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

Yes! And I'm sure if it ends up in court then recollections of that phone call will vary.

Luckily the OPs husband has made plenty of contemperaneous notes!

I'm so hoping the OP and husband recorded it. (I don't actually want the OP to confirm or deny that, let the WI lawyers reading remain unsure)

I'm not sure I can agree. Many men have a need for female comradeship. It's not an absolute need - we can survive without it - but it's on a par with, say, the need to have a holiday sometimes, or the need for more than one meal a day. I really don't see how transwomen are any different in this respect.

Interesting how so many people are noting that the phone call was dodgy at best

I think your husband shld now email the lawyers back a summary of what they said in the telephone conversation and ask them to confirm receipt. No need to repeat what your DH said, just what they said.
Always have a paper trail. It was poor practice on their part to enter into a phone discussion. They will have made a file note of their version of the conversation. There needs to be your version. Also state in the email that all future contact must be in writing, not by phone.

Phone calls from your own lawyer. Fine.

Phone calls from the other side's lawyer. Hmm.

It'd exclude several groups of women. And as far as I can tell, the membership themselves are certainly not all in favour.

The only way, i presume, WI can exclude men is to use the EqA SSE, that has clear definitions of man and woman.

I can't see how they can do that, then use a completely different definition for 'women' in their membership?

The phone call was, I imagine, to try to ensure there was nothing in writing.

Always best to insist on things being in writing I would imagine?

Apologies if this has been said previously but according to the WI, the answer on their website to "can men join the WI?", is "No. The Women's Institute is based on the idea of bringing women together, providing them with educational opportunities and the chance to make a difference in their communities. Therefore, the WI is set up as an educational charity with a constitution which states that membership is only open to women. While WI membership is only open to women, men are welcome to attend courses provided by Denman, our educational centre for learning, and take part in many activities, events and campaigns both locally and nationally". (my bold)

As we know, the EHRC issued draft guidance following the Supreme Court's confirmation that woman means biological woman aka female. According to the EHRC: "Membership of an association of 25 or more people can be limited to men only or women only..."

The WI website says that membership is only open to women, therefore admittance of any male as a member would appear to be in breach of their rules. So, do you have to be a member of the WI in order to participate in their activities, events and campaigns? If the answer is yes, then how do men "take part in many (WI) activities, events and campaigns"?

FAQs | National Federation of Women's Institutes

An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment | EHRC

@Another2Cats
There have been some cases recently through employment tribunals in this area where the claimants (men) have represented themselves. They are educated, articulate and have put in a great deal of effort, but I have watched them risk throwing their cases away because they don't have a legal background/are too involved or emotional/ either don't know, or forget as the case progresses, what they need to focus on and argue for in the context of a court or tribunal. However right you may be, you have to be right along the lines of what the court or tribunal needs you to say and address.

Every case that is lost (and some probably didn't need to be) makes it more difficult for the next person who comes along.

Please get good, legal help. And funding if you need it. Possible names have already been mentioned on here.

Fascinating assumption that every branch will see their only options as cease to exist, or embrace all men with open arms. You really don’t think any will go ‘oh shit that’s illegal alright we only permit women’? Which will benefit women

Sounds like the lawyer was fishing for info. Whole thing seems a bit of a stretch on their part.

I'm surprised that TIMs are allowing this course of action to be considered really because it's as outing as unisex toilets in their passing mindset.

I imagine the Reddit response would be that it's outrageous to claim positive action for TIMs when they are already biological and women therefore eligible (as distinct from robots as we learnt from Dr Beth Upton as the Fife tribunal).

Thanks for the update and for what you are taking on.

I think the first hurdle the WI have is under what legal basis are they admitting men in the first place? I think their constitution says women? This was sort of OK when it might have been thought that ‘women’ included transwomen, but it seems fairly clear now that it doesn’t.

IF their constitution allowed them to admit everyone, then under the positive action they are claiming they may be able to, for example, restrict some meetings to women and transwomen on the basis of helping the transwomen. Why on earth they would do that for an organisation that is supposed the centre women is beyond me. But restricting actual membership to only women and transwomen, particularly when they haven’t given members a vote about this, seems odd to me.

I also think the phone call was very much designed to suss out and try and intimidate. That is presumably because the lawyers have advised the WI this will be a very difficult case. And will probably bring a fair bit of, on balance unwanted, publicity.

Free access to courses for TIMs for which other men would have to pay, would make perfect sense as a positive action, if the WI wanted to do that.

Thanks for the update OP and thanks to your DH.

The WI lawyers ringing up to discuss matters is a bit suss. Not putting things in writing always puts me on alert. Their lawyer may have been on a fishing expedition to check out DH, to see how the land lies with him. Potentially checking to see if he is prepared to go ahead with a case against the WI. How patronising of them to remark about his employment.

To add to all the excellent comments here.

Good luck with them arguing positive action in court. I don't think they will be able to demonstrate that effectively.

The WI are positively discriminating against men like DH, whiilst letting TiM's (who are not women) join. That's unlawful.

If you are not a WI member you have to pay for courses on the WI training website, so anyone can access them

In the WI wouldn't positive action make more sense if it was allowing trans identifying women to be members and do some how to man like an actual man courses? Not allowing subset of men to join?

It will benefit women because those that want women only organisations will create them and be able to keep them women’s only.

If the WI becomes the PI, some of the WI membership will create something new to fill the gap that has been created.

I don’t think many organisations will change when it comes to it. Stating transwomen could be included took little to no effort. Deciding to become mixed sex will be a big deal for organisations for which being single sex is a founding feature. For charities it will mean a lot of work in trustees agreeing to changing their charitable purpose and getting permission from the Charity Commission

Why is it so worth it to them to make a mockery of their organisation, decimate their mission statement, potentially throwing the lives of hundreds of thousands of women into turmoil, to the point of closing down?

For one or two men.

You're asking the wrong question of the wrong people.

I mean trans identifying men.

So women are unreasonable for wanting the actual women’s institute to be just for actual women?

Why should we??! Why should we give up our stuff so that some men aren’t sad?? What’s in that for women exactly??

It happened to WEP.

Their own stupidity caused their demise.

Women just walked away in such high numbers they couldn't pay the bosses who had decided men were women.

Sometimes the decisions of leaders cause organisations to fail.

How will it benefit women though if organisations just fold or become completely mixed sex due to all these actions being brought against them though??

Is it really worth compelling somewhere like the WI to just become the People's Institute and overrun with men (of all types) just to exclude the tiny tiny number of trans women who wanted to join a tiny number of WIs across the country??

This is the validation at any cost case isn't it?