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

Thanks for doing this, stay strong

You are right. I have got things wrong on this thread.
I hope the OPs husband succeeds - the WI doesn’t seem to have understood the judgement. I’ll stay on in case there is a point when OP wants contributions- I can imagine it might get expensive.

"There wasn’t one that I could think would need to be woman only."

To be fair, women don't need to have privacy or dignity in changing rooms and public toilets, or to be free from the presence of womanly penises when locked up in prison either. Women's right are an unnecessary option that men can grant and take away at will.

On the other hand, one might argue that the fact that single-sex friendship groups not only exist, but are incredibly common, suggests that single-sex environments are highly wanted by both sexes. Also one might argue that women deserve basic rights.

I 100% support you and your DH in this.

You have nothing to fear in terms of costs as the law is now crystal clear.

Your claim is in no way dependent on injury to DH's feelings, it's entirely about discrimination.

The WI's solicitors' first response will inevitably be to defend/deny the claim. It's just a holding measure while they think through the many implications.

Have a lovely holiday :)

This is fantastic! Good luck OP. Enjoy your holiday.

Somewhere in my house (I have just had a root around but could not unearth it) is a membership card for Farndon WI that was issued to my father by the Committee (as a joke) in the 1970's.

My mother was never a member and we didn't live in Farndon so I don't know what was going on there . . . but I have got my suspicions!

Edit: And they are nothing to do with cross-dressing 😂

@Findthouane the activities you listed can be done by both sexes but not all women can or want to be in a mixed group.

I think the activities are as much so that women can enjoy the company and conversation of other women, while doing something a little structured.
Once you add a man into the mix the conversation changes, women can't speak how they would in a single sex group and all sorts of other dynamics will start to play out. There'll be people pleasing and love bombing from some in an effort to be accommodating and show they have the right opinions, there'll be discomfort and self censoring from others and so on.

I feel just the same about men's sheds - that they should be for men as they've been set up to create a very specific dynamic that supports men to be more open with each other. Add a woman into the mix and it risks not meeting its original aim.

"In almost a century, Colonel Richard Stapleton-Cotton and his dog Tinker are the only two males ever to be allowed in as fully paid-up WI members."

Well, not quite the only two!

I don't know if this helps or hinders but the WI have had a man and a dog as members.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26133605

He needs to respond to this consultation and quote the correspondence . It's exactly the kind of thing the EHRC needs to include in the new code of practice:
www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-services-public-functions-and-associations

Thanks - the court ruling is so obvious let’s hope the legal firm advises as such.

Here is the bit that is relevant . Image may not appear straight after I post .
So an association can restrict membership to s particular chararacteristic in the case of the WI - adult women . Since the Supreme Court judgement that means biological women only . it can’t admit Transwomen too because they are biological men . It can either admit all men including TW or just stick with the Sch 16 exemption and only allow biological women in .

it really is that simple, which why I can’t understand why the NFWI can’t get their collective arses into gear !

Oh wait , they don’t want to……

The WI is an association not a service so Schedule 16 exceptions is the one you need to look at not schedule 3 .

Yes. The 'legitimate aim' is to have a group that excludes men.

Thanks - think I’m getting mixed up in ECHR guidance

• To establish a separate or single-sex service, you must show that you meet at least one of a number of statutory conditions (set out in this section of the guide) and that limiting the service on the basis of sex is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, a legitimate aim could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. You must then be able to show that your action is a proportionate way of achieving that aim.

The original aim of the WI was as an education in company for adult women . That is still a major focus . Education does not generally consist of pens paper and exam questions! . Early on there was a strong community focus too. That still applies too.
it’s not that the activities are ones that only women can do, its so that the organisation is run by women for women without men calling the shots or running them for us .( which let’s face it , would happen if it were mixed)

The WI does have events which involve staying overnight - camps , training and the annual meet up . They often involve sharing sleeping arrangements .

It's not even a requirement to have a legitimate aim. Section 16 of the EA2010 allows a single sex organisation "just because we want one". No justification required at all.

It's not about whether there is a legitimate aim for the individual activities but whether having a female only organisation is a legitimate aim.

Interesting action. I’ve never thought of joining the WI but looked it up in my area. There wasn’t much detail. I presume some areas are more active than others. The area one had some events that are happening. TBH there wasn’t one that I could think would need to be woman only. Baking, calligraphy, a BBQ. There might be other things - I seem to need to join to find out (I am a woman).

The Equality Act seems to refer to a legitimate aim as a reason to discriminate on the grounds of sex. Do the WI in your areas do any activities which might be difficult for a woman if a man was present I can imagine a lot of important subjects, just not see that the local WI does this.

Does that apply to Google Forms though? It does not mention Google Forms.

I realise that it might well apply to Google Sheets. If the Form links to a Google sheet, would someone with a link to the Form be able to access the Sheet with the data?

Well thank you OP, have a lovely holiday. if you do decide to go ahead and need funding then I would be happy to contribute even if another organisation does offer to cover the costs. Crowdfunding can help build support and it can show the strength of public support as well which might be useful. A lot of people have heard of WI and are likely to have a view even if they're not members.

Under the Equality Act 2010 "living permanently as a woman" isn't a thing. It's just fluff. But I guess we'll find out eventually in court.

Thank you Op. Have a lovely holiday.

Yes agree @Marmaladelover
The whole issue is how do you define the group? You can’t include/exclude a group of people legally unless you can define them. That’s why self ID doesn’t work in law as we have no definition of “living as”, and where the GRC came in as gave a definition.
But as you can’t know who does and doesn’t have one the whole thing is unworkable.
And if this was debated in parliament this is what would become glaringly obvious!

And don’t forget that the SC said you can’t differentiate between those with a GRC and those without including some one who decided they were a woman yesterday .
One of the problems with the WI policy is that it’s open to anyone “living permanently as a woman” ( how do you know if they are not ) and therefore open to abuse and the very perverse situation talked about in the judgement .