www.thewi.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases
It appears that the WI, along with Guiding, has finally accepted that the law applies to them as well as to the rest of us.
I am not a WI member, so much of what I know is from reading things like the thread on MN where a member's husband was refused membership as he doesn't 'live as a woman'. He took them to court, as they did allow transwomen to be members, so it was his lifestyle, not his sex that precluded his membership. Nobody can define what 'living as a woman' means, lifestyle is not a protected characteristic, and sex is legally based on biology, so it appears that he has won his case - I don't see how he could have lost, really.
Both the WI and Guiding express deep sorrow and regret at their decisions and are clearly 'giving in' grudgingly, but AFAIK neither asked their membership's opinions on things like having boys in tents with girls, or men at meetings supposedly for women, and from which men who don't claim to 'live as women' are excluded - the policies were imposed, not voted in.
I assume it's obvious that I approve of the policy reversals. At one time I would have argued that a very occasional man who had transitioned should be allowed in the WI, (although I would probably not have approved on teenage boys being in the GG), but since the recent forcing of the TRA agenda onto policies of various types my desire to protect women and girls has trumped a wish for everyone to live and let live.
It was apparently discussed on Women's Hour this morning, but I have been out all day, and missed it. Did anyone hear it, please, and if so, was anything discussed that contradicts my take on it all (ie that a women's and girls' groups should be for women and girls)?
Still using Cis.
The one thing you’re right about is that men, especially those men who are claiming to be women,
will persist in denying women’s right to safe spaces like toilets and changing rooms.
I know of a lesbian married couple who can’t both be legal parents of their daughter as they couldn’t afford ivf so used a private donor, so only the biological mother can be on the birth certificate and the donor has to be named as the father for example). you really want to stick with this? Really? No sperm donor is listed on a child's birth certificate in the UK. I know this for a fact as I know a married lesbian couple who have two children by the same sperm donor.
Rights established in Law UK- The Equality Act 2010 protects the following characteristics:
Age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnerships, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation. Thus gay people it could be said have the same legal rights as heterosexual people. Each has recourse to the law if they feel their rights have been breached.
Protections include for example: discrimination by association, victimisation, public sector equality duty.
Affordability of IVF treatment is not a legal protection for either gay or heterosexual couples.
ALL humans form communities of choice and deal with every day challenges and struggles. It is part of the human condition to gravitate towards communities that reflect your beliefs. All humans that feel they have been unlawfully discriminated against have recourse to the law.
There are many forms of privilege- race, class, wealth, education, gender privilege- e.g. male privilege, nationality, age, being able bodied or without mental disabilities etc. The majority of individuals on Gransnet therefore, whatever their sex or gender might have been disadvantaged by some form of privilege at some stage of their life. They each would have found their own way to manage their experience- what works effectively and what doesn't.
Women, have the legal protection for certain safe spaces as a result of their sex- ie born as a woman.
All are entitled to their views. We all have the same legal protections. Anyone is entitled to hold the belief that it is disadvantageous to a certain demographic not being able to enter certain designated women spaces but antipathy towards women who wish to protect their safe spaces, as determined by law, undermines legal protection. It is equally true that anyone can hold personal and differing views about gender and sexuality.
We are all doing the best we can with the cards we are dealt.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Oreo
The terms cis and terfs are used by the trans lobby.
I don't know anyone who uses those words or discusses this. The poster is out to wind you all up.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Well that petition does not agree with your statement I know of a lesbian married couple who can’t both be legal parents of their daughter as they couldn’t afford ivf so used a private donor, so only the biological mother can be on the birth certificate and the donor has to be named as the father for example). Your couple are married, the petitions' couple are not and she says if they were married both could go on the birth certificate. Nowhere does it say the sperm donor is registered as the father, and in the UK this absolutely doesn't happen. Are you still sticking with this statement?
You are making a lot of assumptions, Nanananbatman.
