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

>The other thing, DH was asked a couple of times if he was a lawyer. I thought that was funny as DH has a very manual (although reasonably well paying) job. He appeared surprised that DH could string a couple of sentences together and put together a particulars of claim.

No offence, but he's smarter than you, and way way way ahead of you. Law firms prepare litigation every day for breakfast. Their campaign has already started. They will (obviously) flatter you and talk you up how great you are, to put you off from professional representation. A good barrister will wipe the floor with you in court.

OP I concur with this . FSU offered support before - I would take them up on it if the offer is still there!

Before analyzing how this defence can be knocked down, you'll need details of what exactly the (a)disadvantage suffered, (b)different needs, or (c)activity with disproportionately low participation is claimed to be.

In all three cases it's very hard to see how membership of the WI remedies the defect, unless in (a) the disadvantage is not being allowed to join. Hard to see that a court would recognize being lawfully excluded from a single-sex organization for the other sex as a "disadvantage".

One point though: I really really think you should get some professional help with this. As talented amateurs you really shouldn't be arguing complex points of statutory interpretation against a law firm in court, especially not where the outcome is of significant interest to society. If you win - you'll be appealed against, and if you lose, you'll want to appeal. So you can assume this is going to go far. If you don't argue correctly at first instance, your ability to appeal will be damaged.

This law firm is licking its lips at having amateur you as its opponent in this important case. The WI has deep pockets and it could be you two up against a leading silk + junior in the court of appeal. And if you lose there, that's a precedent set for every single sex association.

Get representation.

Thank you and your DH so much for doing this.
Please, please, please see it all the way through to the end. Don't back down.

So, an organisation set up for women is letting Special Men in because they - the WI - consider that the Special Men have (unspecified) disadvantages in life and letting MEN into a WOMEN’S ORGANISATION is the best way of overcoming that?

🤯

Dickpandering at its absolute worst.

The other thing, DH was asked a couple of times if he was a lawyer. I thought that was funny as DH has a very manual (although reasonably well paying) job. He appeared surprised that DH could string a couple of sentences together and put together a particulars of claim.

How fucking rude! Mr Clever Lawyer can shove that attitude right up his wokery.

I don't understand how allowing TIMs membership = Positive Action?

Initial thoughts.

1. The clause allows positive action (a form of discrimination) despite the provisions of the EA. But this presumably means 'despite the EA as a whole' (the purpose of which is promoting equality by preventing discrimination). But does that permit positive action despite the exceptions to the EA (the SSEs themselves being a form of discrimination, and also a form of positive action)?

In other words, does positive action A override positive action B? And if so, is that a necessary or merely a permissable prioritising of one over the other? And how do you decide which gets priority? This may have already arisen in the workplace case law, but I can see it becoming a very knotty legal argument.

1. The disadvantage they claim as a reason.for letting in TW would presumably have to be one that applied to TW, but not to either other men or to TM. It will be interesting to see what they come up with for that.

1. It's that pesky 'sharing' again, isn't it? Their example of housing prioritising Haredi Jews was about 1 single group. It presumably wasn't housing for over 55s that then gave priority to Haredi Jews (regardless of age), or housing for those with physical disabilities that then prioritised able-bodied Haredi.

TW and women do not share a characteristic. Which links back to point 1 - it's not a question of giving disadvantaged group A priority over the general population, but over disadvantaged group B (and in the process adding further disadvantage for some of the latter). Can they justify why A gets priority?

Had they started their own “single gender” organisations, there probably wouldn’t have been a problem. It’s the wholesale takeover of single sex organisations and spaces by demanding men that has brought this about.

Or elderly men? Or homeless men?

or…no stay with me here, I know this may be an unorthodox concept, but did they ever think of creating a special scheme to support disadvantaged women, perhaps those who may need single sex spaces?

I agree. I think they hoped to baffle your DH’s brains with their bullshit.

Everyone is eligible to join then except Joe Bloggs who is a

25-year-old White “cisgender” heterosexual man with no disabilities, who is single, not religious, and has no history of pregnancy or maternity.

??

what nonsense.

wonder if the auspicious law firm employees anyone who reads Mumsnet?

edit to “” around that offensive word

the second big difficulty is the WI haven’t launched a discrete programme that would assist trans women in some way (like a mentorship or training programme). They seem to be trying to use the positive discrimination legislation to permit trans women to enter the WI membership in general. This seems very close to the case of positive discrimination in the employment context - which isn’t allowed.

Good post - thanks WeeBisom

I see what they did there and its not 100% mad. TWs have an unmet need (female comradeship) that other men do not. I can't quite see how it can work (and, given the delay in responding, I suspect they can't either), because the conditions of Schedule 16 must surely also be met. Sch 16 doesn't even have any LAPAing examples like Sch 3 does - it's purely in or out based on legal sex.

I have some sympathy for clubs that want to be single-gender and can't. But, under the previous regime, when at least situations governed by Sch 3 could be legally either single-gender or single-sex, there was a strong bias towards the former even when the latter was very much wanted and needed.

