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.

Why would a person who transitioned purely because of their own personal feelings about their own personal body care if they are allowed in a women's social club or not? If they've got the body they want then what organisations they're allowed to join shouldn't make any difference to anything. If they don't have the body they want then what organisations they're allowed to join isn't going to change that.

As regards the trans son trans daughter debate.

Helen Joyce of Sex Matters said that these parents are writing a cheque that they cannot cash. Despite their own affirmation that their son/daughter is now the opposite sex the truth is that they aren’t, and society will not see them as such.

In schools ‘being trans’ is now becoming yesterday’s trend. Those still enmeshed, often meeting the findings outlined in the Cass report (often autistic, same sex attracted, bereaved, trauma, in care, abused, anxious, depressed) are stuck in their social transition.

The setting I worked in several years ago, we had 4 pre teen and teenage girls all identify as trans. All of them were autistic and had at least two of the other experiences/issues in that list.

As Billboard Chris states, there’s no right or wrong way to be a girl or a boy. and it’s incredibly regressive to suggest that a boy or girl not matching the sex stereotypes is possibly ‘the other sex’. As he says, two sexes, no such thing as gender and infinite personalities.

Returning to Helen Joyce, she said that parents who had transitioned their children will never give up this ideology. To do so would be to admit to the very worst thing, that you had harmed your own child.

Any woman here knows exactly why men are not welcome in our groups. Moreover since the 90s womens and lesbians groups have been destroyed by men who say they are women, as soon as one is let in. We are sick of it , and having to meet underground as a result. We are not letting a tiny part of this ideology into our thoughts so don’t expect us to be sympathetic.

I think you might want to refer to the charitable purpose of the National Federation of Women's Institutes of ENGLAND, WALES, JERSEY, GUERNSEY AND THE ISLE OF MAN, charity number 803793 which is listed according to the Charity Commission:

THE MAIN PURPOSES OF THE WOMEN'S INSTITUTE ORGANISATION ARE: (A) TO ADVANCE THE EDUCATION OF WOMEN AND GIRLS FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IN ALL AREAS INCLUDING (WITHOUT LIMITATION): (I) LOCAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ISSUES OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL IMPORTANCE; (II) MUSIC, DRAMA AND OTHER CULTURAL SUBJECTS; AND (III) ALL BRANCHES OF AGRICULTURE, CRAFTS, HOME ECONOMICS, SCIENCE, HEALTH, AND SOCIAL WELFARE; (B) TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT BY: (I) EDUCATING PEOPLE IN THE PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE PRUDENT USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES; AND (II) PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE MEANS OF ACHIEVING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REGENERATION; (C) TO ADVANCE HEALTH FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT; AND (D) TO ADVANCE CITIZENSHIP FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT BY THE PROMOTION OF CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY AND VOLUNTEERING.

And ask them to justify how including TiMs but not other men advances their charitable aims.

Those aims are the only lawful way the charity can use its resources.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/equality-act-2010-guiding-principles-associations?utm_source=chatgpt.com

GC beliefs are protected in law and this applies to membership organisations. Its been tested wrt Green Party v Sharar Ali, iirc, and there was a report commissioned by the GPEW that confirmed this. They can no more expel you for GC views than they could expel you for any other protected characteristic.

Sorry, I must have missed the update. Glad they settled.

Wholly agree. Women are enough. Women as half of the human race have many specific disadvantages, needs, groups desperate for support, the purpose of the WI is to support women.

The women who find these women so unimportant and boring that it's only worth it if they can involve men really need to learn more about their own sex and their own internalised sexism.

@igivein Here's another point you might want to raise:

As a single protected characteristic association (women only) the WI has a defence to a challenge from men denied membership.

But: once an organization runs events open to non-members it is now operating 'services' to the public, and those don't have blanket permission to exclude on the basis of protected characteristics: not even for women only. Women only services open to the public have to meet the tests specified in schedule 3 of the EA to justify the inherent sex discrimination involved. It's not a given.

It's easy to assume that open to the public events (like, RSPB, take note: bird walks) are just fine, which they would be if for members. It would be even harder to justify including women and trans identifying men only into an event. There are legitimate reasons to have women only services, but they must be carefully thought through, and if those reasons can be seen to be false because TiMs are also allowed to enter then any defence against unlawful discrimination is lost.

To put it another way: any event including TiMs but not @Another2Cats 's husband leaves the WI open to exactly the same legal action her husband initiated for being denied membership.

Yes, of course. Sorry, it's my fault for not fully explaining my thoughts.

I was trying to say that if trans-identifying men were able to attend then all men must be allowed to attend

As a mental exercise, you might consider how you would justify running a single-sex women only public service against a hypothetical claim of discrimination from a man (any man).

No one is talking about hate. Would it be hateful to run a youth club for under 18s and exclude adults (even ones who identify as young at heart)?

When did disagreement become 'hate', or even being able to notice that some things (men) are different to some other things (women)?

Its all such hyperbolic nonsense. (See also 'can't exist in public).

It must be heartbreaking to have a child mixed up in all of this. Its still not reasonable though to expect 51% of the population to give up all their spaces and services because otherwise your child will be sad.

Read '(un)kind' by Victoria Smith.

I would agree with you. The charitable objects are very clear about it primarily being for the benefit of women.

However, just a very small point, the latest constitution does include as one of the charitable objects:

(c) to advance health for the public benefit;

So it would be open to the WI to help with initiatives that would help "advance health for the public benefit" which might include eg learning disabled people (both men and women).

