The new WI equality, diversity and inclusion policy - it’s worse and includes the thought police

[Marmaladelover]

This is the new EDI policy all WIs have to sign and agree .

The last one was bad enough , the new one discriminates against anyone who doesn’t think Transwomen are women. Please note the sentence
We expect all those who engage in the WI movement to uphold the same values.

I am furious! So what to do about it ?

Main bits I disagree with copied below

Our inclusion of transgender women in activities outside of membership is based on our belief that being a woman is about biology and lived experience

One of the objectives

• Highlight and celebrate the diverse membership of the WI, and ensure that our wider movement offers support and fellowship to all women, including transgender women and others.

Aside from WI membership, we offer other ways to engage with the WI movement, locally, regionally and nationally, including being a WI Supporter and belonging to one
of our Sisterhood groups. We expect all those who engage in the WI movement to uphold the same values.

11. Transgender inclusion
The WI is an inclusive, supportive, and progressive organisation that offers different ways to engage in our movement for members and non-members. The WI provides
educational opportunities and the platform to campaign on important issues, whilst celebrating the WI’s long history of trans inclusion, and embracing the sisterhood and
solidarity of our movement.
Transgender women are welcomed to a range of local and national activities that are open to non-members, as well as our national Supporter scheme. Based on the WI’s
history of trans inclusion, we believe that including transgender women in these activities enriches our organisation to ensure we are a place for both biological women and transgender women to celebrate who they are and influence positive change in their communities.

Wonder what happens if you pay the money but just don't print and sign? Or cross out the bit you object to?

To answer others . Signing it is mandatory if you want to stay in the WI . New members who join throughout the year also have to sign. It’s in the FAQ .
Screenshot here .

I believe the reference to “others” is men (you know the normal kind ……) “Sisterhood” has to be open to both men and women to be lawful (although they are actively trying to make it as unappealing to normal men as possible)

Re the paragraph above from @OpheliaWitchoftheWoods . I also missed it and think it brilliant. I would love to read it out at my AGM this month when I ask the new policy us in the agenda. (maybe omitting the kneeling down and opening mouths bit - my Wi is a bit sensitive…..)

A contract that compels parties to make illegal statements is in itself unlawful. IANAL.

@teawamutu

Not signing is not possible. same FAQ says not to accept money without the form.

As regards signing and crossing out I am not sure. I am thinking about creating one that is more specific.

so specifically states

I do not believe that people with “lived experience” are women , only biological women are women.

That Transwomen are not women and don’t need supporting by the WI

That speakers should not have to agree with nor support this position in order to speak to us .

I am unsure about just crossing out as this would seem to indicate that I am also against EDI for disability, race and sexual orientation etc which I am not. Also it confirms being a woman I am eligible to still be a member.

Adding in what I have written above protects me under the EQ having protected GC beliefs.

That phrase is mentioned twice in the policy; once in the introduction and then in the 'Objectives' section of the policy, ie what they hope to achieve from following this policy. The whole sentence in the Objectives section is:

"Highlight and celebrate the diverse membership of the WI, and ensure that our wider movement offers support and fellowship to all women, including transgender women, and others."

I take that to be a rather poorly worded way of saying

all women, including transgender women

and then seperately:

and others

So, they are still spinning this as being inclusive of trans-identifying men, by saying "all women, including transgender women" but that is in the context of "our wider movement" and includes "others" (ie men).

So, to me, that says "... ensure that our wider movement offers support and fellowship to all women and men"

Examples of how the "wider movement" can engage with the WI are given:

"Aside from WI membership, we offer other ways to engage with the WI movement, locally, regionally and nationally, including being a WI Supporter and belonging to one of our Sisterhood groups."

What I mean is - it won't allow them to admit men. Any more than a certificate turns a man into a woman.

Maybe "and others" means non-binaries?

I’ve just this minute had an email saying we have to sign to rejoin.

We’ve never been asked to do anything like this before.

That might be it for me.

Is this a clause that precludes women with gender critical views from joining? Because if so, its discriminatory.

Although it may be legal to require a set belief to join a membership organisation...iirc. Will check the Green Party internal report.

