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

I'll stop in a minute, but perhaps this will be helpful to you OP, and I'm finding it fascinating.

I think this is the current glossary.

https://www.thewi.org.uk/_data/assets/pdffile/0003/649911/NFWI-Equality-Diversity-and-Inclusion-Glossary-of-Terms-2024.pdf

If so, again, it's fairly revealing. A few thoughts - although, again, IANAL.

1. That problematic definition of "gender" actually appears here.
2. "Cisgender" makes it fairly clear that they consider their women members as subscribing to gender-as-self-identification by default.
3. "Crossdressers" are defined in a canny way that permits their exclusion from the WI.
4. The wording of "discrimination by perception", rightly or wrongly (no idea!) does allow scope for condemning a woman objecting to the presence of a transwoman as discriminatory.
5. "Intersex" is included - and appears muddled...
6. In a comprehensive list of the current DEI terminology, "man" and "woman" are conspicuous by their absence.

I agree this would be a better test case. I donate as much as I can, but I feel that the ladies pool is too 'niche' and dare I say for me, too London centric. A nation-wide organisation would have more impact and I think, appeal to more women who can only offer small donations.

From the 2021 policy, consolidating my impressions of the meaning lying behind the current wording:

"When talking about transgender people, it is important to understand the difference between sex and gender. Sex is assigned to a person at birth on the basis of their sex characteristics (genitalia) e.g. male or female. Gender is often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, is largely culturally determined, and is assumed from the sex assigned at birth. Gender identity is a person’s sense of their own gender, whether male, female or something else, which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth. Culturally, it is expected that a person’s gender identity is aligned with their sex assigned at birth."

Paraphrased, this becomes: "Gender means masculinity or femininity. Culturally, it is expected that females will perform femininity. We specifically welcome males who perform it, too."

Way to go, WI.

Another quote from the current policy (my bold).

"Gender identity is a person’s sense of their own gender which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth. Culturally, it is expected that a person’s gender identity is aligned with their sex assigned at birth."

From countering "cultural" expectations of women to upholding them, in less than 100 years.

While circumventing any explicit admission of this through the circular definition of "gender identity".

And note that we then, later, have:

"Unconscious bias is where social stereotypes about certain groups of people unconsciously affect decisions, behaviours and thoughts. For example, biases can be about race, religion, ethnicity, age, gender identity, sexual orientation and physical abilities, and these biases can negatively impact the WI membership experience. It is therefore important that all members try to recognise these biases and actively challenge them. "

So we implicitly welcome cultural expectations of what it means to be a woman, while emphatically challenging social stereotypes in other protected groups.

Hm. I'd love to ask for them to explain these subtle distinctions.

Interesting.

My main 2 questions for them would be:

1. Given their (pointedly bolded, at times) emphasis on welcoming "all" women, what provisions have they made for a female survivor of male violence who is triggered by male bodies? (Would an Equality Impact Assessment be relevant here?)

2. What provisions have they made to mitigate conflicts of interest in their campaigning (some historical campaigns eg. for equal pay become rather less meaningful & efficacious with a refusal to distinguish between the sexes, and hypothetical future campaigns relating to uniquely female experiences / lesbian rights etc. could actively contravene the convictions and wishes of a proportion of TW who seek to deny the female experience).

Yep. It's weird. I fought with it a while to make it work, gave up and adapted my post. It's out there, though!

https://www.thewi.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/719730/NFWI-Equality,-Diversity-and-Inclusion-Policy.pdf

Here's a link to the policy dated 2023. Section 6 just lists the protected characteristics . Section 12 is interesting, it says

A person who was assigned female at birth but who identifies as non-binary is able

to join the WI. This is because they fall within our women only exemption as they

were assigned female at birth.

What women only exemption are they relying on here if not the SSEs

I’m another willing to donate if needed.

@Catiette When I click on your link I get Page Not Found

WI EDI etc. policy 2021, Section 6, list of PCs:

• Sex (though the WI lawfully restricts membership to women)

WI EDI etc. policy currently, Section 6, list of PCs:

• Sex

Spot the difference.

I suspect this avoidance of explicit reference to the SSEs is a tell that they know they could be challenged.

They probably forgot about them

My thoughts - i am not legally trained i just like it . Do not rely on my thoughts!

Just been looking at the section again on charities in the EA .

(1)A person does not contravene this Act only by restricting the provision of benefits to persons who share A protected characteristic if—

So key is persons who share one single PC . Not 2 groups who have 2 different PC ( transwomen share the , PC of gender reassignment ; women share their sex.