But I don't believe that help would include offering WI membership to learning disabled men (or any other type of men) for example.

once an organization runs events open to non-members it is now operating 'services' to the public

Is this clear in law? Does it depend on the status of the organisation, or the definition of 'services'?

"So, to practicalities ...

I think the whole 'sisterhood groups' thing puts the WI on very dodgy ground as it would include TIM but not other men."

I think that a very important issue is who exactly is allowed to attend the 'sisterhood groups'? What rules or policies exist in writing about this?

If you push to see what the actual rules say about who is allowed to attend (and also, who is paying for these events) then this will clear everything up. They must have some written policy about who can attend and who cannot.

Seeing the policy written down is the first thing to get hold of. If the policy says that anyone can attend a 'sisterhood group' then that would be lawful. If it says something else then that is a whole other ball game.

It's very clear in law.

An association can't discriminate (as defined in the Act) amongst its members; it can, however deny membership to people who don't share one (or more) PCs, and then have an event open only to members on a non-discriminatory basis.

As far as services go, section 29 of the Act begins:

A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate...

So any service provided to the public or a section of the public - even if free - may not offered on a discriminatory basis, regardless of who (or what organisation) offers it.

The difference between an association's book club and an open to the public book club is that the association must have more than 25 members and rules for membership.

Then you need to get into the weeds of Schedule 3, which lists the exceptions where you can discriminate who a service is provided to.

We spend a lot of time reading and writing about justifying excluding TiMs from women only spaces, services, associations etc. In doing so we only have in our frame of reference women only services, spaces like toilets, crisis centres etc. which have already and unremarkably passed the threshold for one of the exceptions that makes it lawful to exclude men, and for many of those (toilets) it's only lawful because there's an exact equivalent men only service. It's easy but wrong to assume that any service can be provided to women only, just because.

That's the argument against "trans inclusive single sex" services: there are only certain reasons you can exclude men at all, and if you include some men you can't hang on to those reasons any more, so the exclusion of the other men becomes unlawful. Or so the argument goes.

I'd like to see the RSPB publish a justification for a women only bird-walk, specifically in terms of schedule 3. I think it's justifiable, but I think the exercise of doing so would focus the right minds on why a "trans-inclusive women only bird-walk" is a problem.

Ditto the WI for whatever it has planned.

👏👏👏
Brava

If you want a group that excludes certain women, why don't you go from it yourself instead of trying to force other women to do what YOU want?

Ah, the TRA catch 22.

We don't want to stop women getting together without us when it's justified, oh heavens no. We aren't like that at all. We just want to stop them when it's done for transphobic reasons.

Of course, we also say that excluding trans women is by definition transphobic because noticing there's any difference between transwomen and women in the first place is transphobic. So any actual action by any actual women to set up their own spaces and supports is absolutely a legitimate target, of course.

But not because it's women and we want to control and dominate them, oh no! Just because in the specific case of it ever actually happening, it's transphobic.

But we don't want to stop women getting together without us when it's justified, oh heavens no. We aren't like that at all.

We’ve got such a group, mate. It’s called the WI and it’s for women. Women, by law, are defined as biological females (that’s the only definition of women so there’s none of this “certain” women bullshit) and the WI should not be open to men.

Trans women are men. You’re a man. Stay out of women’s spaces because they’re not for you.

what your child has or hasn’t done with their body is irrelevant to women. I’m glad it’s worked and they are more comfortable. They are still not female.

That your child is, remains, and ever will be, male. And however sweet he is and however sad it makes him, he isn't entitled to, or welcome in, female spaces.

Women and girls matter and they deserve space away from males. That's it, and that's all.

Yes.

My daughter's rights matter just as much as someone's son's. She is entitled to a single sex space for privacy, dignity, and safety.

A male will never be or become female. He does not and cannot know what it means to be a girl or a woman. He may feel unhappy about his male body - that is unfortunate, but it doesnt mean my daughter is obliged to give up her spaces and rights to make him feel better.

Aren't you amazing to know what everyone here thinks and believes? Do you do lottery numbers as well?

It's almost as if you have some ingrained prejudice against anyone who holds the protected belief that the words male and female are defined by biology not beliefs.

As opposed to organisations who use disciplinary action to crush women who hold a protected belief that has been upheld in the Supreme Court. Or those who turn up at meetings to disrupt them. Or threaten women physically.

I'm sorry too, because I was agreeing with you and trying to show the absurdity of this common trans attitude that goes on about their feelings while dismissing other people's

Men who feel like they're women don't belong in the WI, but that's got nothing to do with trans women who absolutely do belong in the WI.

According to you maybe but not the law of the land which is what counts, take it up with The Supreme Court.

If you want a group that excludes certain women, why don't you go from it yourself instead of trying to force other women to do what YOU want?

Like Sisters Heal have tried to do, do you mean?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jxek8w8m0o?

Rosie Hayes told the BBC multiple venues in Brighton had cancelled or stopped hosting trauma-healing classes organised by her group Sisters Heal for the victims of sexual assault, rape and domestic abuse, which were limited to "biological women only".
She has claimed the venues were pressured into dropping the event due to "intense harassment" from what she called "trans activists".

She continued that, since the trans community in Brighton had access to mixed spaces and their own dedicated services, women should have their own spaces too.

Terf Watch Brighton said the line drawn for the need for "single-sex services" was "arbitrary, unevidenced, and based on prejudiced myths about how gender operates in society".