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

Not quite. The charity trustees (& actually its members too) are obliged to ensure that the charity furthers its charitable objects - for beneficiaries, not members, otherwise it would just be a private club.

It would be possible for a charity with a single sex purpose (education of women and girls) to have a mixed sex membership, provided that all of its resources were focused on the education of women and girls. I don’t think, as PP suggested, that providing free courses for TIMs would be reasonable use of resources as it would not be furthering the charity’s objects.

But this illustrates that this case is likely to engage both charity law and anti-discrimination law and the interaction between the two may be complex. As PP have said, it is not a case where the decision rests on establishing disputed facts but one relating to the interpretation of the law. I’m another voice strongly encouraging OP’s husband to lawyer up - and am happy to plant a few carrots to support that.

A charity and it's trustees are obligated to manage the charity and it's money for the benefit.of it's members. All of the members.

I'd imagine that the charity commission should be asking charities who are engaging in legal defense of nonsense.

Been looking at this a little more . By allowing TIM but not other males you are still discriminating against other men ( the correct comparator as discussed before ) and Ops husband . This amongst other things makes it positive discrimination rather than positive action. PD is illegal

So in another context if NFWI decided that not so many BAME women were members of the WI they could do roadshow to which BAME women are invited to showcase the WI (PA )
What they could not do is give them reduced or free membership
because that would discriminate against non BAME women. (PD)

On thinking about it, I think that the Mr Clever Lawyer was actually angling that your DHs claim was being made under false pretenses, what with his questions about your husbands interests.

I agree with the others. Lawyer up.

(I don't think your DH claim is false, I just think the phone call is well dodge and agree they are scoping you).

When it comes down to it "we want to be inclusive to TIMs because they have awfully hard time of it" (a bit like the meek, in Life of Brian) isn't very different to "positive action to remedy social disadvantages". But yes, you can reason the justification afterwards, if it will stand up. Which, to be fair, I don't think it will.

IANAL, but I agree with a PP that I'm really not sure that positive action applies here. It might have applied had the supreme court ruling gone the other way, and TW were in law women.

I think in a single sex org positive action could only be used to increase participation from subsets of that sex, IE WI could use positive action to recruit more black women, or young women, not to recruit a subset of men.

As other PPs said, although it seems straightforward get some proper legal advice, and yes, everything in writing!

But doesn’t the evidence say it’s NOT positive action? Can you really argue that’s what it was even though you quite clearly had different reasons?

There has to have been a lawful consideration of the relevant disadvantage with evidence and analysis and careful consideration of proportionate means of addressing that disadvantage.

If you want to be sure ahead of a challenge that you came to that decision correctly then yes. If you've already made the decision ad hoc, and get challenged and you get lucky and can after-the-fact justify it using the same reasoning, it will still work out ok.

Nobody is in any doubt this is a last-minute justification for reasons you and others have mentioned: if you took the trouble to consider positive action you'd publish it in your "TIMs can be members too". I mean, why wouldn't you - it makes you look smart.

But just because it's pulled out of the hat at the last minute doesn't mean it can't work.

I agree, but you can't just suddenly decide retrospectively when you receive a discrimination claim that you have been basing your policy on positive action all along which is what looks like has happened here. There has to have been a lawful consideration of the relevant disadvantage with evidence and analysis and careful consideration of proportionate means of addressing that disadvantage.

There's statutory guidance on positive action for employers here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/positive-action-in-the-workplace-guidance-for-employers/positive-action-in-the-workplace#implementing-positive-action-lawfully-checklist-for-employers
It's not directly relevant to service providers but is useful to see the kind of consideration that should be given when deciding to go down the positive action route.

Doesn't matter. They could think of it for the very first time on the morning they have to turn up in court file a response, and shout that's not the real reason for admitting TIMs from the roof of St Paul's Cathedral. If it passes in law, it will do.

I wonder if any evidence of their 'positive action' strategies/meeting minutes/plans would turn up in a FOI request?

Absolute bullshitters.