(a)the person acts in pursuance of a charitable instrument,

The WI is a charity for the benefit of women. I really cant see how that can mean anything other than biological women after the SC decision.

and
(b)the provision of the benefits is within subsection (2).

(2)The provision of benefits is within this subsection if it is—
(a)a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or
(b)for the purpose of preventing or compensating for a disadvantage linked to the protected characteristic.

So it must be linked to the PC in this case - the education and betterment biological women as they can get overshadowed by men in a similar mixed organisation.

How can transwomen claim a link
to the betterment and education of biological women? They are not biological women ( and that is also central to the NFWI argument in adding them to their membership (they are now not arguing they are women, just “live as women” )

And as i have said before , s158 can only be for positive action, not positive discrimination . This proposal discriminates against Biological men who are not trans and live as men .

What are the options suggested in the consultation? Surely the only legal options are women-only (real women) or mixed-sex (including any and all men)?

Maybe they asked their EDI lead instead of legal experts? Anything is possible.

According to the WI accounts their legal advisers are Bates Wells (apologies if this has been noted before).

I have no idea how any half competent lawyer could put forward the position that the WI is now mixed sex, but only if you’re a man who thinks he’s a woman, and therefore it falls outside the EA10 and there’s nothing to see here.

I cannot wait for both the WI and Hampstead Ponds to find out their lawyers are either (I) incompetent or (ii) lying to them to spare their sensitivities or (iii) both.

As we explain below, the definition “women who live as women, including transgender women” is not discriminatory."

So they are not open to transmen then? Including those who acknowledge they are biological women?

Eh?

Surely if they argue that they are a mixed sex organisation that applies an additional criterion for membership ("living as a woman"), they have to be seen to apply it equally to all members. So if they assume that female applicants are living as a woman but require proof that a male is doing so, they are discriminating against men.

I guess they could get round that by simply requiring all members to sign a declaration that they are doing this. But if they are to avoid being challenged, they would have to define upfront what they mean by 'living as a woman", because if they don't, how do they know that any WI member of either sex is actually complying with their requirement? Could be very interesting. They would have to define it in a way that excludes non trans identifying men while including women who are gender nonconforming and/or don't reckon to have a gender identity.
We might even, after all this time, find out what "living as a woman actually entails!

Would a definition that numerically favours one sex over the other (e.g. "having an F marker on your passport") count as inherently discriminatory against men, I wonder? The situations where that is considered ok seem to be things like genuine physical requirements for a job.
So in this case presumably you'd have to prove that "people who live as women" is a category that justifies positive discrimination on that basis - including proving that you are justified in excluding women who identify as men.

It is collective letter of intent requesting the members are their names to the letter of reflects the compassion and inclusivity of the organisation. It’s not my letter to share but my friend who is a member has felt pressured by the chair to add her name to this.

Having a club that doesn't let some people join is the very definition of discriminatory. Just because you're picking a selection of different sorts of people to discriminate against doesn't make it OK. I can't work out whether they're stupid, think OPs DH is stupid, or are just spewing nonsense in a complete panic.

If there was a club that said 'no gay men or straight women, but that's OK cos gay women and straight men are allowed in. We're not discriminating against gay people or men or women' - no one would think that was anything short of ludicrous. It's fucking obvious it's a crock of shite and they seem to have written this (along with Hampstead Ponds) by throwing magnetic letters at a fridge, pointing at a fucking squirrel, and hoping for the best.

Are they actually insane? Is this a joke? Are we in the Tru(wo)man Show? I don't even know any more.

Please tell me what I am missing. For a moment let's forget about living as a woman.

If WI is NOT a single sex organisation, why are biological men excluded? Surely that is the nub of the matter and bio men are discriminated against.

Not sure if I've go that right though.

Any sort of write in box for I totally disagree with this? Presumably the next step is to copy the green party by expelling anyone who disagrees as they are not living as the right sort of woman.

There were always going to be legal cases following the SC judgement. I agree linking up with sex matters is sensible.

The two cases are from different perspectives but fundamentally about the same thing:

• the WI case is from the perspective of biological men who are not trans and transmen (biological women) who want to join an organisation.
• sex matters is from the perspective of biological women (some of whom may be transmen) not wanting biological men, trans identifying or not, in the women’s pond and changing rooms.

The Hampstead Ponds is such an obvious case to take forward because of the mixed pond but also because the changing rooms are communal so dignity and privacy are clearly relevant. It is likely any judgement would be appealed so it’s a long process but the knock on effect would be widespread.

What consultation ?

@LittleBitofBread there is an ongoing consultation to members and it’s strongly worded and not giving a equal option to women to air their options

I would happily donate too!!