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

I've said it often here before - this isn't ironic, it's a feature. They deliberately target women only activities especially those designed to foster independence and confidence, because that's what threatens men. It's why they target Guides, women-only swimming, women's sport and so on.

Yes, I can easily see that happening.

It's just so ironic, not to mention bloody galling, that it's happening to an organisation who are meant to specifically to empower women.

I have seen lectures on how women should immediately surrender all leadership positions to the men with trans identities as a sign of commitment, loyalty and obedience to the most oppressed and righteous.

This is why lesbian groups - often having initially believed in the be kind, be nice, they're just women like you bullshit - went underground to escape. Instantly everything has to be all about men with trans identities, the original purpose of the group and the interests of everyone else are dismissed and rejected on the spot. Then there's bafflement from said men that they are not liked or wanted and women get angry and won't let them in to wreck other groups.

It's like that bit from friends. Men are Here. Make Fire. Pee all over it. Not get invited back.

I'd love to see a fly on the wall documentary analysing exactly how this comes about.

Do women defer to them? Do the men coerce the women? And how are they better than the women - at running a women's organisation, for women?

I'd love to see how it actually pans out. Because it's a common refrain. That as soon as men enter an organisation, they leapfrog over women to get to the top.

I suspect that if the WI became officially mixed sex, then TIMs would have no interest in becoming members…

Yes you are probably right. As I said, I had not fully explored that rabbit hole and I agree with your analysis. I was just trying to cover the point about it being irrelevant given the WI’s charitable objects. It all seems like a waste of time. Quelle surprise.

@AlexandraLeaving

Yes there is provision for positive action to address disadvantage and that MIGHT make it possible for some (non-charitable) associations to be trans-inclusive if they so chose (though I have not fully been down that rabbit hole

I don’t think so unless they were a mixed sex organisation already. Otherwise there will always be discrimination against other men.
Positive action can only ever be training or targeted events to encourage participation eg in positions of responsibility .

I hardly think that they could prove that transwomen need to be encouraged into taking more senior roles in the WI - they are managing that quite well by themselves thank you very much - as fed board members , as officers in WI branches and even as a prospective national board member.

It’s part of the massive problem they cause —besides just being men in an all women organisation—.

I was so tempted to say Sue, Grabbitt & Runne.

We got it don’t worry

Please can you let me know the law firm.

I have a lawyer here and he’s outraged

I don’t see how they could make the s158 argument work in this case. Yes there is provision for positive action to address disadvantage and that MIGHT make it possible for some (non-charitable) associations to be trans-inclusive if they so chose (though I have not fully been down that rabbit hole). But the WI is a charity, so is bound by charity law and its own articles of association/constituion, which says it exists to promote the interest (or whatever) of women and girls. So they could not be TW-inclusive (though could be TM-inclusive) unless they change their charitable objects (which would require a membership vote and permission of the Charity Commission - not impossible, but could not be taken for granted).

Just leaving this here for anyone wanting to hear more from equalities lawyers who have a good track record of winning cases unlike The GLP

Virtuous circle of agreement and chilling effect in action

if someone didn’t agree as a trustee or staff member with WI decision to allow men I wonder how free they would have felt to have voiced that view….

She is and stood as a PCC candidate at an election in 2013 I think. Her pro trans views are well documented on the Internet. But there are others too. Present Chair for example.

From the GLP page linked above.

For example, access to single-sex cubicle toilets (i.e. toilets that are in cubicles, rather than a separate lockable room) may depend upon whether you have a GRC because the meaning of “sex” in the Workplace (Health and Safety) Regulations 1992 may be governed by the GRA

Michael Foran said this is not true because the rationale behind the SC decision applies to all laws . IANAL - I think there was a specific legal reason for this - but also it seems like common sense. Why would sex have a different meaning in different statutes?

I note one of the members of their senior staff team is also a Lib Dem councillor.

lib dems attitude to GC women and cheerleading of TW is well documented

Yes

If it’s discriminatory to include only some men, then surely what they are asking for is positive discrimination, which is illegal?

Message to MG the CEO of NFWI as I presume you are still reading this thread.

Another novel idea ( but better than that s158 one) : Get some decent legal advice from someone who actually specialises in Equality law - maybe a barrister even ( hint not the GLP who don’t have a great success rate in this field ) or

Another novel idea : why not save the unnecessary wasting of our funds and take heed of what Kier Starmer said yesterday and just implement the Supreme Court decision?

I'm getting really quite curious as to what's going on there.

Fascinating thank you - it is interesting that having been given such amazing advice including by a Kings Counsel no less - the GLP statement is so full of maybe and we believe and other clear clauses to give an impression without committing to a point of view! The one thing that JM seems to be good at is giving himself escape clauses:

I didn’t promise - it was maybe and we believed, but sadly a lawyer came along and used the actual law as an answer, so I am sorry I seem to have lost your £400,000…

If there was a clear case against the SC judgement a) the judges themselves might have been aware and b) the GLP would be talking with far more certainty…

this is more of the same trend - say lots of things that aren’t quite true in a way which makes them sound authoritative and absolute and if you yell loud enough no other voice can be heard…

basically no case to answer!

Been delving a bit about this novel s158 idea that the solicitors presented in their phone all last Friday to the OPs husband. It’s on the Good Law Project website ( along with lots more crap. They boast their crap guidance was drawn up by a KC and team of other barristers which is supposed to impress us until you realise that the KC is Jolyon Maughan who specialises in tax law . So it looks like Bate and Wells are getting their advice from GLP or just accessing their FAQ as I did. .

I will post a couple of screenshots from the page but in the meantime here is the link to the page .

https://goodlawproject.org/resource/trans-inclusion-after-the-supreme-court-decision-faqs/

Excellent point knotty Women’s Aid had associate members who were not female led providers, many moons ago.

In the EHRC Consultation I specifically asked them to include an example of a single sex charity/association who had misapplied the law and had male members. With advice on how they might deal with this situation because they can’t be full members - and to clarify that any “associate memberships” would have to be open to all males if offered to trans women…. Given that this is a situation being faced by many organisations it would be very useful to have an example spelled out… fingers crossed

The lawyers need to remember their legal training and remember how to interpret a SC judgement, it shouldn’t be that difficult for them, it’s really basic stuff.