So if single-gender clubs become legal again, female club members need to have more real control over admission of males.

Yes, I think this is a valid point. I would be surprised if, as OP says they could prove they did all this under 'positive action' at the time - although I wonder if that's relevant and they only need to be 'starting it' now?

Hmmm. I must look that up later. Intriguing! I've a vague recollection of a member being a TiM and welcomed with open arms. I probably read that here somewhere.

I would bet that the WI has had legal advice in the past on admitting TIMs and possibly this firm gave advice saying it would be fine and now they are effectively having to defend their own (shit) advice. They will not be the only firm in this position. What they should all be doing is going back through their files, contacting clients who have had this advice in the past and issuing a revision.

Positive discrimination can only be used in very narrow , select circumstances. For example , you can’t offer a job to someone solely on the basis of a protected characteristic in the name of positive discrimination. The police have got in trouble in the past for exclusively recruiting from BAME communities and excluding white candidates. What you can do is offer a non employment scheme that is targetted at a protected characteristic. So a mentoring programme just for women in a male dominated industry would be permissible so long as it wasn’t an actual job and was of a limited time span. Applying the analogy to the WI, it seems that if they wanted to offer a limited programme of support to black women, for instance, that would be ok but the WI would not be allowed to only recruit black women and not accept applications from white candidates.

Just on an initial analysis their argument seems flawed. If they are aiming to promote the protected characteristic of gender reassignment then they would have to also admit trans men and non binary people (no matter their sex). It seems very difficult to restrict this just to trans women.

the second big difficulty is the WI haven’t launched a discrete programme that would assist trans women in some way (like a mentorship or training programme). They seem to be trying to use the positive discrimination legislation to permit trans women to enter the WI membership in general. This seems very close to the case of positive discrimination in the employment context - which isn’t allowed.

another element which complicates things is the fact that the WI is ostensibly for women only. Imagine a charity that was set up for disabled people only, but it then launched a programme that explicitly included non disabled people. Would the charity still be able to say that its aims and purpose was for disabled people only? Probably not - the admission of non disabled people seems at odds with the charitable aim. If the WI wants to admit males when their charitable aim is targetted at women and girls it seems there is a conflict here. So they have wider things to consider than an organisation that is open to everyone.

I think he should have written „I am a male“ rather than a man. Because what they are saying is that they accept trans women (who are males) and as living as a woman is not clarified, he could’ve gone in to a meeting in his average get up and said hang on I live as a woman. I sit down to wee. Or some such nonsense. And made everyone in the room question their ridiculous badly worded policy.

To be honest, it all makes me sad as the WI is a fantastic organisation that I would
like to join myself.

Worth noting the very special partner of someone very senior in the organisation.

They should just change their constitution or whatever is needed to make WI a mixed sex organisation now, except they won't or don't want to do that to allow non "trans" identified men in. You could not make this up could you?

Is it reasonable to speculate that some of those at the top have allowed their husbands in and know those husbands will make their lives hell if they are now excluded.

These husbands must be trans? Otherwise like OP's husband they would be excluded.

It will boil down to that they are welcome to call themselves the Women and Special Unfortunate Mens Institute and crack on. But they cannot refer to themselves as single sex and not be.

One wonders why it is so crucially important to keep claiming the right to say single sex while providing mixed sex? That is the legal right they're willing to fight for.

And they're not denying it's mixed sex: they just want to be able to have some men and not others. Isn't this going to be two separate things?

-if you want to call it single sex then no one of the opposite sex at all ever, goodnight.
-if you want to include two groups without a shared protected characteristic you're in trouble - in this case all women and some self selected men.

I'll get the popcorn in.

Obvious questions arising - all thought of by the SC - how do you identify one of these special vulnerable men?

Are they self identified?

So it's in fact any man who says the magic words?

I think this sounds like a very flimsy argument. They are a womens organisation, and woman means female. If they were a TW org and wanted to exclude men who are not TW/PC of GR, or TMs for not being TWs, their argument might hold water, but I cannot see how it does here. These lawyers should be advising their client that your DH has a point and the EqA2010 (as per FWS) is very clear on the permitted exceptions and this is not one.

(Incidentally on the positive action point, there is a lot of this in the workplace and I think it's often misplaced other than in the context of sex, age and disability. Attitudes to race and sexuality have thankfully changed, and people of all races and sexualities can come from financially privileged backgrounds and have the same opportunities as others from those backgrounds. The disadvantages of biology will never go away.)

I hope Peter Daly or one of the other successful gender lawyers picks this up and runs with it; it would be a very useful test case! I note the U3A is open to all despite ostensibly being aimed at people of a certain generation. Is the WI going to have to open itself up to all or rely on the permitted exception.

We can't let ALL men in but we can let those men in because they're special, and so special exemption to single sex spaces.

Well it needs court testing, certainly. But the Supreme Court didn't agree.

Seems likely this is broadly top down.

Is it reasonable to speculate that some of those at the top have allowed their husbands in and know those husbands will make their lives hell if they are now excluded.