Then its no longer the Women's Institute then. Might as well change the name to bigotry Institute.
I wouldn’t blame the institute they’re doing it against their wishes for legal reasons. I believe they’re going to still support trans women the best they can within the rules of the law.
What legal reasons? They're not legally bound to only accept cis women, its just one of their own rules. They don't have to go through the courts, they can change their bylaws to include trans women. Or whatever verbiage they need.
Unless I'm missing something, they have no legal obligation to keep the same bylaws as an organization. Then there's no basis for a terf to sue.
ETA: whoop, missed this part of the article apparently;
Green said the organisation wanted trans women to remain “part of the WI family” and that from April it would launch new “sisterhood groups”, open to all, which would be “a place where we will recognise transgender women as women and explore what it is to be a woman in the 21st century."
So if that's possible, then it seems absurd that the main organization could be at risk of legal action
They’re a federation of charities. Charities can’t just change their by-laws when they want to.
Well not overnight obviously, I'm sure it has to go through a board of directors and have a vote for it. My comment may have come off a bit more flippant then intended tbh. But I'm not aware of any legal reason they can't go that route though, but I'm not in the UK so ¯\(ツ)/¯
I did find this, which I think is relevant. https://the-icm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/CC363.pdf
They are choosing to disenfranchise people instead of fight for them. If they are willing to throw people away to maintain their own positions, then they never actually cared about you in the first place. They are choosing to sacrifice people for their own comfort.
Fuck Melissa Green, the bigot.
You can absolute blame them for doing it without a fight. We’ll see if these ‘legal routes’ they’re exploring go anywhere, or if it’s just ‘sowwy, the gobermint said we had to uwu’
Ah yes collaboration with nazis ends well for everyone…
What laws? This blatantly turning their backs on trans women.
Have you read the article? It literally says it’s due to the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman.
The head of the institute expresses deep regret and is exploring legal routes to correct this..
And they have to follow that law, or using it as an excuse to deny trans?
Nah they can just ignore the law.
Seriously though, I'd guess their funding comes from the government in some way, and if they do not adhere to the laws governing that, their funding could be completely pulled.
Edit: To be more clear, it's likely the definition of woman in the eyes of the govt would determine what aid groups do with funds provided by the government if they say they serve that population, so it could be considered defrauding the govt if you're helping trans women with funds allocated only for "women" under the new definition.
I think it's fucked up the court ruled this way, but it's at least understandable why this institute would need to follow along unless they want to try to self-fund in some way, which might not work at all and then the good they are doing is completely lost. They also did say they're going to work on it from a legal perspective so unless that's just BS (could be) then it seems they are trying to do the right thing and advocate for trans rights.
The WI gets no government funding. That would be strange.
Why would it be strange?
Its extremely common for advocacy/care groups to get governmental funding
It’s neither of those things.
"To be able to continue operating as the Women’s Institute - a legally recognised women’s organisation and charity - we must act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment and restrict formal membership to biological women only. However, this change is only in respect to our membership policy and does not change our firm belief that transgender women are women."
I didn't read their actual announcement before but it literally says exactly that.
It’s a federation of social clubs for women. Their meetings have guest lecturers, they bake pies, and so on. You might as well expect the government to fund the Scouts.
They do in certain instances lmao https://www.girlscouts.org/en/support-us/donate/our-partners/DOL.html
Grants and tax incentives for organizations and such are contingent on various factors, the implication here is obviously that there is some negative ramification (likely financially) for not adhereing to what a "woman" is according to the law in relation to their status as a "legally recognized womens organization and charity".
You're using a UK domain so here's one from the UK lol https://www.scouts.org.uk/volunteers/running-things-locally/grants-and-funds-for-your-local-group/grants-from-uk-scouts/uniformed-youth-fund/
The Women’s Institute will no longer accept transgender women as members from April following the UK supreme court ruling on the legal definition of a woman, the Guardian can reveal.
“Incredibly sadly, we will have to restrict our membership on the basis of biological sex from April next year,” Green said. “But the message we really want to get across is that it remains our firm belief that transgender women are women, and that doesn’t change.”
'Biological sex'
You heard it here first; trans women are droids.
They used a right wing dogwhistle.
What was the dogwhistle?
When bigots say “biological sex” they’re intentionally misgendering.
I don't think they're using it as a dogwhistle, from searching it just seems a fairly commonly used term
10 day account attempting to downplay transphobia…
In recent years, anti-LGBTQ politicians and media figures have increasingly employed the phrases “biological male” and “biological female” as derogatory ways of referring to transgender women and transgender men respectively. Extensive research confirms that sex and gender are complex and cannot be reduced to simplistic “biological” categories. Using these phrases to target trans people is not a matter of accuracy but of animus — language wielded to stigmatize and deny transgender and nonbinary people’s right to live openly and safely. These phrases are not neutral descriptors; they are rhetorical devices used to deny the validity of transgender identities. Terms such as “biological male” or “biological boy” are deployed to deliberately misgender transgender women and girls while collapsing the important distinction between gender identity and sex assigned at birth. As journalist Erin Reed notes, since the early 2010s, “biological” framings have been deliberately mobilized as part of anti-trans political agendas: “Anti-trans legislators are on the record stating the broader goal is the end of transgender people altogether. If they can convince the public to place an asterisk next to the gender identity of transgender athletes, it becomes much easier to extend that asterisk to bathrooms, youth rights, literature, and beyond.”
What began as a deliberate strategic framing in legislative debates and media coverage quickly spread online, appearing in posts, memes, and coordinated harassment campaigns. On social media, the terms “biological male/female” or “biological pronouns” are frequently used to target individual trans people with harassment, to spread disinformation about transgender athletes, or promote false narratives that trans women are threats in women’s spaces. The repetition of these phrases in comment sections, hashtags, and viral content normalizes misgendering, escalates pile-ons, and creates hostile environments that make platforms unsafe for trans users.
I'm just saying it's a commonly used term. Wikipedia uses it 12 times and in a very neutral way too from what I can tell.
Searching for the word brings up all kinds of articles that aren't transphobic from what I can tell
I don't doubt some use terms "biological woman" or something in a transphobic and hostile way, but from searching for it, "biological sex" is commonly used (also) as a neutral term.
What a bunch of spineless cowards.
Ugh, this creates a dilemma: upvote or not? I’m never sure what to do here.
I hate the content so I want to downvote, but I like the awareness so I want to upvote.
I think upvotes are for the quality of the content in the post and comments are for sharing your opinion.
So, upvote when the post fits the purpose of the community, spurs discussion, and follows the rules.
Comment to tell people what you think about the content of the post.
If we downvoted every time there was horrible news we didn't agree with communities like news and politics would never receive a single upvote.
I think you're spot on yeah.
Content aggregators (where Digg, Reddit, and to a certain degree StumbleUpon were the obvious choices) generally use the upvote/downvote tooling to promote content that users think are worthy to be shared or should be seen more; same with comments if they add constructively to the discussion regardless of viewpoint.
The problem with using upvote and downvote style tools to express like and dislike means that you just end up with an echo chamber of "goodthink" and a community that circlejerks itself, where dissenting or controversial but possibly accurate comments and posts never see the light of day.
Truly furthering the plight of women everywhere. I say, well done!
The org wanted to retain trans women but the UK's court ruling made that a legal hazard? I'm not sure who would have standing to sue and over what exactly?
Terfs. Terfs would sue.
So they should fight the law, not accept it.
Your understanding of legal issues astounds me.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
Rules:
Be a decent person, don't post hate.
Other Great Communities:
Be excellent to each other