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.

Maybe ask Sex.Matters, or the EHRC?

Also discrimination on the grounds of a protected belief.

I think from other threads pub landlords do have some rights if they think certain customers "may upset others". But in the instance presumably the meeting would be in a private room.

So then to say they couldn't meet because of believing (in line with the law) that sex is biological would surely be discrimination of a protected belief.

I think in most instances it isn't usually the pub landlord/lady but the preceived and too often real, threats of violent protest by TRAs.

But if its a private meeting, in a private room, where the door just says private meeting I would have thought no one could say that it was "provocative" to have a meeting their.

I am not a lawyer.

My understanding though is that a pub licensee can refuse service and there are few grounds where this would be unlawful.

The only thing I can suggest is that if it is part of a large chain, contacting their head office.

The grounds where it would be unlawful are likely to involve the protected characteristics in the Equality Act.

I guess so, just couldnt imagine anyone was seriously classing the WI as gender critical!

In which case, Free Speech Union.

I imagine there are a few lawyers who may be interested in that case.

I guess they do class it as such as it has announced that it will follow the SC ruling, heaven forbid.

Re the AGM having a fixed agenda and no questions from the floor, there should be a mechanism by which an EGM can be called. It usually needs a certain number of members to ask for one.

I can answer this one ! In the case (Linda’s) Smith V Northumberland Police it was held that Gender Ideology was a partisan belief That is one that is not impartial. In the Edinburgh rape centre case it was said that believing TWAW and the reverse is on the extremes of gender ideology.

The WI constitution says it must be non religious and non sectarian. Sectarian is another word for extreme partisan.

so just like the Northumberland police (or any other police) could not be shown to be partisan ( due to an Act forbidding it ) by taking part in a parade , the wi cannot be , due to its constitution.

so one belief (GC ) is not partisan but mainstream and therefore permitted by the constitution.

in addition whether gender ideology be considered a belief under the equality act depends on whether it fulfills the test set out in the case Grainger PLC v Nicholson. These are

1. The belief must be genuinely held.
2. It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
3. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others

The last criteria makes it difficult for me to believe that GI could be considered a belief as it conflicts with the fundamental rights of others.

I don’t think it can be under 3 either - certain level of seriousness anyone . To me GI is akin to flat earthism and young earth creationism.

But I don’t think this has ever been tested in law.

Awesome stuff. Thanks for hanging those pieces of information together. Sometimes I feel that I can’t see the wood for the trees.

Sorry meant 4 not 3 !!

Great post, but I think it’s Linzi Smith rather than Linda, just to note.

I wrote Linzi autocorrect must have changed it without me noticing . Thanks for pointing it out for me and others !

It's direct discrimination, not indirect. It's like saying they would not allow a booking from an autistic peer support group.

I think 4 (as per your 3 to 4 edit :) ) is absolutely passable.

Genderists believe a thing called Gender Identity exists and it is this, rather than body sex, that truly differentiates between "me" and "women", and so it is this rather than body sex that should be an organising principle in society.

I personally do not believe in this, but I don't see it's any less cogent, serious, cohesive or important than most religions.

(Conveniently, since this thing usually aligns to body sex, Genderists also assume that their beliefs allow that in practice nothing needs to change except all the sex based stuff is now gender based. Everyone who doesn't declare themselves "trans" is supposed to just carry on as before, the trans people get to cross over, and no one will have a problem with the influx of opposite sex bodies because we all recognise our innate gender sameness 🙄.But I digress.)

An interesting question is whether TRA's i insistence that "science" proves they are right would actually undermine 4, because if "science says so" is part of the belief and science can be shown not to say so, is the belief still cogent?

@FlirtsWithRhinos

Well even if you think GI does conform to 4 being no less wacky than other mainstream religions , the mainstream ones do seem to get a free pass, worthy due to their number of followers and importance. Maybe that’s not fair but if GI stays around for the next 2000 years or so then maybe they get to pass 4 .

But you cannot say that GI doesn’t trample on other rights and they must pass all the tests not pick and choose which one .

Oh 100%. It's the rights impact that is the issue for me. It's not what people believe in their own heads or chapels, it's when society foreces everyone else to fit into the shapes that one belief puts them into.

Except it’s not forcing people into their religion, it’s about protecting some people with some beliefs and not discriminating against them . It’s SOME beliefs not all beliefs that this applies to.