Which may mean they can turn the WI into an organisation that only includes people with genderist beliefs.

They still can't admit men, unless they make it explicitly mixed sex via a change to the charter.

This would exclude a majority of current members.

Maybe it depends how many women and ordinary members will not mind and/or be willing to lie and sign the Genderpledge.

No going back to the message in December they made it clear that Sisterhood had to be open to all to be legitimate. But in her meetings around the country, Melissa Green has made it clear that firstly GC women would not be welcome ( so going against their own policy of subgroups being open to all )

and secondly that the subject matter of a sisterhood could be things unappealing in her view of what men like . ( so no speakers from the car showroom , train companies, sheds , football teams , rugby teams , historical societies, scientific communities…feel free to add you own here ) and only cooking , baking , needlework, housework, caring, art , woo subjects, make up plus of course how much Transwomen enrich our impoverished womanly lives would be allowed. How bloody sexist Melissa Green!

Or amending it. I realise it's not what people normally do, but in this case they would have to specifically object to any amendment.

Which might be interesting.

Edited to add that I'm not a member, but I would still recommend staying.

As people have pointed out, they simply cannot admit men anymore. It's over. This is a last ditch attempt at some dominance.

And I genuinely believe it will fizzle out. There's nothing at stake for them anymore, except some loose, and probably not even very legal statements in a policy.

I was thinking of creating an amended one and post it here for people to print off and also publicise the fact that I will be standing outside the hall at. the Sprilmmerting offering my version of the form as an alternative for people to sign . People won’t be bothered to write a long amended version but just crossing out gives NFWI ammunition.

Has anyone heard how they plan to finance these Sisterhood Groups? Because surely they can't use membership subs money, as that would have to be used to support biological women as per their charitable objectives.
They would need to set up a separate income stream. If they start charging a separate fee to attend a sisterhood group the take-up will be tiny.

I have zero interest in/experience of the WI [I'm not in the UK] but I'm reading this thread with increasing incredulity.
The idea that they are willing to effectively destroy a long-standing, iconic organisation by insisting on altering its most basic characteristic, i.e. that it is the Women's Institute, is remarkable.

I think it serves as a shocking example of the extreme lengths trans allies will go to to destroy any and all women-only spaces, and it's a perfect illustration of the verb 'to beclown oneself'.

It is very sad for women who value the WI, and I sympathise with those of you who feel that something dependable supportive and trusted has now turned against you.

We expect all those who engage in the WI movement to uphold the same values.

I admit, I haven't read the previous 10 pages of discussion. But this really leapt out at me.

It's reasonable for a church or a political party to expect members to have broadly the same values.

But it's not reasonable for a social organisation that brings people together for the purposes of chat, education, taking part in craft activities or fitness classes, listening to interesting speakers etc to expect everyone to share the same values.

On the contrary, it's reasonable to understand that a diverse group of people will have different values - they are likely to have different religious backgrounds and different voting habits and different priorities in life. Asking them all to share the same values is insane, not to say fascistic.

So essentially WI members must sign up that they believe that trans identified men are really women and that they will uncritically support these men or they can no longer be members if this women's organisation?

It's Orwellian levels of bullying isn't it? And shows the reality of how exceptionally powerful these men are .

I think confused terminology may be in use here.

Based on the WI’s
history of trans inclusion, we believe that including transgender women in these activities enriches our organisation to ensure we are a place for both biological women and transgender women to celebrate who they are and influence positive change in their communities.

The words, “to ensure we are a place both for biological women and transgender women”….Suggests to me that by ‘transgender women’ they mean ‘transwomen’ ( biological men).

So not what is usually meant by ‘transgender women’, who are biological women, who otherwise identify as men, often called Transmen. Biological women/transmen should be included in the WI.

Someone needs to write to the WI and ask for clarification.

edited for typo

The answer is to replace the leadership.

No need the definition is in the accompanying glossary and means men

Thus far the WI has specifically excluded trans identifying females so I don't think they are suddenly pivoting 180 degrees. When they write "transgender women" they mean trans identifying men.

On the contrary, it's reasonable to understand that a diverse group of people will have different values - they are likely to have different religious backgrounds and different voting habits and different priorities in life. Asking them all to share the same values is insane, not to say fascistic.

