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

I am following this thread with great interest.

But you forgot. They also object to other men ( such as OPs husband) to join.

And just so I understand the points above:

1. The WI is a single sex association which uses an exception in the EA to exclude males.
2. They propose a legal defence that they wish to allow male/TIM members as a positive action against the detriment caused by their own single sex exemption (ETA - TIMs being a group which has no shared protected characteristic with women)

Please tell me I’ve misunderstood?!

I absolutely agree with this, and I've done it several times in settings where I could have later come to rely on proving what was/wasn't said.

Send them the summary and this gives them an opportunity to disagree. If they don't and you present both the summary and proof that it was sent, it would be hard for them to claim something different in court.

Even better if calls are recorded.

I agree with the PPs who said to get your DH to write notes of the phone call and email it as a record of the conversation.

I also agree that you need legal help going forward.

You and your DH are fabulous! Thank you so much for doing this xx

It's interesting that they are not relying on s193 which allows charities to proportionately provide benefits linked to a protected characteristic in pursuance of a charitable instrument. I assume it's because the relevant charitable instruments just refer to women and girls...

I agree with others who recommend seeing if you can get Sex Matters to help!

I’d really echo those suggesting you get representation or legal input on this (if you don’t have it in the background already) - the case will be important if it progresses, it could feasibly be a test case for how the legal landscape works post FWS and set precedent for other decisions if it is appealed by either party.

It is one thing to read the Equality Act and to make intelligent and informed arguments about it. The OP and lots of women on here are doing that admirably. But we know bugger all about Case Law and that will require an experienced legal expert.
I'm already concerned that the OP has been put in the situation of having had a conversation with the other side's lawyers, with no lawyer of their own present.

I'm not going to try to defend what I said. I know what I meant, and it wasn't that women are obliged to do anything. I was trying to point out that transwomen don't have any special need for comradeship with women that other men don't have. If that's still not clear, I will leave it there.

Interesting take from Bate and Wells .

what you have to remember also is these 2 things . Firstly the entire leadership of the WI is captured and want to retain TIM . They are actively looking for a way to retain them . I know this from my own experience. Worth remembering too that the WI has no in house legal expert ( including their own Head of Legal - gobsmacking ,yes)

Bate and Wells are similarly captured. As well as representing other big organisations ( girl guides for example and Green Party I think) they have a whole section prominent on their website about “Gender Equality” . That section is of course “legal bollocks” as you would guess. So which camp they lie in is easy to see, which of course puts that whole ethos of the company and financial basis in jeopardy arising from the Supreme Court judgement.

Hence this novel approach to save their own skin, if it paid off - I don’t think it will, but I too , predict it will necessitate a high profile court case.

No problem , money aside, the OP finding a barrister willing to take the case , but they, the WI , would have to find a barrister as well and that means having a legal basis on which to make a case. Or having someone who is so captured like “Robin” White or Jolyon Maughan .

I think that would be expensive . WI finances are somewhat stretched at the moment , they are having to dip into reserves and are already looking at how they can save money by disposing of their London HQ premises - possibly on some sort of leaseback arrangement and cutting the expense of the magazine they produce for members. It’s one thing have a firm of solicitors to use as and when ; quite another to have to employ a high profile barrister to protect, not even women but a group of men.

Even the oh so captured handmaidens ( and there are plenty in the WI) I think will start to balk at that.

I do think the JKR fund is worth a shot , this is too important to take a chance.
Find it here OP

https://jkrwf.org

Lastly and apologies for the long post but I have no doubt Bate and Wells and the WI will be looking at this [waves] let’s remind ourselves what the Supreme Court decision ( the highest in the land ) specifically said about Associations who are single sexed.

Paragraph 231 it is impossible for a charity to pursue a dedicated purpose directed at the needs of biological females if they admitted on the basis of certified sex.

and Paragraph 211 and would undermine the need for the Single sex exemption in the first place that is an sse could not be justified as a proportionate means from what otherwise would be considered sex discrimination .

211 does relate to services which are schedule 3 not schedule 16 but the summary of the judgement ( paragraph 265) does say that “Similar incoherence would arise as that to services for associations” . In the judgement they dealt with services first and then tackled associations so I don’t think they wanted to repeat the arguments all over again.

Tough luck mate you’re having a laff !

‘A good barrister will wipe the floor with you in court.’

But not in the ‘court of public opinion’. If the WI succeed in arguing that ‘women’ can mean trans identifying women although the SC has disagreed, their reputation will suffer major damage. There’s not much doubt that the tide is turning fast, and that many people who had serious doubts about the whole phenomenon of TIM have been emboldened to start expressing those doubts. This case won’t be buried in the last page of law court weekly.

I’m up for the gardening, though. The WI ( XX chromosome Branch) was very helpful to me at a time of personal stress and difficulty. I would go to some lengths to pay that back.

