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

Do they share lawyers with the Corporation of London?

Good point...

This may have been answered up thread, but are they able to make such a drastic change to their policy without consultation and a member vote?

They provided you with a definition of what "living as a woman" means, I assume...

...didn't they?

For the love of God...

Well that makes it very clear that the WI now centres men.

(But only the Special Men).

Good to know 🙄

So they say they class women as people of either sex.

Therefore 'living as a woman' means 'living as a person of either sex'. Which your husband does (as does everyone else on the planet).

So why have they excluded him, again?

Edited to clarify that the italics are my reading of their claim, not a direct quote.

I really don't want to be thinking of that barrister's parts <snurk>

They dont need to do positive action to be single sex . It’s specifically allowed under schedule 16 of the act and called a single sex exemption. .

And what they propose is positive discrimination not positive action . Therefore illegal .

Are the WI planning to use positive action to justify having a single sex charity/association in the first place, or is it only to justify trans women as members? I wonder if they are planning to say they are doing positive action for 2 pc's - female, plus males with gr, and that's the bit of the EA they will rely on for the whole thing - that the WI exists to do positive action?

Don’t forget though that positive discrimination is only allowed if specifically allowed for in the act or another act. Otherwise it’s illegal.

The 2 ticks scheme for disabled workers allows them a leg up of automatic interview if they meet all the necessary attributes for a job. Interview - not the job itself. That is positive action Awarding the job automatically without interview would be positive discrimination not positive action which is illegal

Examples where positive discrimination is allowed are in political shortlists (women only) or women on company boards in Scotland and some jobs which need to be by a particular sex only eg manager of women’s DV centre.

Letting TIM join purportedly a women’s organisation under s158 would be positive discrimination not positive action as well as them not sharing a PC with women ( I agree with your analysis about needing to share a PC with women, which they don’t. )

The point is that all members of the group need to share at least one PC before discriminating on another PC that they don't share.
For example you could take a group of women & positively discriminate in favour of disabled women because they all share the PC of female biological sex. Women & male transexuals do not share a PC.

I cant tell from the excerpt if the group that has the ‘same protected characteristic’ is the group that is benefiting from the positive action ie trans identifying men, or if it’s the group that is benefiting AND another group, I guess being women in general here. If the first defn then that does fit the scenario here?.(Which doesn’t tell us anything about whether it’s a reasonable claim, I very much doubt it)

As regards the current thread where the WI solicitors' claim that they are using positive discrimination because transexuals are the most marginalised & discriminated against. Ben Cooper states

113. The positive action exceptions are not limited to sex and a somewhat different analysis applies from the one considered above in relation to single sex services. Section 158 of the EA 2010 makes general provision for positive action in favour of persons who share the same protected characteristic (other than in respect of recruitment and promotion at work, which is governed by s159) where (a) the duty bearer has a reasonable belief that such persons suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, have particular needs that differ from those of people who do not share the characteristic, or are underrepresented in a particular activity; and (b) the positive action is a proportionate means of addressing such disadvantage, needs and/or underrepresentation.

As male transexuals don't share a PC with women it's ludicrous to claim that positive action is a proportionate means of addressing a disadvantage. Section 158 of the EA 2010 does not provide the gotcha that these solicitors claim.

Agree though that it's not an incapacity to read or understand - more a brain going 'clang' that it doesn't say what it's supposed to say.

Can't help comparing Ben's clarity of communication compared to a few other barristers well known around these parts.

Wow! That document is such a clear explanation of the SC ruling couched much more in layman's terms than the actual judgment. The SC expressed particular gratitude to Ben Cooper KC for his written and oral submissions on behalf of Sex Matters, "which gave focus and structure to the argument that “sex”, “man” and “woman” should be given a biological meaning, and who was able effectively to address the questions posed by members of the court in the hour he had to make his submissions".
This document is something that everyone can read to understand the SC judgment but doubtless there will continue to be a failure of comprehension on the part of TRAs.

Ben Cooper also addresses positive action: to be lawful it must address the entirety of a PC-sharing group. To lawfully discriminate in favour of gender-reassigned people the WI would have to offer the same disadvantages to both men and women sharing that characteristic - not just gender-reassigned men.

Just leaving this here for you @Another2Cats - as Ben Cooper KC specifically discusses provision of single sex spaces that are trans inclusive. See his conclusion at para 85.1.

oldsquare.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FWS-Why-the-SC-decision-does-not-breach-trans-rights.pdf

I am so depressed by my own face to face group at the moment . I proposed a moratorium on membership pending the results of the review NFWI are doing . Not one would support me . I despair, i really do.

For example, if a collective has about 25 members, then a group as small as 30 could wrest control from the bigots

Of course an actual ‘TERF’ has sneakily read the relevant legislation and would know that by adding 30 members to the group you bring the association within the scope of the EA, and that at that point it must be either single sex or mixed sex.

I actually know real people who believe all this shite.

It's not possible to talk to them, of course. If a conversation opener is "I hate anti-trans bigots" there isn't really anywhere to go after that. People on here have suggested that I should get rid of these friends who dislike "anti-trans bigots and terfs" but I believe that eventually they will realise what fools they've been. Also I don't think there's any point in confrontation, because if one end of the scale is confrontation, the other end of the scale is capitulation, but you don't get reasoned debate in the middle. Just a nasty messy punch up.

And then they'll all huff in rage when holding gender ideological views becomes incompatible with being a part of a sex realist women's organisation. They're working towards it very hard. But look at the sheer disrespect for women in this, or for other people in general? Send in the handmaidens to be the vanguard and do the work to capture those women for the men: the women are always the dirty work people to be used, even the ones stupid enough to enable it. It's beyond nasty. It's all about permitting women to have nothing; everything must be stamped out, owned and controlled by men. Misogyny on crack.

The next generation of women's organisations are going to be wise to this shit, trust nobody and be a hell of a lot more aware of staying man-free.

"Resisting TERF’s and Transforming Their Organizations"

Scroll down this thread for the archived link as the original article has been deleted (the author, "Laura", has also posted it on other blog platforms):

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3921532-Resisting-TERF-s-and-Transforming-Their-Organizations

Some people dismiss this "master plan" as the mad ravings of a psychopath but the examples given where it has been put into action are all real.

The Supreme Court has at least put an end in the UK to this little wheeze:

"With TERF groups, many will likely try to ban trans women from membership. This can be worked around. Cis women allies can easily enter a given organization. If they work as a collective, it’s a matter of figuring out the number needed to achieve a simple majority (or whatever number is needed to overrule attempts to stop the bloc). For example, if a collective has about 25 members, then a group as small as 30 could wrest control from the bigots.

Then, when it comes time to select leaders, remove the old bigoted guard and install rational leadership. Done correctly, this is a wonderful bloodless democratic coup. It’s enabled since TERF’s are a tiny — if loud — minority of all women. Finding women willing to help replace their hate with love and inclusiveness is therefore not an impossible task.

This tactic is especially sound when trying to take over a group that has resources and performs functions that are important to the broader community, but happen to be biased against women. (By "women" Laura of course means men.) For example, discriminatory rape crisis centers on one hand perform an important function for the segment of women (the "segment of women" formerly known as "women" 🙄 ) they do serve, even as they impose misogynist exclusionary definitions of who they’ll treat. Maintaining continuity for the delivery of this kind of service is important — no one wins if they’re shut down or disappear. A gradual internal take over simply allows the organization to stop being a hate group while still caring for women in need (as long as they include men they are allowed to survive!)."