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.

Sorry hadn't got as far as your post when I replied above.

Great minds and all that...

I am sure you could create an association for transmen and transwomen and their allies of either sex . It would be a mixed sex organisation socially supporting those people who believe in gender ideology.

Crack on I say . I won’t be joining but neither do I want WI funds spent on this sort of group.

I don’t think you can have a criterion that creates an unlawful combination of protected characteristics, not even if you word it carefully. It’s the effect that counts not the wording, and a charity whose effect is to benefit women and trans-identifying men isn’t lawful.

This is so interesting. I subscribe to emails from Pink News and Good Law Project, for balance / hear their take

They're saying that loads of WI groups are closing, implying it's cos members believe strongly that TW should be permitted as members

And I couldn't understand how so many groups would fold on that basis

But it's actually cos GC members don't want to subscribe to TWAW ideology

I think WI and Girlguiding really need to pick a side. Stay single sex and mean it. Or welcome TW and other men too

That. ^^

Under current law, to use legal exclusion has to involve a need for a group that can only be met by excluding all but that group. Once there's an exception it is no longer legal exclusion, you have negated the reason for protecting that original group. If for example you want to provide women with somewhere to change away from men - your reason for exclusion - you can't make it some men and not others.

If Labour do make an attempt at fucking up the law in their attempt to force women to undress for men regardless of consent - and I would believe anything of them at this point - it should then be a case of direct sex based discrimination and human rights for women.

Think about it. There will be no equal impact on men, and how on earth does anyone of sane mind justify that access to spaces is dependent on taking your clothes off for a man, who is very likely wanting you to do it for his own sexual excitement? Or that if you do not choose to provide your body for use by men with problems, that you are then excluded from any space? Or the forced belief system involved?

The SCJ was the reasonable middle ground. Mixed sex alternatives where everyone who wishes can play at gender, AND a space that was accessible and inclusive of women who do not share gender beliefs and do not consent to change with men. The sticking point and all this fuss is merely the outrage over women daring to say no to men. While everyone pretends at the same time (for the benefit of said men) that no one knows what a woman is.

For example, from Pink News today on Facebook......

"A long-running Women’s Institute branch in Bristol has closed after more than six decades, with members citing a new national policy excluding transgender women.

The Longwell Green Women’s Institute voted to fold on 1 April following changes introduced by the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, which now limits membership to those defined as biologically female under UK law.

The shift follows a ruling tied to the Equality Act 2010, which the Supreme Court interpreted as defining “sex” in biological terms.

In a statement, the Bristol group said, “The decision was a result of the NFWI’s change of policy to ban transgender women from being members, exacerbated by the manner in which this was handled without engagement or consultation with grassroots members. Some members had also indicated they would not be renewing their membership for this reason. As a result, at a special meeting overseen by the Avon Federation of WIs, the majority of members voted for closure.”

The WI, which had welcomed trans women for decades, said the change was made reluctantly in order to maintain its legal single-sex status.

The fallout is being felt beyond one branch, with reports of wider disruption across the WI network, from lost venues to cancelled events. Still, former members in Bristol are already exploring what comes next, including plans for a more inclusive, community-led alternative that would welcome all women, including trans women"

Being spun to the public as yay future in which women's groups are either about men or don't exist. Because who would want a women's group that doesn't have men giving them purpose, meaning and interest in life? It's not like women have any actual inner lives or purpose separate to men, or any existence of their own, is it?

Just fuck this.

Was there any "engagement or consultation with grassroots members" when the WI decided to admit transwomen?

Of course not……

A long-running Women’s Institute branch in Bristol has closed after more than six decades, with members citing a new national policy excluding transgender women

And I bet when it was set up everyone knew without having to spell it out that it was for biological women.

So it isn't a new national policy, it is the WI recognising that they broke their own rules under social pressure.

You have to ask why the WI (and other organisations) didn't just get on and either form alternative organisations that included TW, or change the aims and objectives of the existing organisation.

Why isn't anyone saying to the WI and others you were wrong. You broke your own policies.

They should apologise and say of course they should never have ignored their core values.

It has been confirmed

To do that would mean a change to our Constitution and then a vote. For some reason, the powers-that-be don't seem to want to go down that route...

I think our CEO who came from other third sector jobs, has been Stonewalled

That is such a good question! Which gets a bland non-answer in response. It's getting sillier and sillier

There are going to be 'exit' questionnaires for members and closing WIs...

WE are!!

They're not listening!!

Thanks it's all making a lot more sense now!

And I guess similar with girl guides ie they won't change to become mixed sex cos they know most of their members don't want that

I wonder if there is somewhere people can post copies of the exit questionnaires?
It would be good to have them compiled to counter the claims.

Because ordinary men (won't use cis) can join too

And that you will follow the Code of Conduct and the ED&I policy which can change at any time

Ah, they ought to go straight to floating the women to see if they are witches or not.

I'm so sorry, OP. What a shitshow.

No evidence of when it became official policy either, as far as the Constitution is concerned

Google tells me that the AGM is 4th June. Is it possible to table Motions about the CofC and EDI policy?

Or vote on Officers, now I come to think of it.

If my WI branch ends up not shutting down next week, we're going to have a venue problem, as the pub that currently hosts us says it won't allow an organisation that's not "trans-inclusive" to book a room.

Does anyone have any ideas on the legal position here - basically they are saying they won't host a single sex group. I've seen suggestions in other contexts (i.e refusing a booking for an all-female hen party) that this would count as indirect discrimination, is that correct?

Nope.

The agenda will already be set and there will be no questions from the floor