Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

DH -v- The WI, Thread 2

703 replies

Another2Cats · 22/07/2025 07:33

@RareGoalsVerge rightly pointed out (thank you) on my previous thread that it was getting near the limit and that I should start a second thread, so this is it.

This is a link to the first thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5333650-an-update-to-the-wi-announcement-thread-my-dh-just-got-a-reply-to-his-application-to-join-them

So, a recap.

DH has long had an interest in a couple of activities that were only offered locally by the WI. Obviously, it never crossed his mind to try and join as the WI is a woman only organisation - or so he thought.

But then, following the FWS case, the WI made an announcement that they would continue accepting trans identifying men (TIM) as members.

I suggested to DH that he could now join the WI and jokingly said (although it wasn't really funny, I'm not good at jokes) that he wouldn't have to bother with a wig and lippy any more.

So DH applied to join the local federation and was rejected.

Various things then happened and DH is now bringing a sex discrimination claim against the WI.

The WI instructed a big Tier 1 London law firm, one of the partners of which then called DH and explained that they would be relying on section 158, Equality Act and invited him to withdraw his claim.

After that they sent a letter to DH stating that in addition to the section 158 defence it was also the case that the WI "does not purport to establish single sex membership within the meaning of the EqA"

They went on to say:

"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 said that their membership policy does not discriminate on the grounds of sex or render 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."
.

So that is where we are as of today. The next step in the process will be in early August so there probably won't be any substantive update to the thread until then.

But, as I said earlier, even though I don't always reply to every post I do read every single comment (often more than once) and having people take an interest really does make a difference. Thank you.
.

PS In their letter, they put quotation marks around the word biological - "biological" (see above). Both DH and I were rather confused by this and thought that they were perhaps quoting him in the Particulars of Claim, but DH hadn't used that term.

On looking at the letter in more detail, the answer was found in one of the footnotes. They said:

2 Where references are made to “biological” sex in in this letter, quotation marks are used to make it clear that we refer to the term as used by the Supreme Court in FWS, to mean sex as recorded at birth. This is not a term that NFWI would otherwise use itself, because sex (including the sex of trans and intersex people) is not binary in this way.

[emphasis added]

Well, it's going to be interesting to hear that point argued in court. DH did make a point in the Particulars of Claim to keep referring to "men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment", perhaps this annoyed them a bit?

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

This is not a thread about a thread, but recently there was a thread about the Womens Institute announcement that they would not be implementing the S...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5333650-an-update-to-the-wi-announcement-thread-my-dh-just-got-a-reply-to-his-application-to-join-them

OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
Marmaladelover · 09/08/2025 16:59

EyesOpening · 09/08/2025 16:34

Just bringing these points forward, lest they get forgotten.

Show quote history

Transwomen and women don’t share the same protected characteristic.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/08/2025 16:46

StopRainingNow · 09/08/2025 16:01

I think your points are all good ones OP, but I think you need legal precedent to add to your defence (you may have this already, but just flagging it)

Yes, this.

soupyspoon · 09/08/2025 16:44

I havent seen this thread before, very interested in this.

EyesOpening · 09/08/2025 16:34

SabrinaThwaite · 04/08/2025 09:50

I think it’s slightly different under the charity exceptions, S193:

608.This section allows charities to provide benefits only to people who share the same protected characteristic (for example sex, sexual orientation or disability), if this is in line with their charitable instrument and if it is objectively justified or to prevent or compensate for disadvantage. It remains unlawful for them to limit their beneficiaries by reference to their colour – and if they do their charitable instrument will be applied as if that limitation did not exist.

And the example given:

A charitable instrument enabling the provision of benefits to black members of a community actually enables the benefits to be provided to all members of that community.

Show quote history

Just bringing these points forward, lest they get forgotten.

Silverbirchleaf · 09/08/2025 16:15

Silverbirchleaf · 09/08/2025 15:47

Just a thought, the Supreme court has defined ‘women’ as an ‘biological women’ , so how can a man live as a biological woman, when they’re not. Sorry if that’s simplistic. They’ve taken (the modern use of) gender out of the equation, whilst the WI are still using it.

Am I reading that right?

Should read, ‘The Supreme court has taken gender out of the equation, whilst the WI haven’t. ‘

StopRainingNow · 09/08/2025 16:01

I think your points are all good ones OP, but I think you need legal precedent to add to your defence (you may have this already, but just flagging it)

Silverbirchleaf · 09/08/2025 15:47

Just a thought, the Supreme court has defined ‘women’ as an ‘biological women’ , so how can a man live as a biological woman, when they’re not. Sorry if that’s simplistic. They’ve taken (the modern use of) gender out of the equation, whilst the WI are still using it.

Am I reading that right?

Silverbirchleaf · 09/08/2025 15:30

And yet they say in their ‘FAQ’ that men can’t join! You can’t have it both ways, luv!

SabrinaThwaite · 09/08/2025 15:25

Anyone may choose to live as a woman, but women (as defined under the EqA) who choose to live as men are excluded by the Defendant’s membership rules.

That sounds awfully like discrimination against trans men.

