J K Rowling has nailed it - re Starmer and the trans issue

Wyllow3

Yes, read up on the controversy. It really is up to them to vote/thrash it out.

I'd be very sorry if the new guidance "forced" a change in name tho - that really does seem like going OTT for a very long established well known group, I dont really see why they should have to?

They should have to, I think. Otherwise women could join groups believing them to be single sex, but then finding they are not.

That may or may not matter for a lot of people, but it's about informed consent.

I do feel men have not embraced TW. Perhaps if they were more accepting of TW there would not be a problem for biological women.

Yes, it has been women who have been given a choice between accepting men into our spaces or finding a workable solution that TW will accept. If men had been persuaded to allow TW into their spaces, things might be different, but that's not what TW want. Most want to 'live as' women and be accepted as such, and using male facilities would get in the way of that, and some want to be able to impose themselves on us at will because it gives them power over women. I don't think many from either group would be happy to compromise.

According to the news,
a judge has ordered that Scottish schools must provide single sex toilets for students.

It is not a decision for the WI to make.
They have to obey the law.

Personally as we have just escaped a sort of tyranny of allowing a small group to demand across the board social impositions I take a dim view of replacing it with another tyranny of not allowing voluntary groups such as the WI to decide for themselves.

Wyllow3 the problem is the WI didn’t ask all the members to vote on whether to allow transwomen into the WI, it was imposed on us.

There is a Petition set up by The Women’s Institute Declaration and over 3,000 members have signed it asking for a free vote by all members on this topic, however the National Federation of Women’s Institutes have denied us this vote.

Wyllow3

Personally as we have just escaped a sort of tyranny of allowing a small group to demand across the board social impositions I take a dim view of replacing it with another tyranny of not allowing voluntary groups such as the WI to decide for themselves.

They can decide for themselves to allow TW to be members - the ruling won't stop that. What they can't do is call themselves the Women's Institute and pretend that the male members are women. If it goes to a vote and the members are happy to include TW, and if it is made clear to members and potential members that this is the case, I don't think there is any reason why they can't. I don't see it as tyranny, just being truthful.

The problem is that calling it the Women's Institute, which clearly states it is not open to men, allowing TW in is akin to saying that they are women, which contravenes the ruling. It's unfortunate for the people who might have to leave, but the law has to apply to all. We found ourselves in this position because we allowed the 'creep' of cases that seemed reasonable, and they mounted up.

I understand that it seems cruel to 'genuine' TW, but this is a direct result of the behaviour of the TRAs and 'allies'. If the members feel that it is ok to allow people who 'identify' as women to join, then unless I am misunderstanding the guidance, that can go ahead. They can't just impose that on the membership though, which seems reasonable to me.

Thats my point Doodledog, it was imposed before, and as you say is up to the members.

But having to change a long standing name - that doesn't sit well with me, I think it's perfectly understandable by the public as long as its biological women that make the decision.

NanKate will be able to say better than me, but I think the feeling was that it doesn't get much more establishment than the WI when it comes to women's groups, yet the person now making policy on EDI is male. Friends of mine who are in it complain that they were never consulted, and that it usually takes years to get to the policy-making level, but the TW managed it in short order, which made it appear like a 'gesture' that was seen as a slap in the face for the membership.

Just thinking, what about the Men’s Shed movement which is very big here? Country Women’s Association? Things seem to be nuttier and nuttier. Maybe Men of Harlech isn’t right,either.

I really feel that's been a problem in 'women's groups' and anything female Doodledog Females are socialised to 'be kind' 'put others first' almost from birth and haven't they complied! From sports to beauty contests women have stood back and let males take over. I saw a video on X where an obvious transwoman won the beauty contest. Without being rude and horrible if this overweight, not especially attractive person had been a biological woman there's zero chance they'd have won, but 'inclusivity' had virtually guaranteed the win from the get go. The other, more conventionally beautiful contestants all whooped and smiled because that's what they had to do, but it was a farce. If it had been a 'strongest man' contest no way would the smaller transman that could barely lift a car wheel have been judged the winner. And therein lies the difference. Every organisation it would seem has prioritised transwomen as being most in need and deserving of the fast track whereas transmen just take the normal female back seat.

The beauty contests well thats always been for men, haven't they?

Yes, the whole trans movement has been for the men. There will be innocent people caught in the crossfire, and I recognise that and sympathise- but if those had spoken out when the TRAs were screaming at feminists, or when sexualised drag queens came to schools and libraries to read to young children, or when women were hounded out of careers for speaking truth to power I would sympathise more.

We aren’t all born brave. I have lost out for speaking out about other things before now, but this nonsense hit at a time when I could afford to say no. I refused to declare pronouns on Zoom ( during Covid in particular) and when questioned just laughed and asked who wasn’t able to tell my sex and why it mattered. I have a unisex name, which complicates things a bit, but I would never castigate anyone for making assumptions about my sex if they had never met me. IMO it is entirely irrelevant to work-based correspondence, as I am employed for my expertise, not my sex.

I do, however, sympathise with young colleagues who have had to go along with this nonsense and pretend that they think men can be women or use plural pronouns to describe someone who wasn’t even there - if she had been everyone could just have called her by her name.

Would I have been so compliant? Who knows? I ask myself that question a lot. Maybe so, as I had children to feed. It’s very easy to judge from the sidelines when you don’t have anything to lose, so I would ask anyone who sneers at others’‘failures’ in this regard to consider what (if anything) they have personally sacrificed. And that they are honest in their replies to themselves.

I wish we could edit- obviously I meant ‘if those people. . . ‘

As Carlotta posted yesterday;

This is on the WI's website, under "inclusivity":

No, men are not allowed to be members of the Women's Institute (WI)

As a trans identified woman is now a legally recognised man; it would go against their own constitution to continue their admittance. Apart from it being in direct breach of the law.

The idea that it’s all right for some TW to contravene the law in any situation that suits them is what caused the problems in the first place.

The fact that that has backfired on people who mean no harm is the saddest part of the whole affair, but in the WI, there was some definite unkindness to women who didn’t want males in their women’s group.

Now it’s been confirmed that TW are not women, who decides when it’s OK to ignore a legal ruling?

How often and under what circumstances does anyone even just on GN think it’s OK to ignore a legal ruling?

So, take a vote;
To change the name?
Change the constitution?

Leave people alone and mind your own business.

BlueberryPie

Leave people alone and mind your own business.

I’m not sure what you mean Blueberrypie. Your post is too vague to make sense, but it is very much the business of women to defend our right to safe spaces, and it’s not possible to do that without involving the people who want to invade those spaces.

As a biological woman it is my business.

Absolutely. If that’s what BP meant, I couldn’t agree more.

Strange post.
Thanks eazybee and Doodledog for answering.

In the WI magazine they sell items such as tea towels promoting the Suffragette movement, that our ancestors bravely fought for and on the other hand accept transwomen into the WI without a vote from the membership.

They are being very slow in responding to the new ruling.

Women have been persecuted for wearing the suffragette colours in the Scottish parliament. For some reason (I really don’t understand why) the TRAs are very against suffragettes.

Everything having to be sorted out legally still isn't enough for some. Something a five year old could have answered. I can never take KS seriously again for his comment, women can have a penis, he is running the country and yet his observation skills are nil. A lot of bullying, fired on by idiots.
Doodle, I agree with what you say on this issue.

You can see how Hitler got so much power. When minorities become so powerful, we end up being scared to say anything because of the consequences. Losing your job. Other people not talking to you. So many people go with the prevailing narrative instead of critical thinking and making their own mind up. I would love to know what other people think and how this happens.