World News

966 readers

444 users here now

Rules:
Be a decent person, don't post hate.

Other Great Communities:

Rules

Be excellent to each other

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Deceptichum@quokk.au

Grainne@lemmy.dbzer0.com

PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au

163

Women’s Institute will no longer accept trans women as members from April (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by TRAHR@sh.itjust.works to c/world@quokk.au

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GeneralVincent@lemmy.world 5 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 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

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] GeneralVincent@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Well not overnight obviously, I'm sure it has to go through a board of directors and have a vote for it. My comment may have come off a bit more flippant then intended tbh. But I'm not aware of any legal reason they can't go that route though, but I'm not in the UK so ¯\(ツ)/¯

I did find this, which I think is relevant. https://the-icm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/CC363.pdf