It is fascistic but they are so blinkered that they were only thinking of one subject when they wrote that sentence. They had forgotten about differences of age, race, background, abilities etc.

The one point of reference that mattered to them in that phrase was that everyone agree with the lie that transwomen are women for the WI.

Thank you. I did not know there was a glossary. Why were so many people on the thread saying ‘what do you find objectional’. OP?’ I thought they were saying that because transmen ( females) ought to be included if they so wish.

Does transgender woman not normally mean a transman?

I disagree @RoyalCorgi with this

“It's reasonable for a church or a political party to expect members to have broadly the same values.”

Have you not heard of he phrase “broad church” ? This applies to churches and political groups . The C of E sometimes to its detriment allow a variety of groupings from evangelical to forward in faith to high church . Ok they generally believe in Christ ( but even accept exploring people and those not baptised. ) .

The Conservatives accept Wets and Brexiteers ; the Labour Party Momentum and Centrists .

I think that this is more akin to the discredited policy of Johnson when he kicked out those MPs who wouldn’t sign up to Brexit - Nicholas Soames , Dominic Grieve, Kenneth Clark etc

@ScrollingLeaves i think they sometimes use it to purposely confuse

No, the policy doesn't say that, in fact it specifically mentions GC views.

In the section about 'Religion and belief' it says:

"The WI is non-sectarian meaning that we are not connected or affiliated with any particular religion or religious belief. We therefore welcome both women who belong to an organised religion or have religious beliefs, and women who do not. Religion and beliefs, such as gender critical beliefs, are protected characteristics." [emphasis added]

I bet their lawyer made them add that bit!

There is a bit in the introduction about trans-identifying men being women. However, aside from that, I really cannot see anywhere in the policy where it demands any particular belief.

There are sections that use "we", which I would take to mean the WI as an organisation, rather than demanding an individual member also have the same belief. For example, it says:

"Transgender women are welcomed to a range of local and national activities that are open to non-members, as well as our national Supporter scheme."

So trans-identifying men can attend events that are open to non-members.

They then come up with some word salad that says:

"Based on the WI’s history of trans inclusion, we believe that including transgender women in these activities enriches our organisation to ensure we are a place for both biological women and transgender women to celebrate who they are and influence positive change in their communities."

Well, they may believe whatever they like but none of that allows trans-identifying men to do anything other than attend events that are open to non-members.

.

A number of posters have mentioned this phrase:

"We expect all those who engage in the WI movement to uphold the same values."

But I think that perhaps it's been taken out of context a bit. It comes from the section on Membership that starts:

"WI membership is open to women registered female at birth (biological women).

Other activities offered by the WI nationally and locally are open to a wider group of members and non-members."

It then lists what being a WI member means:

• Upholding the core values and ideals of the WI which are fellowship, truth,
tolerance, and justice.
• Utilising educational opportunities to continue learning.
• Being welcoming and inclusive, and forming friendships.
• Speaking up against inequity and promoting meaningful change in society

At the end of the section it then mentions ways in which non-members can engage with the WI:

"Aside from WI membership, we offer other ways to engage with the WI movement, locally, regionally and nationally, including being a WI Supporter and belonging to one of our Sisterhood groups. We expect all those who engage in the WI movement to uphold the same values."

You will notice that is where the phrase appears. To me, that is saying that anyone who belongs to a Sisterhood group or is a WI Supporter is also expected to uphold the same values that WI members are expected to uphold (the bullet points above).

.

Frankly, I see this as more about making sure that everybody signs up to the new idea of WI membership being for women only.

In the 'Scope' section is says:

"Contravention of this policy would affect the ability of WIs and federations to operate as part of the NFWI. This policy therefore applies to all WIs and federations."

This is why the leadership of some WI groups have resigned as they do not want to sign up to being women-only.

I would guess by getting all members to sign the new policy it would also prevent any problems with existing trans-identifying men who are currently members.

These men might otherwise be able to claim that they were unaware of the change in policy and simply renewed their membership. But by making everyone sign this then these men cannot later claim that they were unaware of the change in membership rules.