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

I don't know whether to be furious, or staggered, or depressed, by the WI being totally and completely upfront that the reason for transwomen to join is so that women can validate them.

It offers trans women an acutely needed sense of community, solidarity, inclusion and validation

It's unbelievable that the majority of members truly believe this. And yes, I'd like to see a vote too.

The issue other people have raised - about to what extent members or prospective member are aware of the (to us, blatant) significance of the recurrent "all women" - is another key one for me.

By definition, women join this group because they want a women-only space. That's what it's offering, its USP! Reinforced by its long history of being unambiguously, definitively female-only.

Meanwhile, we know there's still considerable confusion nationally re: what transwoman/man means - and if people don't know that, they're even less likely to read between the lines of the qualifying "all".

So you'd certainly get a significant proportion of women turning up purely because they seek female-only company without knowing the group may not be.

That will include victims of abuse - of course it will, given the numbers affected.

It seems very wrong, ethically speaking, as well as the obvious legal transgression post-SC.

It's hard to believe this could really go to court, but count me in for helping funding however much process is needed. I also second contacting Sex Matters. Naomi will be a bit busy for the next couple of weeks though!

Surely it's a 'womanly' thing to even want to join the WI in the first place. Ergo everyone who wants to join is 'living as a woman'.

I have no interest in the WI so I'm not living as a woman despite my womanly bits. See? Easy peasy.

So it's now the Transwomens Institute and the Other Women have what role as members?
Do the Other Women know they are serving this role? I assume the Other Women will no longer have to pay subs and will instead be paid expenses for their supporting roles!

God the WI are just digging that hole deeper with every letter aren't they.

How can people who are legally trained come out with such complete and utter shite?

And I'm another who really wants to know how they plan to define 'living as a woman'

Exactly. And I can't wait for the concept of autogynephilia to be raised by enough people for the penny to drop.

"It offers trans women an acutely needed sense of community, solidarity, inclusion and validation with other women, as well as access to practical opportunities that they have not been or felt able to access....

It offers a welcoming place where transgender women can connect with other women, socialise and learn together...

... a space where they are welcomed as women just as their fellow members are

...with no need to justify their presence

Surely applying to join the WI is an example of living as a woman? Because only a woman would want to join a woman's group?

Who knows any more.

If women are people who are male or female, then without any further criteria being set out, anyone who is living as a [male or female person] is living as a woman anyway.

I read this yesterday but (and I'm blaming being under the weather and a lack of sleep) I didn't put it together with
"According to the WI, the organisation "does not purport to establish single sex membership within the meaning of the EqA" "
it's really quite the juxtaposition, isn't it.

It's a fucking guddle, isn't it.

Are they excluding 'transmen' on the basis of gender? How are they differentiating between a 'transman' who wears short hair, check shirts, jeans, and trainers, and a bog standard woman who wears short hair, check shirts, jeans, and trainers? Is it done on the basis of someone proving they are eligible by the fact they've applied to join?

If their argument is 'anyone who says they want to join is able to on the basis of asking', then OP's husband has clearly been discriminated against.

I guess the WI's argument is that male crossdressers are excluded on the basis of their crossdressing.

But female crossdressers, like yourself, and any woman who wears flat shoes and trousers (I assume? The WI would need to probably expand on their definition of which clothes are associated with which sex) would be included on the basis of sex.

They seem to be trying to exclude male crossdressers on the basis of sex, but include female crossdressers on the basis of sex. While excluding male non-crossdressers on the basis of gender, but including female non-crossdressers on the basis of gender.

They appear to be trying to use 'sex' in some instance and 'gender' in others, is my point. But they can't make it fit, because the two terms are immiscible.

My 3yo dd ran straight into me at full tilt last night deliberately - do you think she’s living as a boy? Should I be applying for a grc for her?

And I want to know what ‘living as a woman ‘ means as well. My six foot five son cooked the evening meal today, so does he qualify?

The legal problem they have to overcome here is that they have to come up with a definition of "living as a woman" that doesn't discriminate against men.

If it's "having F on your passport", or "being referred to as she" or "using a name normally associated with women", they are all discriminating against men, because men don't generally do those things, and they're clearly being used as a proxy for sex.

The fact that they happen to pick up some transwomen is immaterial - the primary purpose and effect of any of those criteria is clearly to try to exclude men. It's as clear as day, and won't stand up a second in court. Do they think the enforcers of the UK's equality legislation were born yesterday?

There are decades of history of discrimination legislation here that have hung up organisations that claim to be technically "non-discriminatory" by using some sort of proxy for a protected characteristic.

"Oh, we weren't discriminating on any race or religion - we were just looking at people's surnames.", etc...

The WI "does not purport to establish single sex membership within the meaning of the EqA"

If it is not single sex, it is mixed sex.

It's a simple, binary choice. They have to be one or the other.

If it is mixed sex, what are their legal grounds for excluding the OP's DH, and approx 30 million other men in the UK?

I'd love the WI to survey their female members on this policy. Its a huge change to their founding principles.

Personally, I'd go for the WI because it explicitly defines itself as an 'Assocation of Women' in the governing documents it requires local WIs and its regional federations to adopt and I strongly suspect its use of that definition long predates the Gender Recognition Act and Equality Act.

The problem with Kenwood Ladies Pond is that its not 100% clear how its governed and on what terms, so there's not a clear paper trail to work with.

Did it strike anyone else that way?

Yes, me. And we know that there’s a TW who seems to be pretty influential in the WI, to the extent of featuring on their magazine cover.
In terms of validation, co-opting a whole institution designed to promote and support actual women is quite the coup.

