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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Doodledog

The TRAs are, indeed, misogynists, as are many so-called 'allies' who always foreground the rights of males over those of women, and yes, they have made things so much worse for those who were 'quietly' living as transwomen before.

It's all a mess, and I don't think we're out of it yet, as the practicalities still need to be sorted out.

I don’t know how knowing what a woman is is deemed a mess.

I have regularly challenged the WI on their acceptance of transwomen without a vote by the full membership of the WI. They got very narky with me and categorically said transwomen were women, which they blatantly aren’t. I am revving up to having another go at them.

I suggested that they should be honest and change the name of the WI to The Women’s and Transwomen’s Institute.

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.

It really is up to them to vote/thrash it out.

No, i don't think it is. The interim guidelines stated quite clearly that Membership of an association of 25 or more people

women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men), and a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans men (biological women).

That doesn’t seem to leave much margin to vote or thrash out; it would only take one member to make a complaint and the organisation would be in breach of the act andface legal action. This will affect WI and Guides I think.

Organisations can't just decide to ignore the law. I confidently predict that the organisations that are saying they will break the law will be retracting those statements swiftly, once they have rested control of their social media account from the idiots who are currently running them.

Galaxy

Scouts has been mixed sex for a long time, and they arrange rooms, changing facilities according to the fact that they are mixed sex. Guides can no longer say they are a single sex organisation if they admit boys. If they decide to go mixed sex they will need to provide appropriate facilities for each sex.

Absolutely!
Deciding to go mixed sex is different from being told to admit trans who were boys.

Scouts has been mixed sex for a long time, and they arrange rooms, changing facilities according to the fact that they are mixed sex. Guides can no longer say they are a single sex organisation if they admit boys. If they decide to go mixed sex they will need to provide appropriate facilities for each sex.

eazybee

If exceptions are made it leaves the way open for abuse of the system, and negates the long and determined fight to establish biological women's rights.

It certainly does.

Doesn’t involve me any more, but way back
I’ve read mention on GN from WI where they have admitted males, even though some women members were not happy about it, to avoid being called transphobic, the membership went ahead.

So what do they do now?
Support the women who are entitled to belong to a women only association and risk being called transhaters which seems to be the latest version of transphobic.
Or ignore the ruling. Pick a law you like.

And if there is one male, in a setting like that and more males want to join, should the rule be upheld or ignored.

Scouts or guides maybe need to introduce gender neutral scouts as well. That way females or males could opt to join the legally single sex group or mixed sex settings.
When DD was involved, her main objections and those of all the other parents of girls, were the sleeping and sanitation arrangements, where single sex provision was not available.

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?

Cross posted Doodledog I'm such a slow typist.

Wyllow3

There are a number of organisations like the WI that have welcomed transwomen, whether they feel the need to clarify or alter is up to them?

I wonder if they will have to change their name if they still want to allow transwomen, but then if they allow those males can they justify keeping any other males out? That would surely amount to discrimination based on gender identity? It is going to take some sorting out going forward.

Wyllow3

There are a number of organisations like the WI that have welcomed transwomen, whether they feel the need to clarify or alter is up to them?

There is a long-running controversy about that. I'm not a member, but my understanding is that there has been a backlash against their policy of allowing TW, as it contradicts their purpose of campaigning for issues relevant to women. Someone with more knowledge than I have may contradict this, but I think the controversy started when a TW joined and was welcomed, but rose through the ranks in very short order and is now in a position to influence policy on EDI. There may be more to it than that, but some members are very unhappy, and I believe there were mass resignations.

I don't think there can be legal compulsion for the WI (or anyone else) to refuse to accept TW, but it looks as though the guidance is saying that it can't advertise itself as being a women's institute, as if it accepts men that is not the case. If that's correct, they will have to decide whether to relaunch under a different name or to remain single-sex.

This is yet another way in which the TRAs have worked against the interests of 'genuine' TW, who have fitted in and contributed to the organisation. It does seem unfair on them.

I know nothing of the WI but as a voluntary organisation it does have the right to make its own rules up - whatever they decide. I don't think that abusing the system. They now have the legal right if they so choose to ban transwomen.

If exceptions are made it leaves the way open for abuse of the system, and negates the long and determined fight to establish biological women's rights. The fault lies with the extremely convoluted wording of the 2010 Equality Act, author Harriet Harmer, and Nicola Sturgeon's determination to impose her interpretation of it on women's rights.
All this (possibly) well-intentioned discussion will reinforce the desire of transwomen to assume the same rights as biological women, and we have seen and suffered the effect of that.

There are a number of organisations like the WI that have welcomed transwomen, whether they feel the need to clarify or alter is up to them?

It will be interesting to see what happens to the statistics (such as they are) when saying ‘I’m a woman’ doesn’t grant automatic access to women’s spaces.

You make a good point about enforcement Wyllow. I suspect that if TW behave like your friend and don’t barge into spaces with fanfare, it will be business as usual. What will stop will be men descending on lesbian dating events, using women’s swimming pools and so on. I wonder what will happen in Guiding and the WI.

It won't because that is not what it is about. It is about access to women's spaces.