Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

Perhaps they should change their name to "The Wo(men)'s Institute" if they want to be remain inclusive?

The SC was very clear the Woman means biological female.

So no change then. And I daresay they will be seeking whatever means possible to continue to centre men.

If they want to maintain a mixed sex membership would they need to adjust their name?

It doesn't say anything. Just a bit of virtue signalling.

Definitely need a rename

The Inclusive of Men Women's Institute
The People's Institute
The Institute
The Women's and Petra's Institute

Surely the WI can have any members it wants?

I think there's a big difference between a social club and providing a single sex service.

“We are taking time to decide whether or not to comply with the law”?

OR

”We are taking time to decide whether the rename ourselves as the People’s Institute”?

I agree. But they need to be clear about it, and calling themselves a women’s organisation when they are an anyone organisation is misleading.

It will depend on their constitution and whether they use single sex exemptions to exclude other men.

The Mother's Union is open to people without children - even men if they want.

I don't see why it matters. It's up to the WI who they want as members.

This is one for the EHRC - if any WI members can get clarification that only a subset of men are allowed to join, they can whistleblow. Let's test Baroness Falkner's promise to enforce the EA provisions.

Can men join the WI?
No. The Women's Institute is based on the idea of bringing women together, providing them with educational opportunities and the chance to make a difference in their communities. Therefore, the WI is set up as an educational charity with a constitution which states that membership is only open to women.

While WI membership is only open to women, men are welcome to attend courses provided by Denman, our educational centre for learning, and take part in many activities, events and campaigns both locally and nationally.

So either they apply the same restriction to TW as other men or they open membership to everyone. Simple.

They currently don't allow men to be members. But they do allow men who claim to be women to be members. That is discrimination under the Supreme Court ruling

What's stopping orgs like this from having membership of "women or anyone who identifies as a woman"?

The law.
If they allow a subset of men they must allow all men.

Surely it's only discrimination if they claim to be providing a single sex service?

What if they are not? i.e. just a membership service with a subset of men.

I don't see why that would be a problem: there are many membership organisations that restrict membership to people with certain experiences.

Why though? I.e. a Veteran's men's org is only for men who have been veterans.

Why would it be different?

So either they apply the same restriction to TW as other men or they open membership to everyone. Simple.

Which apparently would breach their charity constitution.

What's stopping orgs like this from having membership of "women or anyone who identifies as a woman"?

Aside from their constitution, sex discrimination legislation if phrased like that - you're putting an extra restriction on men. It would have to be "anyone of either sex who identifies as a woman".

And you'd have to take care to make sure you were asking the "identifies as a woman" question equally to both sexes.

They can't exclude any men if they are not a single sex association. If they are admitting men who claim to be women they are not a single sex association.
They can restrict membership of their association to people who share up to two PCs - women and men with the PC of GR do not share two characteristics. Therefore the WI can't restrict their membership and everyone must be welcomed.

Also they may be flouting their own constitution if it says they are an association for women only. They can change it but they shouldn't do so without consulting members.

But basically, the WI is a venerable organisation and lots of members and women generally feel strongly about it being just for women - not much else is. Hence the anger at the high-handed behaviour of the leadership.

The WI is a charity. I would assume it would take a change to the constitution to include men who identify as women to be members, otherwise it would be operating in a way that it is inconsistent with its own rules. I don’t know what the implications of that would be from a legal perspective if it was challenged

nothing

certainly not the preferences of their members who would be quite surprised to be joined at meetings by a man, even one wearing eye shadow

That would be discrimination against any man who doesn't identify as a woman. Not allowed.

I actually think this would be a great further test case if it was needed.

A test case for discrimination against male people if just one group of male people were accepted as members and others were not. As far as I know, the law is clear now.

You cannot exclude some male people. Either all male people are excluded or they are not.

Hmmm I don't see how it can play out this way, if trans remains a category under the EA.

Membership could be for women and trans people, surely?

Then maybe they need to change their name if they are accepting all people with transgender identities plus adult female humans.