An update to the WI Announcement thread. My DH just got a reply to his application to join them.

I wanted to chime in on the “are you a lawyer” query from the law firm. My thought is that was said not to flatter your husband (that might be a side-effect) but to winkle out whether he’d be susceptible, as a non-lawyer, to their spurious defence and be intimidated/bamboozled into dropping the case.

Mainly because they are so entrenched in their views and want to save face. Let’s face it nobody wants to appear stupid . Trouble is the longer they continue with this farce the stupider the leadership looks

[WAVES MADLY, pointing fingers at the CEO, Chairman, Head of Legal and Head of membership et all who are hopefully reading this at NFWI HQ - yes you lot …., I am pointing at you! Stop looking behind you, and wake up and smell the coffee]

When filling in the EHRC consultation on sex in the Equality Act, these two paragraphs jumped out at me. you are probably all over this already, but just in case:

13.3.19 If a service provider (or a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) admits trans people to a service intended for the opposite biological sex, then it can no longer rely on the exceptions set out at paragraphs 13.2.3 to 13.2.22. This means that if a service is provided only to women and trans women or only to men and trans men, it is not a separate-sex or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010. A service like this is very likely to amount to unlawful sex discrimination against the people of the opposite sex who are not allowed to use it. A service which is provided to women and trans women could also be unlawful sex discrimination or lead to unlawful harassment against women who use the service. Similar considerations would apply to a service provided for men and trans men.

13.5.3 If a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) decides to have a separate or single-sex service and allows trans people to use the service intended for the opposite biological sex, the service will no longer be a separate or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). It is also very likely to amount to unlawful discrimination against others (read paragraph 13.3.19).

But what do we do if the WI branches continue to admit men and the Charities Commission won’t do anything about it?

I agree with you. But organizations can decide to do lots of (to the outside world) obviously stupid things that aren't actually unlawful. Normally the right answer is for the members to get together and vote in a new executive team.

The question here is how to demonstrate this is actually not lawful.

But they're supposed to be an organisation for women, so why are they considering how to help some men to overcome their disadvantages? Particularly since in doing so, they are disadvantaging or excluding some of their female members.

The problem is that the Charity Commission is refusing to take action.

I mean, isn't this like an association open only to deaf people allowing any gay or lesbian person to join as long as they wear ear plugs?

Perhaps that example is offensive to deaf people and/or gay and lesbian people, and if it is, I apologize. But if it is, doesn't that just highlight the absurdity of what the WI is saying?

Yes, I've seen the 'positive action' idea and, frankly, its a load of bollocks - lawyers inventing spurious complications in the hope that any potential plaintiffs will lack the time, money and will to wade through their bullshit in order to get to court.

Those memberships are null and void as a matter of law and any WI operating on that basis could face regulatory action by the Charity Commission for breaching their govening documents.

I agree that all the male memberships should be null and void but the WI seems intent on finding a reason that they can be still included

>they offered to provide further information around the disadvantages faced by TIM and how the WI can help overcome that.

I am particularly intrigued (and skeptical), as I'm sure the OP is, as to whether and how, specifically allowing them full membership in the organization is the best or even a proportional way to overcome whatever disadvantages they feel TIMs suffer. There is a wide range of other less discriminatory things they could do instead.

There is no provision in the Wi's governing documents that would allow males to be admitted to membership.

Males may have been admitted as members in the mistaken belief that the WI could define the word 'women' in such a way as to include males who identify as transgender but this is not the case in law and never has been, as per the UKSC judgement in FWS v Scottish Ministers.

Any and all such memberships are null and void.

WI's and WI Federations that operate under company as well as charity law may appoint males to serve as company secretary but this does not make them a member of the WI.

You’d think so , but they do have them , pretending to be women ……( not very well)

They do have male members though

Forget what it says on the WI's website or in their press releases, the legal position in regards to their governing documents is that men are ineligible to become members regardless of how they identify or whether they have a gender recognition certificate.

The WI cannot adopt or operate a policy that breaches the terms of its governing documents. Any such policy is automatically null and void.

It’s not just for recruitment but you can’t use it as they’re suggesting, you could offer a service/advertise a job or whatever to everyone but prioritise one particular group above everyone else, like the guaranteed interview scheme for disabled applicants who meet the job criteria. The WI could prioritise trans men if they were actually concerned about helping trans people, but that is clearly not their real motivation.

I believe the Round Table have a separate ‘women’s group’ but still manage to keep a group just for men, the WI could do something like that, but if they keep it women only plus some disadvantaged men then it’s no longer women only.

Except trans women ‘living as women’ are eligible to join, so men can join. Except in FAQ it says men can’t join…

I agree, and as I said a few messages back, the Mothers' Union is available to them as an alternative

Not sure positive action fits here. Isn't that only for recruitment? If it isn't, I've learnt something today!

But if that was really the argument everyone would be using it and in all the comments about the SC judgment on LinkedIn, I've not seen anyone mention positive action as a way of getting round the issue.

Doesn't sound like it will fly to me.

I just noticed what you said
"...that he should..."

That's interesting. Why do you say that? Does that poster come across as being a bloke?

Must do because I only noticed reading back after I had posted that I had said "he".

It wasn't a conscious thing when I was writing but I realised on reading back that I didn't know if they were a he or a she so thought I had best change "he" to "they".

"Mr solicitor did you have a telephone conversation with a man about a case against the WI on Friday afternoon at 2.45pm"

To which the answer should be "We can't discuss cases with unrelated parties."

Actually, did someone say that action taken to overcome a disadvantage has to be time-limited?