The Women's Institute is to revert to being an Institute for Women

kircubbin2000

I have seen here some women who have attended Men's Shed. I don't think this is fair as the whole point of it was to let men meet together.

I agree with you. I’m sure many men want their own space too.

When writing you could perhaps remind them that trans women not being women isn't a belief Nankate; it's a fact.

Just received a pathetic, apologetic email from NFWI only promoting their pro-trans views. They still insist that transwomen are women, even though the biological facts, as stated by Professor Winston, prove this is wrong.

I shall reply to their email saying that the WI usually encourages WI members to have a variety of beliefs, which can be discussed freely with members. In this case they do everything to suppress members, such as myself, who have varying views.

I shall be writing to them. 😉

Oreo
^ But in practice it’s a non starter.^
People want to join a WI that’s near them don’t they? How many transwomen would there have to be in any one area to form a meaningful group? And they wouldn’t be allowed to call it the WI either.

In addition to that, same as in sport, it isn’t what the males want.
They aren’t women, but they expect their claim to be so to be accepted by all women (AHF) and thus be allowed to join groups for women regardless of whether all women want that or not.
The women who don’t want that will be accused of being transphobic and told to “be kind”.
There has been an increase of comments such as those against women who want spaces free from males.
Good news for TW.

Esmay

I didn't join my local WI and went as a guest .
I didn't join ,because I was completely horrified by the racism .

And I said so .

Racism and sexism are both an us and them attitude to people and very often go together.

Maremia

That sounds like a good and a kind compromise, NanKate, to start an offshoot catering for transwomen.

But in practice it’s a non starter.
People want to join a WI that’s near them don’t they? How many transwomen would there have to be in any one area to form a meaningful group? And they wouldn’t be allowed to call it the WI either.

I think men are entitled to their own spaces too.

kircubbin2000

I have seen here some women who have attended Men's Shed. I don't think this is fair as the whole point of it was to let men meet together.

But then that’s up to the men to say no.

I didn't join my local WI and went as a guest .
I didn't join ,because I was completely horrified by the racism .

And I said so .

It's fair IMO kirkcubbin and isn't the same as trans women who are men, being told they are now women and can join the WI.

I have seen here some women who have attended Men's Shed. I don't think this is fair as the whole point of it was to let men meet together.

NanKate

As a member of the WI and in response to Doodledog any transwomen in the WI will be asked to leave by April 2026.

The WI intend to start some offshoot groups that include transwomen.

The WI did not allow a vote by all the members on this subject.

The announcement by one of the Executives of the WI yesterday, was imo mealy mouthed, apologetic and demeaning to the true spirit of the Women’s Institute.

Professor Robert Winston said ‘You can add parts to the body and remove them, but you can’t change the biology of a human being’. That is good enough for me.

As a fellow WI member I agree wholeheartedly with you. I received an email yesterday from my WI Secretary with an attachment of the statement given out by National. It said that they are looking at creating Sisterhoods for trans people. Who will be funding that? I think there may be an exodus of WI members in the not too distant future with this and the fees at £54.

Jackiest

^"That would mean TW (males) will have succeeded again."^

It is not a competition.

Really? It is when a man competes against women in sport, or wins a prize that is for a woman's perspective in the Arts, or takes a job that is legally ring-fenced for a woman (only allowed in limited circumstances, such as when the role involves intimate care and similar).

Th WI can start an 'offshoot' group and include men, but they can't do it under the banner of the Women's Institute. Apart from anything else, the WI has charitable status and a constitution, which means that using members' money for aims outside of those of the WI would be illegal. So would having a 'Sisterhood' (interesting title) group that is mainly for women, but allows men to attend if they are 'living as women', but not women who 'live as men' or men who live as men.

As I understand it, where single-sex groups are concerned, people can be excluded on the grounds of sex, but not on so-called 'gender' or on grounds of lifestyle. So the WI could accept transmen (if they wanted to join) but not transwomen, as the former are biologically female and the latter male. The notion of 'living as' male or female is, as well as being meaningless, irrelevant.

Despite the 'regret' and wringing of hands, the WI is not above the law of the land.

Jackiest

^"That would mean TW (males) will have succeeded again."^

It is not a competition.

????
Competition? Weird statement.
It’s not a competition.
However if women are prevented by males from having male free spaces, what would be a more accurate term?

