When essence precedes existence
The Women’s Institute has a new Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy as of this month.
NFWI Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy
- Introduction
The WI was founded on democratic ideals over 100 years ago and this commitment
to equality is still central to our ethos today. The WI – the UK’s largest women’s
membership organisation – is an inclusive, welcoming, supportive and progressive
organisation for all women who live as women, including transgender women.
So there you go. It’s explicitly spelled out. Women are people who “live as women” and that includes men. It also excludes a fuck of a lot of women.
WI membership is open to all women who live as women, including transgender
women. The WI welcomes and celebrates a diverse cross-section of women, offering
a space where they can be themselves surrounded by other supportive women. We
do not ask members any personal questions as part of the joining process and are
committed to ensuring all members are treated fairly and equally whatever their
background or individual circumstances
Or sex. The WI is for women and it’s committed to pretending men are women and to protecting men from rude women who might ask rude questions about what men are doing in the WI.
Being a WI member means:
• Upholding the core values and ideals of the WI which are fellowship, truth,
tolerance, and justice.
Truth?
They’ve certainly fallen down on that one.
We also have a duty of care to all WI members, who have the right to feel safe and
protected within our organisational structure.
Except women, of course. Women don’t have the right to feel safe and protected within the organisational structure of the WI.
The WI is an inclusive, supportive, and progressive organisation for all women who live as women, including transgender women. Transgender women are those [who are] assigned male at birth but live as women, and are welcome to join the WI and participate in WI activities in the same way as any other woman.
But transgender women aren’t “any other woman”; they are men.
What does “live as women” even mean?
The WI provides women with educational opportunities and the platform to campaign on issues that matter to them and their communities whilst always celebrating what it means to be a woman. Therefore, including transgender women furthers our objectives and enriches our membership to ensure we are a place for all women to celebrate who they are and influence positive change in their communities.
“Therefore”? I’m not seeing the logic.
The WI is focused on supporting women through every stage of their lives. Therefore, our members will include women who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or who have recently given birth, and it is important these women are supported. For example, this may mean ensuring women feel able to bring their baby to WI meetings and providing a quiet space where members can breastfeed or express milk where possible. Talking to members about this is the best way to ensure their needs are met.
Such women will surely welcome men joining them in the quiet space to watch them breastfeed or express milk, as long as those men are “living as women.”
I hope millions of women leave the WI over the next few weeks.
Whenever I see the phrase Equality, Diversity, and inclusion, I know that it will not be equality (for women) and it will be exclusive of women who don’t like men in women’s spaces.
Men have always been more important than women in the eyes of society, religion, and government. Now we are expecting them to be more important in organizations created by and for women.
That ‘live as women’ is doing a lot of work, but I don’t understand what it means. Does this mean a trans man can’t be a member of WI, even though they are actually a woman?
And they don’t ask personal questions of those seeking membership. So when Barbie Kardashian turns up they’ll just accept his truth and pop him in the room with breastfeeding women who will no doubt feel terribly safe.
What a shit show of an organisation.
Whatever someone thinks living as a woman is like is what it is like to live as a woman. There’s no one definition then so yes, Barbie Kardashian’s claim to being a woman is valid for Barbie Kardashian.
Now if a transman wants to join WI, they also can as long as they say they are the female sex, which makes them female men. It’s all about freedom of definition, and everyone is free to define themselves however they like.
“inclusive” — except of women who know that sex is real
“welcoming” — except to women who value women’s rights and spaces
“supportive” — except of women who need women-only spaces and institutions
“progressive” — except for the regressive ideology that tells women they can’t have anything for women without prioritizing men
Lies and the lying liars who tell them.
What DO they mean by “live as a woman”? I don’t even know. It’s not clear from the context and it’s certainly not clear from our common understanding of what words mean.
The breaking down of clear definitions is a deliberate strategy, especially with respect to the law. That’s why there’s such a thing as “legal sex” versus sex, which really is pretty damn binary in reality. Regarding certainty and words, I think Lewis Carroll had a trenchant comment on what words mean some time ago:
When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
I still want to know exactly what they think they mean by it. Of course they say it to justify including men in the WI but having said that I still want to know what it’s supposed to mean.
I’m a bit fanatical on the meanings of words, and what people think they mean, and how they expect us to understand what they mean, and the like.
It may be that it’s quite simple: it sounds too obviously fatuous to say “The WI is an inclusive, welcoming, supportive, and progressive organisation for all people who claim to be women,” so they make it “all women who live as women.” But maybe they do have a meaning in mind and I just can’t figure out what it is.
