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

Maybe he could apply to join a WI group that already admits men?

yes but you are not being unkind to some evil professional third sector NFWI apparatchik who created the stupid policy. you're ruining the night of some poor local volunteer who almost certainly understands that men are men and doesn't want them at her meeting. Please remember this is real people.

as a recipient of emails from people enquiring about joining our WI, I do have a certain degree of sympathy with the poor woman replying to the OP's husband. In her shoes I'd be going to my county WI adviser in the first instance in the hopes of getting someone higher up the chain to deal with it.

I think what the OP's husband is doing is fine, but do remember that you're dealing volunteers who are in general a force for good in their communities. it's the organisation that's gone bonkers, not the members.

What are "softer hand movements"?

The EA10 provides that you can provide a single sex service, organisation etc (ie discriminate against men/women as appropriate by excluding them from you service for women/men) if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

So the WI could say “we exclude men because women need spaces to meet where they can speak freely, enjoy each others company [insert whatever the purpose is of the WI]”. If challenged by a man who wants to join, they can argue that their discrimination is lawful because of the single sex exception.

Running an organisation for women “and some men who say they’re women” is not covered by the single sex exception, as the SC made clear that “sex” means biological sex, not “certificated sex” (the Scottish Gov had already conceded that men without a GRC, however they identify, are not women for EA10 purposes).

The WI is currently mixed sex, and so if they deny access to any man they cannot say “you’re not a woman so you can’t join” as they do let people who aren’t women join. The excluded man can now claim direct discrimination, and the WI has no lawful defence as they are no longer within the single sex exception.

A woman could also potentially sue for indirect discrimination if a single sex service is needed (e.g. hospital ward) and NOT provided. So everything going gender neutral isn’t a panacea (I think the WI could probably decide to go mixed sex without this risk, but the NHS couldn’t for hospital wards).

"I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but does the SC ruling comply the WI to exclude men who identify as women. Or, is it a personal choice for them as an organisation?"

No it certainly is not a stupid question. A lot of people have been confused by this.

A woman by the name of Akua Reindorf explained it very clearly.

Who's she? You ask.

Well, Akua Reindorf is a KC (a senior barrister) and a part time Employment Judge. More importantly, she is one of the Commissioners of the EHRC. This is the body that will be coming up with the statutory guidance that interprets the latest SC judgment.

She will be having a very large input into what that guidance says.

She tweeted about this two weeks ago and I posted about it at the time:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5324127-interim-guidance-from-ehrc-is-out-thread-2?reply=143886518

This is what I posted:

Coincidentally, Akua Reindorf KC (one of the Commissioners of the EHCR) tweeted on this just now to somebody who had a similar question.

Question: My understanding is that it says, for example, that lesbian groups must exclude trans women? Rather than can just legally exclude them if they choose?

Reply from AR:

It’s an inevitable consequence of the judgment. In general an association mustn’t discriminate against a person by depriving them of membership because of a protected characteristic: s.101(1). So eg a reading group can’t say “no disabled people” /1

But there’s an exception which says that an association can be limited to people who share a protected characteristic: Sch 16 para 1. Thus an association can be limited to women, disabled people, older people, black people etc /2

An association can combine protected characteristics as long as it’s for people who all have the same two (or more) PCs: lesbian women, black men, young Asian disabled people etc. This way, everybody in the club falls within both/all the PCs /3

But you can’t have an either/or association: disabled people + older people; black women + white men; young people + disabled people. This is because the association can’t satisfy the single protected characteristic condition for any one of its PCs /4

So you can’t have an association for lesbian women and heterosexual men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which is what trans women who are attracted to women are for the purposes of the Act) /5

This wouldn’t be an association for lesbians because it would have straight members; it wouldn’t be an assc for women because some members are men & it wouldn’t be an assc for trans people because some members aren’t trans. Hence it’s discriminatory and unlawful /end

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/1916748422658359573

So, the practical upshot of all this is that the SC ruling does indeed compel the WI to exclude all men if they wish to remain as a single sex organisation.

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but does the SC ruling comply the WI to exclude men who identify as women. Or, is it a personal choice for them as an organisation?

I totally agree that there are things we need as women. I don't think that men should be allowed to join. But does the SC ruling mean they can if that is the stance the WI choose to take?