DH -v- The WI, Thread 2

"When it comes down to it, the salient point is still that WI wants to apply different criteria to male and female membership: all women will be considered, but only men with the characteristic of 'reassignment' "

Not to nit-pick but I don't agree with this.
Not all female people will be considered, those who don't "live as women" won't be (discounting those who consider themselves non binary, for some reason).
This is why (IMO) they don't consider themselves to be discriminating on the basis of sex.
They also (IMO) don't consider themselves to be discriminating on the basis of gender identity/ reassignment as they allow male people who fall in this category, to join.
They think (IMO) that because they're not using the definitions of woman and man as defined by the EqA, they are free to use their own definitions and exclude other groups of people without realising (caring?) that they are being discriminatory as there is no legal basis on which to do this.

Doubling back over the 'living as a woman' criterion: I think it's a red herring. I think they really just mean anyone who says they're a woman. If I'd applied to join something and they'd asked me if I live as a woman, I'd have replied that I simply am a woman. So would a transwoman.

A transman would not say she is a woman. I think they've put their foot in it with their enby inclusion, as others have remarked, though I guess nonbinaries of either sex could say they are women twice a week and on bank holidays; that might be sufficient for the WI.

When it comes down to it, the salient point is still that WI wants to apply different criteria to male and female membership: all women will be considered, but only men with the characteristic of 'reassignment' - and it's important to remember that 'reassignment' is the protected characteristic, not 'gender identity' or lifestyle.

I understand why it's important to argue all their irrational claims and more, but I get terminally exasperated just reading them over! Admiration and gratitude to everyone with the patience & determination to deal with it. That includes you and Mr Cats, of course, OP.

I wonder if the wording of the constitution reflects a time when the word ‘women’ was understood to mean only biological females and was not expected to include transsexuals.

Stephen Whittle wrote an article for The Guardian in 2010 on the history of transgender issues, and states:

'Transsexual' was not coined until 1949, 'transgender' not until 1971, and 'trans' (a very British term) not until 1996.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/02/brief-history-transgender-issues

(The EqA 2010 uses the term transsexual in the definition of gender reassignment).

Also worth bearing in mind that the WI had its roots in the women’s suffrage movement:

https://www.thewi.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/145290/The-WI-and-the-Womens-Suffrage-movement.pdf

The first constitution was drawn up in 1917 - this archive article includes the wording used in the 1950s and 1960s (the fourth iteration of the constitution from 1948), which refers to ‘countrywomen’:

archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/76656370-ee18-3033-a100-f45ba16e54e9

The wording of the constitution hadn’t changed that much by the time the WI became a charitable company limited by Guarantee - ‘countrywomen’ had become ‘women’.

Baroness Nicholson has a fantastic turn of phrase that cuts to the core of the issue. It is interesting that gender reassignment was effectively tethered to a psychiatric diagnosis of gender dysphoria. I think that probably applies to a small minority of the trans community.

It would seem not. So Yardley out, Upton in. And I know which I'd rather spend time with if I had to.

Their argument is frankly bollocks. Like the bollocks they are happy to let in.

Exactly how I felt reading that list of 'transwomen feel X' 'transwomen feel Y' 'transwomen feel Z'....boo-bloody-hoo...oh ok then, women feel A, B and C but we'll put those feelings aside to asuage 'menz feelz' shall we. No we fucking well won't. God this makes me so bloody angry.

I just thought I'd have a read through of their policy again, two more things I've now spotted.
Firstly, again they state

"3. Objectives
The objectives of this policy are to:

• Highlight and celebrate the diverse membership of the WI, and reach out to all women.
• Promote inclusion so that the WI is a space for all women with no barriers to membership."

Then they say:

"Being a transgender woman is a protected characteristic (gender reassignment) under the Equality Act 2010."

since I've just read BoN's latest letter, to M&S, I think this might also be disputed, she wrote:

"During the passage of the Equality Bill, several attempts were made to amend the protected characteristic of "Gender Reassignment" to "Gender Identity". All were rejected by Parliament. The Response to Consultation made it clear that protection was intended exclusively for people with a psychiatric diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and not for any wider group. "We do not consider it appropriate to provide a person who presents themselves temporarily in other than their birth gender with the same protection against discrimination that is available to a person with gender dysphoria." (Response to Consultation 9.42)"

https://x.com/baroness_nichol/status/1954845229217157307?

So transwomen, actual transwomen, who've had all the ops, wear the clothes, slather on the make-up, tilt the head, killed their male name, possibly even have a GRC but who acknowledge they are men, who admit it is impossible to change the sex you were born with, that was determined at conception, they wouldn't be able to join. Even if they're lonely.

You cannot live as a woman whilst asserting that you are a man.

Your mistake here is trying to apply logic to the illogical.

You cannot live as a woman whilst asserting that you are a man. But:

• if transwomen are women
• and only men can be transwomen
• then transwomen are indeed living as women whilst asserting they are men
• and also living as men whilst asserting they are women.

Sulverbirchleaf - Not denounce as in declaring men to be evil, but I am suggesting that they must effectively renounce their sex if they want to join - i.e. they effectively have to abandon their maleness to live the life of a woman and claim that they have female gender identity.

If they say that they are male and identify as male then they cannot join on my understanding of WI's position.

I don't think WI would accept whatever the male equivalent of a tomboy - i.e. somebody who knows that they are male but likes things typically stereotyped as being for women. You cannot live as a woman whilst asserting that you are a man.

@DarlingHoldMyHand But I don’t think men even have to denounce their sex. They can still call themselves a man, but just have to say they live as a woman. It’s a bit like saying your daughter is a Tomboy. You’re know they’re female, but they would rather be playing football, climbing trees etc, then wearing pink and playing with dolls.

