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.

4 Responses to “Inclusive policy”