Not only that but the WI has apparently been using female members, without their knowledge and consent, as service animals for the comfort and "validation" of the men it chooses to admit to membership.

We are used to "free" or subsidised services that sell our data or that are financed by advertising but this is with our knowledge and consent if we wade through the small print that is presented for agreement.

However, the WI says it has been using all female members to provide a free service to all male members and that only the male members are aware of this arrangement.

The free benefit that male members receive from the WI has a non-financial cost to any female members who suffer a detriment, such as discomfort, lack of privacy, voluntary exclusion from activities to avoid association with any male or particular males, etc. due to the inclusion of male members. Despite this, all members are subject to the same fee structure.

Quite apart from the ethical issues of knowledge and consent, the WI should, ethically, have been compensating female members in some way, eg. by a reduction in membership fees or by providing some other benefit in recompense.

Worse, it is arguable that the benefit to at least some of these males is provision of a free sexual service by the WI. The WI is therefore prostituting female members without their knowledge and consent. The WI benefits financially from every male who pays a membership fee, ie. the WI is operating as a pimp and is sexually exploiting female members.

Have there been any cases that used consumer protection law? It seems to me that when women join the WI, they are paying for a service based on representations from the organisation that all members are of the same sex. If the WI is no longer an organisation for women, they’ve been misleading their members who have paid for a service they haven’t received.

"It offers trans women an acutely needed sense of community, solidarity, inclusion and validation with other women,

Like others, I really want to see this go to court. And I particularly want someone like Naomi Cunningham spell out exactly how women are being used to make men feel validated.

That these men are using all the at the WI women as a resource.

And I'm sure I'm not the only one who is infuriated by the ridiculous use of the term 'other women', it's said so often, you just know it's boner inducing.

"If you want to set up a group of any sort over 15 people,"

Sorry to be pedantic but it is a group of over 24 people, ie. at least 25.

The easy way I found to remember it is that you could have a "Two Dozen Club" but no more than that if you wanted to avoid being covered by the EA2010.

(There can be more than 24 members and the club would still not be covered by the EA2010 as long as there were no rules about who could join and there was no process of selection, ie. you could never exclude anyone who wanted to join. Although I imagine a max number of members would be allowed but admission would be strictly first come, first served whoever they happened to be.

Not very relevant though when what we are concerned about is the ability to control admission according to the "Two Dozen Club" Rules.)

PART 7
ASSOCIATIONS
Supplementary

107 Interpretation and exceptions

(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Part.

(2) An “association” is an association of persons—

(a) which has at least 25 members, and
(b) admission to membership of which is regulated by the association's rules and involves a process of selection.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/7/crossheading/supplementary

"It offers trans women an acutely needed sense of community, solidarity, inclusion and validation with other women, as well as access to practical opportunities that they have not been or felt able to access. It offers a welcoming place where transgender women can connect with other women, socialise and learn together. As far as the Women’s Institute is aware, there is no other similar organisation for trans women that offers this space, and so it is unique. The Women’s Institute offers transgender women ultimate acceptance – a space where they are welcomed as women just as their fellow members are, with no need to justify their presence, and free from prejudice, discrimination and judgement"

Is anyone else wondering about the sex of the person who wrote that?

It comes over as frightfully camp, dahling!

I am trying to work out whose voice I can hear in my head speaking as a I read it and I think it might be Danny la Rue.

Not to derail but this is a blast from the past documentary, from a time when Female Impersonators were more Music Hall than Drag Race:

“The Unforgettable Danny La Rue” Documentary (2010) HD

But I am not sure because the more times I read it the more it sounds like Della Aleksander from 1973's "Open Door: Transex Liberation Group" on BBC 2.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06c83f4

Then, also from 1973, I listen to posh Jill Tweedie talking to Mary Whitehouse and there is something about the way Jill Tweedie talks and I can imagine her voice reading those words from the WI:

Mary Whitehouse interview | Sex Education | Jill Tweedie | Good Afternoon | 1973 | Part 1

I am not sure now what voice I am hearing reading those words.

Jill Tweedie is the sort of woman whose voice and manner of speaking Della Alexander would have been trying to emulate.

What I do know though is that my first impression was that it read "male" and "camp".

I routinely try to avoid reading bylines before I have read the text of an article. It's a game I have played with myself since the late '70s when Psycholinguistics and Sociolinguistics were part of my Speech & Language Therapy degree, ie. the game is guessing the sex of the author from the style of writing.

Obviously, I don't mean articles where the sex of the author is revealed in the content. I used to be rarely wrong but these days the difference between male and female authors is not so marked.

So anyway, my first impression was that it was written by a man and rather camp.

Did it strike anyone else that way?

Good point and as the vast majority of us women wear jeans/trousers/shorts at some point we'd have to all come out as cross dressers as it fits the label.
Moreover, if any pretending men can say they are women then all women could be the reverse and be a pretending man. How would pretending men know what they are pretending to be?
After the loop of crazy meaningless words, we have reality; the supreme court rightly says sex exists because it always has and we know it's not about wearing trousers.

Does that exclude me?
Today I am wearing Jeans and a blue linen shirt. I have recently been wearing a man's straw hat with a black band. Apparently I am a crossdresser according to the WI when I just thought I was gender non conforming. How exotic?!

So the WI will permit men who identify as women to join but not men who identify as men?

Isn’t that discrimination against men who identify as men?

Either the WI accepts all males or no males?