TM are women (female) as defined by the EqA and therefore are suffering direct discrimination under the PC of gender reassignment as other women that share the PC of sex but don't share the PC of gender reassignment can join?

TM are also being discriminated against for the PC of sex, compared to TW that are male so don't share the PC of sex but share the PC of gender reassignment and who are allowed to join the WI?

Additionally, the EDI policy states: 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.

Do NB people meet the requirement of "living as women"? The EDI policy implies that people assigned female at birth (such as female NBs and TM) fall within the women only exemption, and that there is a women only exemption based on the PC of sex (female) at birth.

ETA: I think I've probably made that over complicated, but the gist of it is that the EDI policy relies on the WI's declared women only exemption being dependent on being female at birth.

MagpiePi · 09/08/2025 15:10

I’d like to see evidence for the points raised in the reasons for the lawful positive action.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/08/2025 14:56

Oh what a tangled web etc etc.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/08/2025 14:56

FeedbackProvider · 09/08/2025 12:51

You’ve identified many problems with their defence against your husband’s discrimination case. But doesn’t their defence also discriminate on the grounds of belief against any GC woman who isn’t “living as a woman”, but just is a woman or who cannot otherwise accept the conditions. You said that GC women can join the WI, but can they? It’s not exactly clear, but I think they’ve said that all members must be “living as women”. They’ve recognised explicitly that this excludes women who wish to be treated as men (and are presumably relying on the fact that those people won’t sue them), but they haven’t acknowledged the effect on GC women. Would not GC women have particular trouble accepting these T&Cs? Membership now appears to be predicated on the condition that GC women accept that non-women can live as women which is contrary to GC belief.

Really good point.

TheSandgroper · 09/08/2025 13:24

Sorry, quote getting past the censors.

TheSandgroper · 09/08/2025 13:24

This should have attached to my above post.

TheSandgroper · 09/08/2025 13:23

Someone wrote something without looking at that which was already written.

“Anyone may choose to live as a woman, but women (as defined under the EqA) who choose to live as men are excluded by the Defendant’s membership rules.”

vs

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 09/08/2025 13:17

I don't know if it is or isn't a good rebuttal to their defence but it all sounds well thought out OP, I agree with a poster who said the WI have now reduced the organisation into support animals for men. It doesn't sound like they're working to empower women, country or no, at all with this policy.

EyesOpening · 09/08/2025 13:16

Do you think new recruits have to say I solemnly declare that I'm living as a woman?
What about the women who joined before they changed it? Did they have to renew and agree?
So many questions!

lcakethereforeIam · 09/08/2025 13:14

If the can't define what 'living as a woman' means except to handwave and say it's subjective, will that wash in court?

FeedbackProvider · 09/08/2025 12:51

You’ve identified many problems with their defence against your husband’s discrimination case. But doesn’t their defence also discriminate on the grounds of belief against any GC woman who isn’t “living as a woman”, but just is a woman or who cannot otherwise accept the conditions. You said that GC women can join the WI, but can they? It’s not exactly clear, but I think they’ve said that all members must be “living as women”. They’ve recognised explicitly that this excludes women who wish to be treated as men (and are presumably relying on the fact that those people won’t sue them), but they haven’t acknowledged the effect on GC women. Would not GC women have particular trouble accepting these T&Cs? Membership now appears to be predicated on the condition that GC women accept that non-women can live as women which is contrary to GC belief.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/08/2025 12:50

I would try to find evidence putting the argument that women benefit from female only spaces. They’ve already acknowledged that “trans women” aren’t female and are treated differently in the PC of sex.

Original poster
Another2Cats · 09/08/2025 12:45

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/08/2025 12:34

If other tribunals/hearings are a guide, they will just cite a Stonewall or Trevor Project or similar report claiming this without it being examined too deeply.

They did in previous correspondence.

A 2024 report from the Trevor Project here:

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-international/assets/static/2024_UK_National_Survey_EN.pdf

But they did also refer to a 2024 study reported in The Lancet that self-reported mental health was worse here:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(23)00301-8/fulltext

A claim by a company that develops student housing that TiM are more likely to miss out on education due to mental health issues here:

https://www.unitegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Unite-Applicant-Index-Report-2024.pdf

And a government report from 2018 that TiM are more likely to be out of work

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b3cb6b6ed915d39fd5f14df/GEO-LGBT-Survey-Report.pdf

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-international/assets/static/2024_UK_National_Survey_EN.pdf

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/08/2025 12:34

If other tribunals/hearings are a guide, they will just cite a Stonewall or Trevor Project or similar report claiming this without it being examined too deeply.

DysmalRadius · 09/08/2025 12:31

(c) Trans women have disproportionately low participation in certain activities. These activities include:
(i) educational opportunities;
(ii) professions and jobs; and
(iii) roles in public life.

Have they provided evidence to support these claims? Surely the WI would have to have evidence that this is the case in order to enact a policy to counteract it (although that is tangiential to your case admittedly but might speak to hue lack of cohesion in drafting the policies they are referring to).

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/08/2025 12:02

Has there been research into how much women value female social groups?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/08/2025 12:01

IDareSay · 09/08/2025 11:40

This is just 'women as support humans' again isn't it? Just like in prisons.

Yes.