Edit for examples
Catholicism yes
flat earthists no

gender critical yes
gender ideology no?

Of course the WI, post FWS, is trans-inclusive. Trans-identified females are welcome.
I think that pub might fold if FSU got involved.

Diversity of belief has no impact on women attending a women's group. Catholic and C of E, Labour and Tory, vegan and carnivore, gender ideologist or sex realist. The only issue arises when the group activities require the practicing of the belief - or the signing up to compliance with it.

eg: You can vote any way you like and hold any political views but to access this group you must sign to say that you fully support the Tories, and reject all other views.

In this case: how do you want to practice your gender ideologist belief in this women's single sex group?
By bringing men into it! Or at least making membership conditional to compliance and at least performative holding of gender ideologist views.

It's not going to wash. At least until the govt fuck up the law.

And faster than you can say skirt-go-spinny.

Whilst interesting that isn't the point here.

It is about trying to subvert something that can only be one thing.

The WI constitution says it is for women. The Supreme Court has ruled or rather reaffirmed that in relation to the EA sex=biology.

The WI constitution being for women only is making use of the protected characteristic of sex.

It has nothing to do with beliefs sets. It is a clear rule of law.

The issue is why, which I think has been confirmed, that WI HQ are asking members to confirm they are biological women, and then add a rider to that declaration that they agree TWAW.

If it is so important to WI HQ why aren't they just putting forward a motion of change the WI constitution, dressed up in some rainbow statement accepting that in the dim distance past befor women were educated that biology is the same as identity, to say open to biological females and men who identify as women. (Am I sure in the near future someong will work out how to write a constitution that allows for biological women and men who identify as women, and if not Labour will create a law that says it is okay.)

So it isn't about what beliefs or anything.

The question is why are so many women willing to ignore reality about women only being women only. Why are more WI members angry that with or without consultation WI HQ broke the law and their constitution.

We all have to accept that a large number of women are either too embarrased to admit they were taken for a ride (okay to include TW) or that they really do feel their rights as women aren't as important and being kind to TW.

More details about the night we folded:

The woman who came from the upper echelons to oversee our vote knew in advance what the result was going to be, inasmuch as an informal vote via whatsapp amongst group members had been about 75:25 against signing the new declaration.

Some people who were unable to attend the formal meeting had submitted a vote in advanceto the chair, via email.

The rest of us - I think about 65% of the total membership - were there in person on the night and almost all voted. The ballot box was immediately removed by our official visitor and she counted the votes in private, refusing anyone overseeing the count. (the manager of our meeting place, who is not a WI member, could have done this as an inpartial observer). She then told us that we'd voted out so our group was, as of that moment, no longer part of the WI, and neither was our healthy bank balance.

She did NOT tell us the figures for the vote and having subsequently been formally asked for this info, has refused to give it. So we don't actually know the result of the vote, other than that we were out! We don't even know if the count was honest since she refused any second sets of eyes

The room in which we met had been prepaid for several months in advance so we plan to carry on meeting there for the moment. But the national federation has decreed this an "inappropriate use of moneys" and has demanded we repay them the amount we've paid to advance book (as well as already having taken our money, which was of course stuff that we'd raised with our monthly raffle, cake sales etc as well as the subs).

Yes, for many people the indecent haste in which the WI forced this change through was the last straw, and I believe that some who were prepared to accept TIM into meetings voted against continuing because of the shoddy way in which the WI has treated its members over this.

But I don't want to be included in any fake figures from the WI or any other organisaiont that suggests that we all left because we want to be transinclusive. It's simply not true.

And Another Thing --

I'm sick to death of hearing how the WI wants to be inclusive for all women. It's an organisation that leans heavily towards an older, white demographic. If it wants to be so inclusive, it should look first towards trying to broaden its appeal to other demographics who just happen to be women. There are many women from many cultures who won't want to meet socially in a group that contains unknown men, never mind all those individual women who have their own good, valid, personal reasons to prefer wimmin-only spaces.

I'd love to know the number of TIM who have been "forced out" of the WI by the ruling. I'll bet the number is really small. The number of women to whom the WI could reach out to try to increase the organisation's inclusivity, on the other hand, may well be in the millions.

The powers-that-be in the WI have behaved and are continuing to behave appallingly. The behaviour of the official visitor at your voting meeting comes across as shamingly childish and spiteful. That in itself would make me not want to be a member of the WI under its present leadership.