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

The lawyers seem to be falling into the old trap believing that trans women are a subset of women as opposed to reality that they are a subset of men.

That’s it really. Nothing more.

Your OH is brilliant for following through with this, well done.

Why would that be bad?

Isn't it right that organisations must be specific about who they are for, and mustn't purport to be single-sex while actually being mixed sex?

There's no problem with there existing a mixed sex organisation that runs educational and charitable activities for all in a similar way to the WI.

Charities in particular, if founded for the specific purpose of addressing the disadvantages that women face relative it men - and especially charities that have capital assets that were donated to them as a single sex sex organisation, cannot decide to become mixed sex without a proper process to redefine theur charitable objectives which should be overseen by the Charities Commission, and will include an impact assessment to ensure that they properly think about what women and girls will lose if they do.

A specific ruling that all charitable organisations founded for the benefit of women and girls must either go through this process and become an officially mixed sex organisation or must restrict their activities to the benefit of female people sounds great to me. If a lot of them choose option 1 then that will provide a clarity that will allow women to organise opportunities for women that don't currently exist because there are organisations pretending to be single sex whilst not being so.

Oh I do agree but a verdict in a civil court carries a weight that a similar verdict in a T1 EAT doesn't.. TBH, I expect that the WI will get their arses handed to them on a plate.

The argument they have come up with is nonsense. They could have as a women's group, target particular groups of women, on the basis of recruitment, and offer special privilege or exceptions. Such as for eg, Muslim women, who would not be attracted to a primarily Christian organisation.

but they cannot recruit men who think they are women, or further the cause of TIM because they are men.

FWS Scotland lost before they won. Maya Forster lost before she won. 🤷‍♀️

@Another2Cats

I am incredibly impressed with your DH's efforts. My only worry is that you are carrying the weight for everybody arguing that associations cannot claim to be single sex if they include people who self-identity into that sex. I understand that you are using professional advice but please, please, please pull out if the professionals indicate that there is a realistic chance that you will lose.

Well done OP. Great job so far.

This would seem a sensible response that most other orgs could learn from.

Remove the policy. Which is obviously illegal and risks expensive legal action if you're not actually interested in women or their legal rights and protections.

Freeze memberships if necessary with a pending further decisions, (or provide third spaces if necessary and applicable, again with the interim message)

Await the EHRC guidance peacefully, and then confirm new policy.

As opposed to the headless chicken approach of run around in circles shouting 'we're waiting!'

The The Freemasons General Counsel ( Head of Legal ) confirmed that their ED and I policy has been withdrawn as a result of the Supreme Court decision but has not yet been replaced..

Sorry, this was a reply to someone asking about male organizations being quizzed about accepting transmen. I should have quoted it, but it's my first post here and thought using add from the post would show that. 😳

The freemasons have it in their regulations that they accept trans-identifying females (and the lady freemasons accept trans-identifying males). I do wonder how long that will last.

Incidentally the wordings for the two organizations for these policies are nigh identical, probably drafted by the same person.

True. I can see why Stonewall were so keen to indoctrinate children from 2+ - not only are the kids pushing the belief but the (less resistant to cult-think) adults in the families of those kids are also then co opted into the fight.

Every time I look at it the web gets deeper and more tangled - and I’m sure there’s loads more.

There was a suggestion upthread that trans wives of board members may (I repeat may) also be in the mix.

I would speculate (and it is speculation) that given the age and general class of the WI Board that there will be the chilling effect of trans relatives possibly children or grandchildren affecting thinking as well

Thanks for the update @Another2Cats

My question is - in these conversations betweem your DH and the WI, has the possibility of the WI reconfirming as a female-only organisation and removing all male members (fnar) been discussed? Would that actually satisfy DH? Potentially with an option that transwomen and all other males may join as associate members for the purpose of being included in activities (but still able to be excluded when that would be detrimental to women) and with no voting rights.

The thing is that thiscase is pushing for making the WI a fully mixed-sex organisation and it's not clear that a path of becoming an actually single-sex organisation has actually been discussed.

The stuff about the detriment that TW suffer is somewhat irrelevant. When trans-idemtifying men suffer a detriment that could be overcome by positive action it most be shown to be by comparison with other males. TW are a subset of males who have the PC of gender reassignment. Any charitable body which addresses the need for positive action would need to have among its objectives that they aim to address the barriers that disadvantaged groups of males suffer. That is not within the remit of the WI and is an abuse of their resources that should be taken up with the Charities Commission rather than a court case to make them widen their offense against their founding principles to start including all men rather than just men with a specific PC.

Yes, perfect time to need it.

🤣 Still miffed that they took the LOL reaction emoji away.

Because it’s a faith position, which is the only way you can believe anything so stupid. And then rejecting it makes you look as though you’ve been credulous and stupid, so you dig in (and look even more stupid).

I really don't understand the lawyer's argument here. Eligibility for membership of the WI is through being a woman, not through being disadvantaged.

Why would they need so many weeks to write up the disadvantages they have presumably already thoroughly assessed in order to allow them membership? I’d be tempted to write back and say I’ve been thinking about our discussion and one point I am stuck on is why you would need extra time to provide examples of all the disadvantages that this group suffer which is the reason why they’ve been granted membership. They were obviously all assessed at the time of granting membership so this is just cleaning up and presenting. I’d like to return to the original and standard time frame for these requests, allowing for the 2 days since we spoke, so i expect a response within x days.

I completely agree.

The bit that bamboozles me on all this is how these people in charge suddenly lose all ability to consider ‘new’ information. They are having the issues and harm to women explained to them but instead of taking the obvious and dignified way out handed to them by the SC, they stick to their guns. Why??

Phnar

Sorry. As you were.

<shuffles off sheepishly>

Let’s face it nobody wants to appear stupid . Trouble is the longer they continue with this farce the stupider the leadership looks

Indeed. They had a choice of 'Kindly misguided' with a swift reverse after the SC judgement; or 'Ridiculous cultists' by clutching at increasingly flimsy straws. Not many would consider the latter to be the better look.

You know this thread and others is probably why the Chairwoman stood up at the Annual Meeting and said “Please will you stop being horrible to us at HQ….”

My sympathy tears ran dry years ago , and do you know what , they should know what would make us stop……!