid all those women who you describe so hatefully.

”If my local WI wants to be more inclusive than your local WI, I don’t see why a judge should get to dictate how inclusive we want to be. ”

Because that is how nationally managed groups work.

Your local group is solely dependent on the national group. If your group doesn’t want to follow the charter and rules set by the national group, it is your group that has to leave the national group.

You can start your own group and as long as it stays under 25 people (where it is recognised as a friendship group), you can do what you want. If you have a larger group then you need to abide by the SC Judgement just as the WI has to.

If my local WI wants to be more inclusive than your local WI, I don’t see why a judge should get to dictate how inclusive we want to be. It feels like both sides hate being forced to follow an ideology they don’t believe in, and we are all used to having more choice and freedom than this in this country.

The moment a local WI group would dare to exclude men (including transwomen) they would be targeted by TRAs.

👏 👏

And also, @MooPointCowsOpinion, my rights are not up for grabs for you to give away to men like this ^^

’Judge dictating’ = follow the law. How yucky.

I don’t know why Moo’s obviously chain-yanking posts have got me particularly on the raw, but they have. Maybe because I am so angry with the women who were genuinely happy to kick over our gate when men asked them to, without asking if there was a reason it was there, and also am so furious with the men who decided that this was the gate they had to piss on. I don’t want my cousin Brianna (name changed) who transitioned 20 years ago to appear at the WI. Successful lawyer, all-male school, father of two, yada yada. Don’t want to discuss women’s lives with them. To do them justice, I’m not aware that they were remotely interested in joining the WI, but it’s still important to me that it is possible for me to go to a place where I can be sure men won’t be.

I think if someone is writing about how people need to ‘come kill us’ to change the world when they are living in the UK and discussing whether or not male peoole should be allowed to access female single sex groups as full members, then they personally need to seek mental health support.

Have you thought about why your and your friends’ consent should be given priority over the female people who need female single sex spaces to be female only?

Why is it that you think your wish to include male people supercedes other’s needs to exclude those male people?

You are acknowledging that what you propose is ‘sneaky’, if your personal decision harms someone in your local who will have not told you, because of your personal prejudice, that they want the group to be female only, do you think you are the righteous one?

If you sneakily and deliberately cause your local group’s actions to contravene the national rules you block a local WI from forming in your area that will provide those women who need female single sex spaces to exclude male people. How is that supporting female people with needs different to yours?

In reading your posts, you have vilified and demonised women who disagree with you to such an extreme that you really don’t seem to consider them human.

Women saying no somehow equals hatred.
Men threatening women for accurately recognising them as males and therefore not wishing to have them in certain situations, including states of undress somehow is not only acceptable but progressive.

Fuck that shit.

We ALL know who the men are, even the ones who think they pass. Women are just too scared, polite or feel obligated to keep their mouths shut.

We know that women are much less likely to complain about various unacceptable things because they are told that it won't achieve anything, it's ungrateful or it will harm them. We've had successive maternity scandals that find glaring neglect whilst also wildly reporting that the hospital has absolutely no idea of a problem 'because no one complained'. Worse, still there's plenty of evidence women did complain but it was dismissed as 'not a proper complaint' because women were discouraged from doing so formally.

People need to get it through their thick heads that there is a massive problem with women not feeling able to complain for whatever reason. They don't want to, precisely because they deliberately are avoiding acknowledging the problem because they don't want to, because if they do acknowledge it they have to do something.

Bottom line: plenty of women support twaw and don't want to see a problem because if they do it shatters their perfect vision of the world where everyone is nice and no one is ever an abusive, selfish, highly damaged individual who sees other people as merely a supporting role to their main character. They would have to admit they were wrong and we're too arrogant to listen to vulnerable women and were dismissive of how they were actively participating in their harm by enabling others and preventing women from protecting themselves.

Time and time again we see it: there's no risk assessment because no one ever considered the impact on women. They were not even considered. They were not consulted. They were just labelled as bigotted by people who couldn't be arsed to even listen to what they were saying and why they were saying it and more importantly what their motivation and intent was. JKR being the prime example - cos a left wing woman, who has given her money to supporting and helping vulnerable women suddenly becomes a monster who hates people and wants them to die, except that's not remotely close to the very very measured and intelligent comments she's made, that no one bothered to read and instead they passed judgement on her based on their mate saying she was a witch who should be burnt at the stake. It's complete irrational nonsense.

Likewise many of us have friends who seem to think, despite knowing us well for many years and knowing what we believe and why we believe it, that we suddenly wish death on transpeople when all we want is privacy and dignity without being abused.

I accept everyone for who and what they are; the flip to this is you don't fucking lie to me and expect me to trust you and you don't expect me to pretend you are something you are not.

Men can't change sex and ultimately we all know this; even twaw types who end up treating transwomen completely differently to biological women. The pandering to transpeople generally shows up the huge fucking farce it all is.

And we are all supposed to pretend it's not a farce, it's not based on offensive gender stereotypes and it doesn't have a significant cost to the well being of women (and children). We are all supposed to silence those who are actively harmed: the detransitioners, the family members, the women who have been victims of voeyers and sexual abuse, the sports women etc - because they ruin the narrative that transpeople are the most vulnerable in society when they have huge lobby groups trying to actively suppress these people.

No. The answer is no.

We are not doing this shit anymore.

Tantrums can be thrown. We are not here to validate delusional.

Women are not non-men. Women are not men without penises. Just because you don't feel manly it doesn't make you a woman. Like FGS just how fucking offensive is this mentality?!

No.

Overriding someone else's consent is the essence of abuse.

You don't get to consent for other adults.

If one woman says no to men, this should be enough.

So if you are sneaky and clever about it you can break the law?

any other laws you want to be sneaky and clever about moo

I put it down to the overly emotive, ridiculously hyperbolic language that has been used and the almost fundamentalist fervour of the posts for me.

‘cunt checks’? Really? That is not far off from calling them ‘fuck / bonus hole checks’.

When I see that kind of language being used, I suspect that the person has been heavily influenced by male people who find that action very appealing and so encourage that kind of language as a defence as to why they should be allowed to remain in a female single sex provision. Genital checks and a magic inability to correctly identify a male person’s sex without cheek swabs and strip searches are all well used male defences.

Add in that there really are women out there who would willingly destroy the WI for this fundamentalist fervour and it really is rather disconcerting to see the type of person who supports the ‘sneaking’ around protest. The protest that the same people consider harmless, yet look at the degree of hatred on display in these posts.

Really, really concerning.

Yes.

Agreed. Another superb post from Red.

Are you mad?

Michael Foran made the best point on this - that people don't think having speed limits means there'll be a policeman sitting in every car checking you don't go over 30.

Yes. Stepping carefully away.

It's fairly obvious now that these activists are going to be the end of WI and Guides. As they seem to do with everything.