I don't think it makes any difference that positive action isn't the justification given on the website or in policies for admitting men. The EA doesn't say you have to advertise or headline the invocation of positive action for it to be used in court to exculpate otherwise unlawful actions.

and this letter from the WI makes it quite clear that the policy is based on their belief that TWAW and has been in place for decades and was formally established in 2010. I find the positive action argument incredibly dubious.

https://wdwi.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/nfwi-response-29-sep-2023.pdf

See also this quote from Melissa Green, CEO of the NFWI: "We are very proud of this policy, and how inclusive and supportive WI members are. This is not a new policy. We know transgender women have been welcomed to WIs for many years, some sources say as far back as the 1970s, and our national policy reflects what was happening already."

I'm not sure if the picture I am attaching will show straight away, but there is reference here https://www.thewi.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/719730/NFWI-Equality,-Diversity-and-Inclusion-Policy.pdf in the section on non binary to the WI applying a "women only exemption".

Presumably this is a reference to the single sex exemption in Sched 3 to the Equality Act.

And yet now, if I am understanding correctly, they don't think that the single sex exemption applies (because the FWS means that they would have to exclude transwomen to rely on this) and are attempting to rely on positive action under s158 despite probably not having collected evidence and undertaken the relevant proportionality assessment at the time 🤔

From the Scottish WI policy document: We are proud to be a trans inclusive organisation. No member or member of staff should be treated less favourably because they’re trans. The SWI provides women with educational opportunities and the platform to campaign on issues that matter to them and their communities while 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.
This needs to be challenged, too.

This is important. Their website says men can’t join.

and yet, also says ‘anyone living as a woman’ can join. You can’t have it both ways!

(Nb. I knew I’ve read this trans policy before. Unless I missed it, it’s well hidden, couldn’t find it anywhere, and ended up simply googling WI and Trans).

Also, as previous poster has said ‘woman’ is used everywhere!

Attached, trans policy and examples of articles using ‘woman’.

@Another2Cats Well done to you and DH for taking this on.

• As a pp said write up the discussion and send to the lawyer as a record of what was discussed.
• A key factor is that the lawyer said the WI exclude Transmen. There are two points on this, firstly they are not permitting a group of biological women to join a women’s organisation because they present as male. This is discrimination based on gender reassignment I.e. it makes them transphobic.
• Secondly, if TW are so disadvantaged by being trans and that justifies positive action by the WI, how do they justify excluding TM. Are they really claiming that TW are more disadvantaged by being trans that TM?
• Ideally you would want to find a TM who like your DH wants to join the WI for the same reasons and join together.
• Finally, the Lawyer was silly enough to say “a number of clients are facing similar claims.”

I actually think its embarrassing this Swiss cheese rationale is the best they could come up with.

You are doing brilliantly - Keep Trucking @Another2Cats and Mr. Another2Cats!!!!

🚚🛻🚛🚚🛻

Massive thank you to the OP and her DH for taking this on!

@Firenzo
Just had a look . The SWI policy looks like a cut and paste almost from the rest of UK one. It says they are trans inclusive. That tells you all you need to know.

Didnt Strangio try the argument about suicides in front of the US Supreme Court - but then had to admit there was no evidence to support that claim?

Oh there’s actually a Scottish WI, separate entity but the inclusion policy is incredibly woolly - doesn’t make it clear what a transgender woman is, and if I didn’t know better I would assume that would be a trans identified female.

No scary flags though on their website.

Inclusion policy:

https://www.theswi.org.uk/Equality,%20Diversity%20and%20Inclusion%20Policy.pdf

sorry for the slight detail -and if I’ve missed anyone discussing the Scottish WI previously.

Another who woukd help fund proper representation- though I didn’t know until now there’s no WI in Scotland.

Inspiring Women. Indeed, though perhaps not the way they intended.

It is another thing that would be phenomenally helpful to get out in a court room and test.

There's quite a list now.

@SidewaysOtter 'dickpandering' - brilliant!
And thanks to the OP and her DH for all their hard work. I have often thought about joining the WI, but now now.