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.

Is this their 'final/most essential command'?
I'm so fed up of all this

Didn't a husband of a MNer try this already?

Expect away, WI. I am considering joining, but I don't care what you expect - I won't be accepting of men in a women's organisation.

Yep. I believe it’s still ongoing.

But where they refer to 'transgender women' surely that would be transmen, and they should be able to join anyway, because they're women?

I had this "discussion" recently with someone who was talking about her disappointment re the exclusion of transgender women
I thought we were on the same side - i.e. that trans identifying women shouldn't be excluded
Turns out we were talking at cross purposes!

Given the WI loud wailing and public hand wringing at having to exclude men, I would only believe they meant women who identify as men if they spelt it out explicitly

its also why TRA devoted so much time to deliberately mangling language to cause confusion

So they include:
women who say that they are women
women who say that they are men
men who say they’re women

and just exclude men who say that they are men

as each person may describe themself on any particular day

?

They only think that because they are listening to misinformation spread by the GLP and other trans rights activist groups.

I agree that's what they meant - but it's not what they said...
I also agree that the confusion is deliberate, but ill-advised if the supporters are confusing themselves as well as everyone else!

That's true for some, but in many cases they just aren't switched on to what's been going on over recent years. The women of my mum's age haven't read about it or experienced it and aren't aware of the issues. They think "what's the harm, just be nice".

I understand the frustration. When an organisation we love seems to be telling us what we must think, it stings. But reading the actual policy, I notice they say "being a woman is about biology and lived experience." They're not erasing biology. And this applies to non-membership activities, not full membership. They've drawn a line, even if you'd draw it somewhere else.
I have a trans daughter. I also have friends with gender critical views, and I don't think they're monsters. What I've found is that most of us agree on more than the loudest voices suggest. That women's spaces matter. That children deserve protection. That basic courtesy costs nothing. What specifically are you worried will change at your local WI in practice? Sometimes the reality is less dramatic than the policy language feels.

Hang on a mo - so what is a transgender woman? In my computation that's a woman who is transgender, so (in old money) that's a transman. Which is fine.

But then they're making a distinction between biological women (which includes transmen) and transgender women so maybe they do mean transwomen (men) after all.

And as for what sex a "trans daughter" might be, well that's anybody's guess. I would assume a biological woman but who knows nowadays?

Glossary here

Transgender
(trans) woman

A term used to describe someone who is assigned male at birth but
identifies and lives as a woman. This may be shortened to trans
woman, or male-to-female (MTF).

https://mywi.thewi.org.uk/essential-information/wi-policy-and-guidance/NFWI-Equality-Diversity-and-Inclusion-Glossary-of-Terms.pdf

sorry @AmaryllisNightAndDay transdaughter not in the glossary …..,.

Strange inconsistency - non sectarian followed by committment to trans ideology, our values and language policing
Religion and Sex
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.

The WI is single-sex, which means we restrict our membership to biological women
only. This is based on the provision within the Equality Act to restrict membership
based on the shared protected characteristic of sex.

Assigned - fuckwits

so yes they mean men

Thanks @Marmaladelover The language around sex and gender is a mess and I feel as if I need a glossary (preferably with Venn diagrams) every time. I would like to say "make it make sense" but I don't want to make unreasonable demands.

So fucking offensive and reductive.

The "lived experience" of women is the impact of our sex on the rest of our lives, not some stupid Mulvaney-esque pantomime of "things that society thinks are womanly"

All any transwoman ever experiences as "womanhood" is their own sexism over what personalities are allowed in what bodies playing out. All that gets "affirmed" is their own prejudices and rigid ideas.

The purpose of the policy is to shut down debate.

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

That means that if members want to discuss if the front-and-centring of men in the WI is a good idea they can be told by leadership that they are not upholding WI values and be silenced.

That's all it's for.

You can't even vote against the policy, because (they will say) by paying your 2026 fees you have accepted it.

Jesus wept.

Is there a solid definition of “lived experience”?

Is it a timeframe, or a series of events?

Not one that's not dripping in sexism.

The WI are asking you to sign up to and endorse sexism as policy whilst also saying you can't actively identify sexism because that's mean to the boys.

Yeah its simply not an organisation for women anymore its a mixed sex group so it shouldn't really be call itself the "women's institute". Also regarding "lived experience" nothing about a trans identifying males lived experience is remotely female or that of a woman in fact it is completely defined by the fact that he is not a woman.

I'm not a member but if I was I would be writing to them saying that I have sex realist views and asking whether I am still welcome? If they say no that's clear discrimination.

Interesting.
So for legal reasons, the membership is restricted to biological women only.
But for non-membership events, transwomen are free to join in.

Does this create another legal issue, i.e. that for these non-membership events they are including one group of men (transwomen) and excluding another group of men (just men).

This is the key question:
Can a man now sue for being excluded from non-membership events organised and hosted by a membership organisation?