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.

all 57 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 88 points 11 months ago (28 children)

Then its no longer the Women's Institute then. Might as well change the name to bigotry Institute.

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago* (26 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 11 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (19 children)

    What laws? This blatantly turning their backs on trans women.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    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.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    They used a right wing dogwhistle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 11 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    When bigots say “biological sex” they’re intentionally misgendering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    Do not make incorrect assumptions. I’m talking about when trans individuals are referred to in general and no intersex people do not fall neatly within 2 boxes.

    Stop defending Nazis. Get your head out of your ass.

    The terms “biological male” and “biological female” have no universal medical definition. Some may use it interchangeably with phrases like “sex assigned at birth,” but ultimately, it reinforces the patently false notion that there are two binary and immutable sexes, and that there are always clear cut distinctions between them. In other words, this verbiage is not only demeaning to trans people; reporters never seem to describe cisgender people as “identifying” as male or female. Even more than that, this language is deeply unscientific.

    “Extensive research confirms that sex and gender are complex and cannot be reduced to simplistic “biological” categories. Using these phrases [’biological male’ and ‘biological female’] 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,” GLAAD’s Guide to Anti-LGBTQ Online Hate and Disinformation explains.

    https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/bbc-now-calling-trans-women-biological

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 23 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    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..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    And they have to follow that law, or using it as an excuse to deny trans?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    The WI gets no government funding. That would be strange.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

    Why would it be strange?

    Its extremely common for advocacy/care groups to get governmental funding

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    It’s neither of those things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    "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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    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/

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    They’re a federation of charities. Charities can’t just change their by-laws when they want to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 29 points 11 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 33 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 11 months ago (16 children)

    What a bunch of spineless cowards.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 11 months ago (16 children)
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago* (7 children)

    Kindly, check the origin of the policy. They've been letting trans women in for 50 years. They just made it official in 2015. This is in response to a very recent mass cultural kickback in the UK.

    They face no real repercussion for stopping the long held tradition, and much from continuing. Bending the knee.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 11 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago* (7 children)

    We get it, you're a bigot. You don't need to keep reminding us.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Likely made for the sole purpose of trolling. Some people have nothing better to do with their lives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    I really wonder what they get out of it. I try to be positive force because it makes me feel better about myself. I've been an asshole in the past to get results on occasion, but I really don't like doing it. So what is their motivation?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    You keep posting this same thing. So you're hateful and not creative. Tends to go hand in hand. But you simply responding, let's us know you're reading these comments. At least you're not using the clown emoji, guess you trumpettes are finally evolving.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 14 points 11 months ago

    The why the fuck do they call it women's institute?

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives

  • source
  • [+] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments