My WI group folded this week

[Mauvish1]

The vote in my WI group was 4:1 against signing the new WI declaration, which would have obliged us to sign that we agreed with the WI upholding the law on being single sex (well yes, obviously!) but also that we agreed that TWAW and should be allowed to join, if only the pesky lawmakers hadn't clarified biological sex for the hard of understanding.

The person from the NFWI who was there to oversee our suspension told us that it was obvious from our refusing to sign that we all had friends or loved ones who were trans! This produced a roar of dissent! She also told us that if we left the WI, we would each be a lone voice to whom no-one listened. The look on everyone's face as she patronised us was a sight to behold.

Comparisons were made with brownies, and some people felt that the WI and brownies should simply open doors to men and boys - but there are plenty of other mixed sex groups to join, and very few other female-only groups.

So, another WI group bites the dust, and it's not the only one in my area.

Perhaps it's time for another WI rebellion like the one that produced the (very successful) Welsh alternative, Merched Y Wawr. I think the group in Bala broke away over being told to conduct their business in English; it ended up with Merched Y Wawr groups all over Wales.

I am confused (not at all an unusual state for me).

You say that there were basically two opposing ideas in the statement: that you, the member, agreed with the WI upholding the law - so rhe sex realist-position, but also that you agree TWAW?

Is that it?

Is that really what they are saying we need to sign?
I've been told I'll need to sign a form from next month to say I was born female (which I was really happy about) but will I be expected to sign that too?

We've been asked to pay our subs for next year but I've not paid mine yet and I'll hold off until I see what they want me to sign. I will NEVER sign anything saying I think TWAW. I like going to my WI group but not so much that I'm willing to agree to that.

I am sorry OP. It's quite shocking and disturbing to realise how many men and women fully support the destruction of any women's services that won't submit to and be for the benefit of men.

If they want to serve the interests of women, the activists would prefer to burn everything down. If they can't have the toys then nobody can.

Frankly this may be the needed thing; I suspect anything once captured is irretrievable whatever its proud history; trans activism destroys its hosts. Women are going to have to set up again from scratch to be able to have anything for themselves.

Demonstrated really by an absolute lack of any trans identified men speaking out and saying no, we value women and girls, these services and resources are important and should not be destroyed.

Yep, Daughters of the Dawn, I think it was in the 60s? Totally agree with rebellion!

And while I am at it - Cofiwch Dryweryn!

to sign that we agreed with the WI upholding the law on being single sex (well yes, obviously!) but also that we agreed that TWAW and should be allowed to join

The post is a little confusing to read, I had to read it a couple of times.
It means they had to sign that TWAW.

I understood OP to mean that the WI are asking members to sign to say that they understand the WI must follow the law re SSS, but also to sign that the members don't want to and that they're being made to under sufferance.

It's outrageous.

We're back to "if men can't join, women shouldn't be allowed to have things", aren't we. Sorry to hear about your group.

So they want all groups to say they want men in their groups or they have to close?

Please let that be in writing and some enterprising woman get a copy of it to a decent journalist

Blackmailing gobshites trying to fabricate evidence in support of men

Hang on, so if you sign it's because you still think TWAW but you're reluctantly agreeing to stick with the law.

And if you don't sign it's because you think TWAW therefore you won't stick to the law?!

Classic logic.

Maybe Nick Wallis would be interested in this.

@Mauvish1 I’m sure I read on another post that someone wrote to head office and got it clarified that the signing is to say that you understand the new policy and confirm you are eligible to be a member i.e. you are a woman (as per the Supreme Court judgment and not that you agree with TWAW.

So there isn’t an option to say ‘I am delighted WI is now in line with the law, this is exactly what I want from my all female organisation?’

That’s a bit…catch 22.

We all have to start again . Women’s groups and lesbian groups have been destroyed for years by men and their traitorous allies. But we are springing up all over again and doubled in fury and strength.

What? So you can only stay as a part of the WI if you agree TWAW? Is that how it's working?

It’s on page 12 on this thread, a comment by Thistleton
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5496673-the-new-wi-equality-diversity-and-inclusion-policy-its-worse-and-includes-the-thought-police?page=12

The messaging from the powers that be in the WI seems very clear that they think it's outrageous that they have to follow the law and will be doing their best to find a way around it.

Am I right in understanding from your post OP that the majority of members of your group refused to sign and that you all made your feelings very clear when she made the incorrect assumption about your reasons why you wouldn't?

I really don't want to see the downfall of the WI, I have a lot of love and respect for the organisation I have interacted with over the years. But I fear that this may be the beginning of the end for them.

I would be interested to know if the majority GC stance of OP's group is reflective of the majority of WI's members, or if the more general membership skews towards "be kind". Does anybody have any data or just a sense on this?

It would be lovely if the membership was, as a whole, GC and that the powers that be have made a grave error of judgement.

Is this some kind of new legal argument they're going for? In order to stay in the WI all members have to sign to say they want to include TW. So they can say 'look all our members agree!'?

I think it's so they can shut down any GC discussion inside the Wi in the future as "incompatible" with the declaration that every member has signed, and a breach of policy.

Yes, I'm confused too.

I'm confused.

Are you happy your group is closing, given the impactbof the Supreme Court judgement?

Did your group have trans members?

How did your group come to be do to trans women?

That sounds about right.

OP, can you share the form or the full wording?

It was me (and possibly other posters on the other thread) that emailed HQ and asked for clarification about what exactly I was signing. The reply said it was to confirm I was entitled to join on the basis of my sex at birth, so I signed.

The accompanying handwringing guff implied that they think we’re all devastated men can’t be members anymore but I made it clear I’m pleased and relieved.

They absolutely can’t ask prospective members to agree TWAW, it would be illegal, surely?

Ours has closed as well. From after Easter a new private gathering every week are hiring a hall that will be by invite only. Still working out the details of it, but absolutely nobody was willing to say we felt like TW should be allowed to join.