"That would mean TW (males) will have succeeded again."

It is not a competition.

Mollygo Thu 04-Dec-25 18:36:34
'The WI intend to start some offshoot groups that include transwomen'.

That’s a good idea. It’s been suggested in sport too. It will be interesting to see whether TW are happy about this.
It will also be interesting to see whether the main WI groups disappear, because of the offshoot groups, where the often claimed majority move to the “offshoot groups” leaving the women who would prefer to have a male free group.
That would mean TW (males) will have succeeded again"

Good post Mollygo. Nothing to stop TW start up their own off shoot groups, e.g. New Women's Institute. TW are free to incorporate equity and diversity into their constitution and invite women from birth to join their organisations if they so wish. Women from birth are free to join if they so wish or choose traditional, protected women only spaces if that is their preference.

The WI intend to start some offshoot groups that include transwomen.

That’s a good idea.
It’s been suggested in sport too.

It will be interesting to see whether TW are happy about this.
It will also be interesting to see whether the main WI groups disappear, because of the offshoot groups, where the often claimed majority move to the “offshoot groups” leaving the women who would prefer to have a male free group.
That would mean TW (males) will have succeeded again.

That sounds like a good and a kind compromise, NanKate, to start an offshoot catering for transwomen.

Yes the conversations would have been very different if Hayley had been played by a man, there was some interesting strategising going on even back then in my view.

The actress was, but the character was trans, as was the advisor to the programme.

Hayley would be fine in the WI, she was/is a woman

Lathyrus3

How will you be able to KNOW ,*Davida*?

If nobody can tell that someone is a transwoman they’ll just turn up, nobody will know and really it won’t be an issue because nobody will know.

What this ruling and the WIs (grudging) acceptance of the law will do, is protect women from those aggressive males who have sought to disrupt and eliminate places for women by pretending they want to be women, whilst retaining all their male attitudes towards females and all their domineering male privilege.

Believe me the women there will be able to KNOW who they are.

Agree, Lathyrus.

I can't be certain of course, but am willing to bet that the majority of members wouldn't care if Hayley from Corrie turned up to a talk about community policing, but would object to India Willoughby loudly insisting on using the Ladies because it is there and using a unisex one is not performative enough, or Lia Thomas giving a lecture on being a winner in women's swimming.

How will you be able to KNOW ,*Davida*?

If nobody can tell that someone is a transwoman they’ll just turn up, nobody will know and really it won’t be an issue because nobody will know.

What this ruling and the WIs (grudging) acceptance of the law will do, is protect women from those aggressive males who have sought to disrupt and eliminate places for women by pretending they want to be women, whilst retaining all their male attitudes towards females and all their domineering male privilege.

Believe me the women there will be able to KNOW who they are.

Davida1968
Same points as are always raised.

You’ve missed the posters with tall, muscular, deep voiced women friends.
Or the you can’t tell posts.

Re the how can you tell?
I don’t look at whether a person is male or female unless I have cause to do so.

I’ve frequently been told on GN that trans lived unnoticed in the past, and I can well believe that.

The problem is that the actions of the few TW have caused problems not only for women (AHF) but for all trans.
e.g.
- the cheating in sport, depriving females of awards they’ve worked for,

- the appointment of males like Mridul Wadhwa, to a female post

- the violence threatened by TW to anyone who dared to say you can’t change sex

-the demand to be placed in a female prison even when the TW is convicted of rape

-the behaviour of TW demanding to be placed in female mental health wards often causing further trauma to the females there and threatening the nurses with punishment for being transphobic

-the demand to access female safe spaces whilst still being demonstrably male

etc.

Maybe we should rely on males having integrity and being honest, i.e. if you’re male, you don't go to join a women’s group.

integrity involves being truthful and trustworthy,

Do you think that would work?

I read posts saying that TW were accepted by everyone in the group.
If you’re in that situation and say that you’re not happy about it, you’re likely to be condemned as transphobic, told to “be kind” or even worse, find yourself ostracised because people would prefer to support a male.

TW are constantly going on about unkindness to their minority group.

But even if a majority were to accept TW into the group, doesn’t that mean that ignoring the wishes/feelings of the minority of women who don’t want to accept males into the group is equally if not more unkind

Crikey - Institute for Women sounds like a prison.