If only that response had been used more widely in society from the start.

I'd agree with you if their defence was a good one that required clever and detailed legal rebuttal. But I think it's a less important consideration when they've submitted an illogical blancmange of an argument that can be demolished by nothing more complex than 'You're having a laugh'.

(i) Trans women grow up feeling that they are truly female, but are generally excluded by girls and women, or from activities for girls and women.

...

(b) Arising from the above, trans women have needs connected to their protected characteristics. These needs include:

(i) accessing environments where they can feel included among other people living with the same gender as them; and

This is a disgusting argument. I feel sick.

They are blatantly arguing for women to be used as a resource to meet the 'needs' of tw. We already knew that's what it's all, always been about but I don't think I've ever heard them say the quiet part this loudly before.

They do this by first assuming that all their members 'live with' a 'gender' - i.e. that they do not have the protected characteristic of gender critical belief. Then on the basis of that assumption they argue that it is proportionate for WI to get their members to make tw 'feel included'.

But they know most women have at least to some extent GC beliefs because they say tw 'are generally excluded by girls and women'

Their constitution says:

All women who are interested in the values and purposes of the Women’s Institute organisation may join, no matter what their views on religion or politics may be.

So they can't exclude women with GC beliefs and this 'Membership Criterion' would appear to go against their constitution:

“WI members choose to associate with each other on the basis that they welcome and include anyone who lives as a woman, whatever their recorded sex at birth (“the Membership Criterion”).”

Is this actually written down anywhere that members have to sign or is it something they made up for their defence?

Even if women with GC beliefs were a minority, the constitution says:

This does not prevent WIs from concerning themselves with matters of political and religious significance, provided the views and rights of minorities are respected.

I can't see how they could argue they've done that.

Forstater seems to have completely passed them by.

I suppose they have realised that the SSE doesn't work in the way they wanted it to post-FWS and so are looking for other reasons to avoid changing their policy. I can sort of see what they are going for. You could have a club which has some entry criterion which is completely unrelated to any of the PCs in the EA2010 - eg if the Britney Spears fan club will only accept Britney Spears fans - without that being discriminatory.

You could even I suppose have a criterion unrelated to the EA2010 which is going to have few members from a particular group - eg devout Muslims are not going to join a real ale club, and a club for tall people over 6'4" is going to be almost exclusively male. At best any difference in such examples would be the result of indirect discrimination and could be justified.

But I don't think that the WI approach is similar to those examples. I think their policy excludes men unless those men are willing to renounce their sex, and that IMO is direct sex discrimination which cannot be justified.

I also think if they are saying that their policy is that anyone with a womanly feeling can join and biology doesn't matter, this just isn't an accurate description of their policy. Their EDI policy on their website which still seems to be current (and would have been in force at the time of any discrimination even if they change it now) says that non-binary people can join as long as they are female at birth - i.e. biologically female. They don't seem to care that members who identify as NB won't have "special womanly feelings" and they are distinguishing based on biology.

https://www.thewi.org.uk/_data/assets/pdffile/0008/581885/NFWI-Equality,-Diversity-and-Inclusion-Policy-2021.pdf

I cannot believe the WI has the audacity (and the money - membership subs and donations?) to defend this.

I can only think that someone in high office of that charity has skin in the game or something.

Good luck to you and DH. Keep the faith.

It also allows for the admission of people who are not trans, as long as they are living as women.

When they add this seemingly tacked-on afterthought, do they mean…..women? Otherwise, who (or what) on earth do they mean? Or am I just hopelessly confused by their absolute hot mess of a defence?

From this:

"does not purport to establish single sex membership within the meaning of the EqA"

they seem to be saying that they are having a "single sex" membership, just not as defined by the EqA i.e. they're using some other definition of single sex (people of either sex who are "living as women") and they think this is fine and dandy as though this is legal.

Here they seem to be saying that their definition isn't discriminatory rather than focusing on the fact that what they are doing is discriminatory unless they are using the SS exception:

"As such, it is free to define “women who have reached the Age of Majority” within its Membership Rules as it pleases, as long as its definition is not discriminatory."
As we explain below, the definition “women who live as women, including transgender women” is not discriminatory."

They also seem to think that because they are allowing some men and some transgender people to join, they are therefore not discriminating on the grounds of sex or GA, but on the grounds that they are not "living as women", again as though this is fine and dandy and not illegal:

They also said that their membership policy does not discriminate on the grounds of sex or gender reassignment and that:
"The Membership Policy does not exclude anyone on these grounds. It allows for the admission of “biological” men as members, as long as they are living as women. It also allows for the admission of people who are not trans, as long as they are living as women."

I am wondering if this is how they've told their lawyers they want to act, rather than their lawyers telling them this is the way to go, or if they think that sending this letter from their lawyers would make OP's husband think they must be right and drop it.

The EHRC guidance should be issued fairly soon, which might be helpful in clarifying what is and isn’t lawful.

Call me paranoid, but is it wise to be discussing the defence and possible counters/flaws in it on such a public forum? Kind of feels like flashing your cards to the other players and explaining your thought process out loud before you say 'All in'

I know this thread has been a wealth of information, but all it takes is for someone from admin to come across it and mention it at work. They're quietly watching your next moves before you make them which will keep them one (ten) step ahead.

The flip side potential is that the media picks this up first, and publicly picks a side (yours), embarrassing the WI. Risky though.

I’m agog that a charity set up to suooort women now has as a principle that those women must do extra emotional labour to support the men who join. How bloody outrageous for the WI to make its members support animals for men!