“Living as a woman” means that every time someone asks you if you’re a woman, you say “yes.” It means regularly stepping confidently into any spaces marked “Woman” or “Women Only.” It means correcting everyone who calls you a “man.” It means telling people you’re a woman, either directly (“It’s M’AM!”) or indirectly (“Well, as a woman, I think …”) It means not breaking character and guffawing with the guys unless this is how you need to cope with transphobia. It means putting “She/Her” on your pronoun badge. Relentlessly. Obsessively. As if you were born to it.
EUREKA.! I’VE GOT IT.!
Women can be men, and men can be women, regardless of genitalia; except on Sundays, when they should all be in Church, (Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, Buddhists etc excepted; also Seventh Day Adventists.) There they should be reminded that the Bible says that God made people in 2 sexes, not 3, 4, 5… (etc; I could go on.)
Why only 2? Well, numbers were no doubt in short supply back in those early Genesis days, and mathematics had not yet been invented. (God was busy with other matters He considered more important.)
But God did eventually get around to creating a bloke by the name of G.W.F Hegel who came up with an idea about ideas, which he called dialectics. He said that 2 ideas are in dialectical relationship when one of them immediately calls into being its exact opposite: like say, light and dark. The idea of the one depends totally on the idea of the other.
Now there are possibly creatures living in the abyssal depths of the ocean which have only ever known darkness, and will never know light until it comes to pass that one of those little creatures with a lamp mounted on the tip of its nose swims into view. But until that happens, they will have no idea of light, and thus no idea of dark either; even though they have stumbled round in it all their miserable unenlightened and endarkened lives.
Likewise, the concept of ‘maleness’ has no meaning without the concept of ‘femaleness.’ It is definitely a 2-way street, and has been extended (probably since the time of Archimedes) to include such things as nuts and bolts.
Maybe they could host a screening of Adult Human Female. I hear that women are having trouble finding venues willing to show it. It’s certainly part of a campaign on an issue that matters to them and their community. Right?
It can only mean stereotypically sexist wardrobe, hairstyles, comportment, and mannerisms, because these are the only ways that a man can possibly be said to be able to “live as a woman.” A shopping list of appearance and attitude to be ticked off as the items of apparel and cosmetics are donned and applied. You go, Dylan Mulvaney! Welcome, welcome Alex Drummond!! By this standard, women who eschew patriarchal gender norms of dress and behaviour risk being barred for not being “womanly” enough. I guess gatekeeping is only bad when it keeps men out. For men it’s all show and surface because show and surface is all they’ve got open to them; they’re still men nonetheless. They aren’t (and never will be) members of the material category “woman.”
The WI is now accepting “womanface” as grounds for membership. They’re not so much lowering the bar as throwing it away. They’re welcoming liars into the organization without even the pretence of questioning their deception and manipulation. Mustn’t ask awkward or embarassing questions like “Why are you so interested in violating women’s boundaries and accessing women’s spaces?” Permission or not, men wanting to join render themselves immediately suspect and deserving of instant distrust and a presumption of ill-will. Officially welcome or not, no TiM seeking and accepting admittance to the Women’s Institute can be acting in good faith. If they were acting in good faith they wouldn’t be there. They’re like the male cheats who are “allowed” to play in women’s sports. They may protest that they’re “playing by the rules” but their intentions are not honourable and should not be honoured. It’s the same with TiMs in the WI. Their mere presence is harmful and destructive, even if they sit there and say and do absolutely nothing, because their being there destroys the integrity and purpose of what was once, and should be, a female only space. They have robbed women of something that once was theirs, with the Women’s Institute itself acting as an enthusiastic accomplice. Very solidarity. So sisterhood. Much progressive. (And, the WI are still likely to be pilloried by those trans activists who will insist that Self ID should be sufficient, that even the requirement to “live as a woman” is transphobic in and of itself).
And if women turn their backs on the WI, leaving TiMs as the only members remaining, they will be followed to any replacement female-only institution they create, and hounded by TiMs demanding “inclusion” there too, because these men are dependent upon their acceptance as “women” by Women, the hated/needed Other, as the only True, Authentic Validation.
If Sastra is correct about living as a woman, then indeed, I do not do so. Like Ophelia, I have no idea what that means, because no two women of my acquaintance live the same way…and none of them dress like trans women do, or flip their hair or tilt their head or pout their lips…they are too busy living as people, doing jobs, and not getting special privileges because they have special pronouns. They just are.