This is the guidance the NFWI didn’t want you to see ….

[Marmaladelover]

I have been looking for this for ages it’s mentioned in another set of recent general guidance on subgroups and visitors- a subject now close to NFWI hearts due to wanting us all to believe that TWAW ( organisational belief apparently) and the formation of sisterhood.

it’s not searchable on their website as far as I can tell.

i guess they didn’t want us to see it in case anyone was preparing a complaint or legal case against them

Helpfully , Hampshire Fed have posted it on their website for all to see

Personally I saved the PDF in case it disappears again . Always good to have receipts.

https://www.hampshirewi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Sisterhood-Groups-Guidelines-Final.pdf

The sheer amount of fucking wasted effort in this.

Why don't the women who are so desperate to include men in the WI just set up their own mixed sex group?

Because the TIM don’t want that. It’s not the women who accept them they want, it’s the ones who refuse to comply. They don’t want a mixed sex group. They want women’s groups.

‘Organisational belief’ isn’t going to stand up to scrutiny in the wake of FWS: a charity set up for women has to be just that - for female people.

Spin off groups for TW will have to be open all men and to all women, including those with the protected belief that you can’t change sex.

The sheer amount of time and effort and money National are wasting in this is beyond belief. And they’ve not given the members a chance to vote on this properly at any time. There’s been some surveys - Hampshire got an essay on my views, including about why I felt I had to be anonymous and that I had been made to feel unwelcome and unwanted as a member. But they’ve still not put any of it to a proper vote - though since we always vote in public with a show of hands that’s not easy either.

Not in a million years. It's just a pity party for trans-identifying man, and who wants to attend that?

In 12 months this will all be consigned to the rubbish tip of what "someone thought was a good idea but nobody wants to own up to it having been them."

Yes. I'm wondering if it will be possible for an organisation to discriminate on the grounds of belief like that - 'gc women are excluded' was the effective message.

Clearly they're doing their level best to twist their way out of the law.

And again, if it means so much to them, why not just set up another group that is mixed sex? They can call it Super Extra Girly Girls Group for Feminine People and have whoever they like. And let the women have their WI.

Actually maybe they can't call it a 'girls' group. Soz lads.

Super Feminine Swishy Hair Group for Extra Feminine People

Extra Ladylike Headtilters

Or even just The Nice Group For Lovely Good People Who Care.

Many have. Around 20 WIs the last time I saw a figure have done just that. I imagine NFWI didn't want to lose them (a lot were 'younger' groups) hence the Sisterhood attempts

I don't think they will be very concerned over losing 20 groups out of 7,000.

My mum was a WI member for years and was proud of the activism which made things better for women. Now their activism is making things worse for women.

The women spearheading these things are an utter embarrassment.

Well done those groups! At last, a sensible response.

Anyone who wants mixed sex whatever is free to go ahead and set that up, and leave women's stuff alone.

It'll probably be a lot more fun for all of them, anyway. Good KIND people will be far happier in their special Inclusive Groups, far from the great unwashed and less enlightened and non-progressive horribly cunty types.

Just leave us be in our horrible wicked groups for pedantic biological reality, and we'll let them get on with the Right Side of History.

Because they wouldn't have access to WI resources?

back when the WI started, they didn't have access to WI resources either. The resources were built up, by women, for women.

these people who want to be part of a mixed sex group should do the same

Ah but it's so much easier to piggyback (or cuckoo) an existing org.

The WI is a charitable organisation for women.

Why should men have access to those resources?

They shouldn't of course, but the question was 'why don't the women (cuckooing for men) set up their own mixed sex group ?'
The answer is that it's easier to use the resources of an established group. ( The same has happened with the 'green' party).

All the financial responsibilities of a charity are tied up in their actions.

And gift aid is a delightful tangle of pain if you get it wrong.

Do the sisters group need extra insurance?

Shall we start a sweepstake on the number of men who call themselves women will join these ‘Sister’ groups? I’m bagsying zero.

Well, it'd be good to see a risk assessment from insurance companies for groups of 'women plus men who are willing to go to extreme lengths to access women's spaces'.

Has anyone been able to find out or estimate how many men identifying as trans women were in membership of the WI and have subsequently been removed in line with the NFWI Press Release on 3 Dec 2025?

https://www.thewi.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases

What I am wondering, is all this "Sisterhood" malarky really to accommodate "transwomen" in general or has it been invented just for one or two people?

Also, is this Facilitator arrangement normal for "subgroups":

Sisterhood Group Facilitator

It is important that each of the Sisterhood Groups, whether at WI or federation level, has an identified facilitator or facilitators (the role can be shared). The facilitator will co-ordinate the group’s activities and their role will be integral in maintaining the ethos of the group.

Each Sisterhood Group must have a Facilitator/s from the host WI, however, as a Sisterhood Group establishes itself, a Facilitator can be identified from among the attendees of the Sisterhood Group to work alongside the WI Facilitator.

The NFWI will be offering support for this volunteer role to help establish it within in each Sisterhood Group. A role description and training will be available.

IIRC the NFWI had a TiM at the top table in a leadership role and this looks like an attempt to create a parallel TW-led structure, with support, documentation and training being provided from resources funded by WI members.

It seems like a desperate toe-still-in-the-door measure that reminds me of:

Resisting TERF’s and Transforming Their Organizations
archive.li/weVYH

It would be ironic if Petra was the only one & this whole stramash had just been about him.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-57678491