You appear to assume that everyone posting here is a heterosexual able-bodied woman, for instance, and that we are 'privileged', which may or may not be the case on all counts.
The truth is that you have no idea which demographics we belong to, or of our experiences within them. Many years of experience of posting on here, however, shows me that a significant proportion of people are able to think outside of what immediately affects them, and see things more generally.
Many of us are fighting to prevent the loss of women's facilities, which is where you came in - complaining that without 'mixed gender' spaces women who are 'a bit on the tall side' would be abused in the street and those wearing trousers would have to prove their sex to male security guards.
What most of us want in that regard is simply somewhere to relieve ourselves without risk of attack or of being an unconsenting part of an autogynephilic fantasy. I don't understand why that is considered unreasonable.
Similarly, we want the language to say what it means - namely that a woman is an adult human female, not someone of wither sex who declares themself to be such, and for spaces, awards, statistics and so on that apply to women to be reserved for them. We aren't asking for separatism, or for women to be prioritised - just that we can continue to be acknowledged as what we are.
Sexuality has nothing to do with any of it. Lesbians are just as likely to agree with me as to you (and vice versa).
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
In the UK, same sex partners CAN be on the birth certificate as second parent when male sperm donor used "provided specific legal conditions are met" under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008" Evidently the welfare of the child in question is paramount. Relationships do break down and it is important to establish parental rights at time of brith as set out on birth certificate. Until the Act certain conditions are met the sperm father as donor is the biological father obviously. So steps need to be taken to change and formalise that legally. More importantly for the Childs welfare in years to come that to satisfy the parents' desire to be on the birth certificate.
E.g. The conception must be carried out at a UK licensed fertility clinic. Thus complications arise if the conception is through private/home arrangements. If the mother is married or in a civil partnership, the spouse or civil partner CAN be considered the second parent consented to artificial insemination and the sperm donor is not the legal father. All such issues would have been dealt with in a UK licensed clinic.
There also can be both certificate issues in heterosexual couples, not married or in a civil relationship- where the father has difficulties in getting his name on birth certificate as relationship has broken down. Such complications are not exclusive to gay females.
Petitions to change the law may or may not be successful. meanwhile gay and heterosexual couples who face brith certificate issues as you describe would be advised to seek legal advice...
No I didn't misunderstand you, you stated and the donor has to be named as the father. There is no requirement to name the father on a child's birth certificate and an anonymous donor is not listed. Your friends must have chosen to name the sperm donor as father and he must have accompanied them to register the birth as unmarried women are not permitted to name any man who isn't present.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I understand the challenges that face gay females in the quest to be a parent. Though it is also the case that many hetero sexual couples who can't access free NHS IVF treatments access sperm donors. Gay females won't be discriminated against, or shouldn't be. by the NHS in seeking IVF treatment.
Affordability is not the crux of the birth certificate issue- see post a moment ago.
Would advise any gay couple who is unable to secure NHS IVF treatment to use a UK licensed clinic to purchase sperm rather than "using a friend" privately. Or the "friend" can attend the clinic to ensure all legal requirements addressed. Or consult a solicitor so said 'friend" can relinquish parental rights to satisfy male sperm donor used "provided specific legal conditions are met" Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008". Or just continue with private arrangement but accept second partner can not be named on both certificate until legal conditions met.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Nanananabatman
It literally happened to someone I went to school with I don’t know why you are arguing with me about women’s rights to parent their child
If that's meant for me I have not argued about women's rights to parent their child, but that's OK, keep moving the goalposts and rearranging your 'evidence'.
Nobody is arguing with you- just setting out the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008".
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Are you saying the issue is the couple are seeking to amend the birth certificate AFTER the birth mother originally entered the sperm donor father's name?
If your last post was directed against me Nannanabatman, I would kindly request that you stop describing my efforts to assist in pejorative language...
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Nanananabatman
It literally happened to someone I went to school with
That’s hearsay unless it happened to you.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
