Exclusive: CEO says decision taken with ‘utmost regret and sadness’ after supreme court ruling on definition of a woman

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.

  • Bassman27@lemmy.world
    18·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      23·
      2 days 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.

    • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      31·
      2 days ago

      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’

    • GeneralVincent@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      1 day ago

      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

      • Bassman27@lemmy.world
        24·
        2 days ago

        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…

          • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
            3·
            1 day ago

            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.

                  • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
                    1·
                    1 day ago

                    “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.

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
        14·
        2 days ago

        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.”

                • Sunshine (she/her)@piefed.caEnglish
                  9·
                  2 days ago

                  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

              • Saapas@piefed.zipEnglish
                4·
                2 days ago

                I don’t think they’re using it as a dogwhistle, from searching it just seems a fairly commonly used term

                • Sunshine (she/her)@piefed.caEnglish
                  6·
                  2 days ago

                  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.

                  • Saapas@piefed.zipEnglish
                    7·
                    2 days ago

                    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.