This is the guidance the NFWI didn’t want you to see ….

[Marmaladelover]

I have been looking for this for ages it’s mentioned in another set of recent general guidance on subgroups and visitors- a subject now close to NFWI hearts due to wanting us all to believe that TWAW ( organisational belief apparently) and the formation of sisterhood.

it’s not searchable on their website as far as I can tell.

i guess they didn’t want us to see it in case anyone was preparing a complaint or legal case against them

Helpfully , Hampshire Fed have posted it on their website for all to see

Personally I saved the PDF in case it disappears again . Always good to have receipts.

https://www.hampshirewi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Sisterhood-Groups-Guidelines-Final.pdf

So they’re fine with excluding ethnic minorities and faiths that can’t be in mixed sex groups eg some Muslims, LDS and Travellers, but that’s ok because these ‘sisterhood’ groups will ‘appeal to a wider section of society’. The section with men in it. The WI lost its way very badly quite a while ago.

Why wouldn't they want you to see this and what are the "receipts" here exactly?

Whilst the group is open to all, the groups will have a clear ethos (reflecting the NFWI ethos) and organisational belief: that transgender women are women. Anyone keen to be part of the group and willing to support this ethos is welcome to attend, and you are able to ask people to leave if they are unable to be supportive.

NFWI are becoming more and more devious . Thee are legal actions and complaints in the pipeline . . They have already said how fed they are about the legal fees already accumulated because it’s costing and becoming unaffordable . ( mind you , doesn’t stop them continually putting their foot in it ) . Perhaps they think hiding stuff will protect themselves- it won’t !

Best way for NFWI to avoid additional legal fees would be to obey the law and not try to circumvent it.

For receipts see what @rebax said

There isn't anything illegal here, and the document is an entirely innocuous one explaining how to set up a Sisterhood group.

I disagree @Zoonosis , funding is the big issue . Putting it through WI accounts . And the issue about excluding some . I must say though the biggest issue so far is various Feds and WI pushing at these boundaries even more and breaking the law or WI rules ( with funding , organisation and other stuff)

Given I only found this today and have been out most of the time since I confess I need to read it all carefully then maybe I can answer your q more fully - if you want to read it of course. .

But I do think it amusing that NFWI tried to hide it and one of their allies inadvertently presented it .

I do think you have to ask yourself why were they trying to hide it ? Why do you think they hid it ?

I have read it. It's an entirely innocuous document. You're seeing conspiracy theories where there are none. There is no evidence that anything was being deliberately hidden. Nor are any laws being broken.

@Zoonosis are you a member of the WI ? Can you post me a link
from the My WI website to it to show me ?
its not with the other policy documents and seemingly unsearchable.

Why do you think that is ?

It’s funny how sad they are that they can’t include men who claim to have gender identities but exclude anyone who doesn’t think that means they’ve magically become women 🤭

I really don’t know why they don’t just change their charitable objects and be done with it 🤑

I don't get how this would be in line with the WI's charitable aims.

It also seems like blatant discrimination against those with GC views, as they will be the only ones excluded from these additional groups.

I do think it would be hilarious if a bunch of blokes joined though. It seems that they would not be able to take any action to stop this.

People with GC views aren't excluded, they're just asked to abide by the aims of the group and not to be disruptive or harass other members and could be asked to leave if they do. This isn't discriminatory, any group can ask someone to leave if they are being disruptive to the purpose of the group.

I do think it would be hilarious if a bunch of blokes joined though. It seems that they would not be able to take any action to stop this.

Yes, these groups seem to be totally open as long as you’re willing to claim that you believe TWAW. Presumably they’ll be checking to see if you’ve got your fingers crossed behind your back. I think this sounds like it could very well be challenged on the basis that they can’t exclude people for holding protected beliefs, obviously they would be able to if someone behaved badly, but that’s not the same thing at all as explained one of Michael Foran’s recent lectures.

Presumably anyone who is not supportive of the aims of the group would not wish to join in the first place.

Surely you're not suggesting people join with the deliberate intention of provoking their own exclusion and then suing, since that would be the very definition of a vexatious lawsuit.

Where do they mention being disruptive?

They have written: “Whilst the group is open to all, the groups will have a clear ethos (reflecting the NFWI ethos) and organisational belief: that transgender women are women. Anyone keen to be part of the group and willing to support this ethos is welcome to attend, and you are able to ask people to leave if they are unable to be supportive.”

Not agreeing that TWAW is a legally protected belief and anyway, how are you going to prove someone doesn’t really believe it?

You'd have to judge by their actions hence you'd only be asking them to leave if their actions ran contrary to the aims of the group, which is entirely legal and reasonable.

No you have to be "willing to support the ethos" which appears to mean you have to believe in and promote gender ideology.

It's not just a requirement to not be disruptive.

No, that’s not what a vexatious lawsuit is in law.

"Willing to support" doesn't control what you believe, it just means if you want to be a member of the group you need to be willing to support its existence, which couldn't be more reasonable. There's no world in which groups, clubs or associations need to be accommodating to people who oppose their very existence. Do you think you could go along to a Pigeon Fancier's club and announce that you think pigeons are stupid and it's stupid to have a club about them and not be asked to leave? Do you think that would be illegal for some reason (bearing in mind that thinking pigeons are stupid is also a protected belief by the standards set in Forstater vs CGD 2021)?

Would you take a falcon to a pigeon fancier's group and claim it was a pigeon?

That would depend on the rules of the club. If the rules of this club state that falcons and pigeons are both allowed, then yes, you could. And if you had a profound objection to the inclusion of falcons you'd be very silly to join that club and then stand around complaining about the falcons, and - again - could reasonably be asked to leave.

Of course not. The WI say these groups will “offer opportunities for all people” to socialise and learn etc, etc. Sounds great. They mention more than once that these groups have to be open to all, or they risk being discriminatory.

But then they say they’ll have bouncers enforcers facilitators to check whether people agree TWAW, which is where I think they go awry, I think that might well be veering towards a court case.

I think I'm going to pop along to the local Geological Society and see if they'll accommodate my flat earther beliefs, after all they are a protected belief in law, I'm planning to sue them if they suggest this isn't the club for me, wish me luck.

I expect they’ll be perfectly happy to discuss it with you. Why do you think they’ll care that you’re a flat-earther?

Are the geological society a charity whose objects include the benefit of flat-earthers but who want to include not-flat-earthers in subgroups on the side which you have to explicitly show support to not-flat-earthers to take part in?

Why do the Sisterhood Groups need to be open to all? The groups must be open to all in order to avoid any legal risk of discrimination.

But at the same time
you are able to ask people to leave if they are unable to be supportive.

Tying themselves in knots to get around the law- this is the second time recently that I've thought of Edmund Burke on laws ['duties']
. 'They are imposed to govern our conduct, not to exercise our ingenuity'

@Zoonosis flat earth could not be a protected belief as it doesn’t meet the criteria in the Grainger case which set the parameters for a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society. And according to Smith v Northumberland Police neither does gender identity and the belief TWAW meet that criteria. Do try to keep up .