I have been following this but from a distance. OP you and your husband are being courageous taking this on, particularly via formal legal proceedings. You sound eminently sensible and well informed and much more able to pursue this than average litigants in person would be.

But I’d really echo those suggesting you get representation or legal input on this (if you don’t have it in the background already) - the case will be important if it progresses, it could feasibly be a test case for how the legal landscape works post FWS and set precedent for other decisions if it is appealed by either party. It is also likely to attract media attention at some point. Litigation is so risky and so stressful; a professional team would be able to shield you from some of the worst of that and guide you through it. It must be worth approaching FSU, Sex Matters etc to see if there might be support available, either pro bono or funded (for which I’m sure you’d get lots of crowd funding).

It's not really good enough for them to just say that transwomen are the most vulnerable group ever etc.

But that line has been repeated so many times, surely it must have become true by virtue of repetition alone?

I haven't read every post but just wanted to highlight the "reasonably thinks" part of s158.

It seems to be accepted that this means that there must have been a genuine belief of disadvantage and that there must have been some gathering of evidence and analysis undertaken.

There should be disclosure of documents in due course but if you or your DH do speak to the other side I would be saying that you will be expecting to see the contemporaneous evidence and analysis that was undertaken when deciding to apply s158. It's not really good enough for them to just say that transwomen are the most vulnerable group ever etc.

But what if you don't put their declared charitable aims to one side?

which I'm guessing a lawyer wouldn't

That may be what they want to do, but there is no legal basis for them to do it.

But how would it look to a captured judge?
This is a good question. I dont even think they would have to be 'captured'. First level courts have come back with weird and stupid results in this area, and though I hope fws should clear things up for them I still think there's scope. I think we have to assume it would be appealed at least once.

Thanks for the update OP. Very interesting. Curiouser and curiouser.

As others have alluded to i don't see how this defence actually helps them with the main problem of defending their discrimination against the op's husband. Presumably jn general they are an association, and this allows them to be single sex because its very much allowed under the EA. But now suddenly they are also a service provider who provide a service to a completely different pc. So it will go like this:

OP's DH - how is it lawful for you to decline my membership?
WI - because we are a single sex association.
DH- what makes you think you are a SS association?
WI - because all our members are female.
DH - so how come you let some males in?
WI - we are offering a service to males with the pc of gr, as a positive discrimination measure.
DH - what do they get?
WI - membership.
Dh - so are all your members female?
Wi - no, some are male.
Dh - so are you a single sex association?
Wi - er...no.
Dh - back to question 1.

Well I don't agree with it, but I'm trying to get into the mindset. What we've got here is a mixed sex club (no SSEs involved, and let's put the WI's declared charitable aims on one side for the moment), which deliberately excludes transmen and men who don't claim to be women. To justify this discrimination, they call on S158 - it's to mitigate a disadvantage suffered by TW but not by their comparators.

Disadvantage = no access to quasi-single-sex womanly comradeship.

Comparator 1 = transman or man who doesn’t claim to be a woman. Doesn’t want access to quasi-single-sex womanly comradeship.

Comparator 2 = woman. Already has access to quasi-single-sex womanly comradeship.

The downside for the women is slight, given low TW numbers and the potential co-existence of equivalent single-sex clubs.

Yes, it's bollocks, and doesn't fit with the usual aims of S158 (ie to mitigate an imbalance which it is hoped will cease to exist in the fullness of time). But how would it look to a captured judge?

Archived, OP.

Here: https://archive.ph/2eCJC

Hence the phone call. Just to see if you're a pair of bumpkins who can be frightened off.

I hope that's it. And the, oh you're not the dunderheads I thought you were, comment means that things might take a bit of a different tack.

Because this is not about this one situation. This is about whether single sex means single sex, and women's resources and services can withstand those who would force men on women against the law.

Plus women have a need for single sex spaces.

Men can go seek out the comradeship of women, well, practically anywhere.

Yes, and actually having shared your notes on here may be useful in future, OP. Maybe worth archiving the page. I can do that for you.

Try reading that through again. Women are not obliged to provide for men's 'needs'. We are not equivalent to a meal or a holiday.

Men may have a desire for women's company.

I think this was a scoping call from the lawyer. If that defence had any merit, you would have it in writing in advance of a friendly chat to discuss a way forward.
The problem for the WI is they are transparently changing tack retrospectively. Their position before the SC judgment was TWAW no debate. Suddenly, when TWA men, they want to make them a special sub category that they intended to help all along.
Where is their evidence? The minutes from meetings? The policy documents? The correspondence to objectors stating the special purpose? There won't be any. All of the evidence will be to the contrary ie our position is TWAW.
All relevant documents will need to be disclosed and no competent lawyer will let this case be litigated.
Hence the phone call. Just to see if you're a pair of bumpkins who can be frightened off.