Inclusive policy
Moving past the headline…
The Women’s Institute will continue to “celebrate” the lives of the transgender women enriching its membership, the head of the organisation said on Tuesday, following reports that it was facing a bid to overturn inclusive policy.
Why should the WI, or any such organization, have an “inclusive policy” that entails being “inclusive” of people who are explicitly and inherently not part of that organization’s constituency? Why is the WI expected to be “inclusive” of men at all? Should peace organizations be “inclusive” of people who promote war? Should labor unions be “inclusive” of the bosses? Should atheist organizations be “inclusive” of Catholic priests and nuns?
And, second question, in what sense does a man “enrich” the membership of the Women’s Institute? Why aren’t women enrichment enough? Is it because women just aren’t that valuable on their own? They have to be beefed up a little by adding some men? Is the WI really going with that? Why?
Melissa Green, CEO of the the National Federation of Women’s Institutes (NFWI), said the organisation did not want to enter into a “toxic and divisive” row that sought to sow discord among women, but instead foster sensible discourse and reflect the lives of all its members – including those that are transgender.
Well that’s stupid. Stupid stupid stupid. The “row” doesn’t “seek to sow discord among women,” it seeks to continue to be the Women’s Institute as opposed to the Women’s and Some Men’s Institute. The discord is inside the house.
“Being part of the WI is about the experience of being a woman, and that is a combination of both biology and lived experience,” she said in an interview with the Guardian.
Yes, lived experience of being a woman.
“I know from speaking to so many of our members that they feel that we are enriched by that, that we learn something about being a woman through the eyes of transgender women.”
They learn that women can’t have anything that’s just for women, that’s what they learn.
Why do women need to learn anything about being a woman from men? It’s like the story of horror in gynecology: there aren’t enough men anymore. It’s almost all women. One young medical student going into gynecology (female) told someone they needed more men to get the male perspective. WTF? Why in hell do you need the men’s perspective to understand the uterus, the ovaries, the fallopian tubes, et al? And why don’t proctologists feel they need more women to get the “woman’s perspective”?
Sorry, just rhetorical questions. I think we all know the answers.
As Jonathan Willoughby recently said he deserves womanhood more than those who were born female since he had to fight for it while AFABs were just given femaleness. That’s he perspective they need, to understand their birth privilege in context..
iknklast, I remember many decades ago (early 80’s) listening to an interview on National Radio of a local woman regarding health services. She recounted going to a male gynaecologist for a routine checkup, and him saying “You must have the longest vagina in [town]”. She was gobsmacked. The interviewer was gobsmacked. For that matter my mother and teenage me were gobsmacked. We were all in agreement that it was an observation that could have stayed sadly tucked inside his own skull. Still, male perspective I guess.
Another woman (from Australia) in the same interview recounted that her male gynaecologist, other than when actually doing the brief exterior exam, made a point of sitting where he was looking at her face and talking to her like a human.
I don’t see a need to ban males from the profession. Neither do I see any reason to weep that fewer are choosing the profession.
Rob, my feelings exactly. I have had male gynecologists, and have not had a problem with them. When I was growing up, that was about your only choice. I just can’t believe the stupidity that surrounds the idea that women outnumber men in gynecology.