Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

Up to the membership though - not necessary, as the Mother's Union proves.

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

I've read this on here a lot but I think it might not actually be the case. As posters have pointed out, there are many clubs for people with a shared experience that exclude some men (or women) but not others on the basis of that experience. Are those now illegal?

Edited to add: I've no expertise in this and happy to be proven wrong but I can't see how it's illegal to have a club for women and transwomen as long as you are clear that it's not single sex.

i think it probably can. I don’t think being part of a mixed sex organisation is why women join the WI, but the leadership are tone deaf enough that that is irrelevant. They cheerfully sold off Denman so they’ll do anything.

luckily only a very small number of men have joined the wi, so only a few women have had their experience spoiled

There needs to be another defining boundary, but a 'shared experience of being a woman but really is a man' is not about to be a clear definition to create a boundary. Because I reckon any man could take the WI to court if they are going to be rejected for membership.

Also if they are going to allow men, and their constitution will need to be changed then it may impact funding, and things they fund.

Things like bursaries they offer and especially the denman trust. Their funds are meant to be for women, and are bound by charity commission rules and the likes.

yep.

I suggest they rebrand.

The 'thinking about it' institute.

The 'mebbes aye, mebbes naw' institute.

Because veterans isn't a protected characteristic whereas sex is.

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

Saying men can't join is sex discrimination, full stop. Regardless of who they are.

The question is whether they're legally permitted to discriminate like that.

Why though? I.e. a Veteran's men's org is only for men who have been
Veterans. Why would it be different?

The "veteran's" bit is not relevant to discrimination legislation, as being a veteran or not is not a protected characteristic. Nothing bars you from discrimininating against non-veterans (or veterans).

But it's sex discrimination against women. Which is permitted if it's to provide a single-sex association. That's the single-sex exemption.

Being single-sex is in many cases deemed permissible with a low bar, and for it to be possible, then obviously you have to be able to discriminate against the other sex.

A "veteran (men or women)'s organisation" is also fine - no sex discrimination at all.

A "(veteran men's) or (women's) organisation" would not be permitted because you were requiring men to be veterans, but not women. There's no reason for such sex discrimination - you're open to both sexes, so why treat them differently?

They can't exclude any men if they are not a single sex association.

To clarify - they can't exclude men because they're male. They have to be excluding them on a sex-independent basis, for the same reasons they'd exclude women.

But if they're open to all women, then yes, they'd have to be open to all men.

You can't exclude men and include transwomen.

GR (being trans) and Sex are Protected Characteristics. They are separate PCs. The Equality Act is an anti-discrimination law which prohibits discrimination against anyone on the grounds of a PC. There are exceptions to the general rule, and one of them is that if the organisation/association/service/space needs to be single sex - which has to be justified as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim - then it can be. All members of the opposite sex can be excluded. But if anyone at all of the opposite sex is included - men who claim to be women, gay men, disabled men, older men - it is no longer a single sex organisation/association/service/space and it can't exclude any men.

You can restrict membership of your association to people who share PCs - eg lesbians (Sex+Sexual Orientation) or older men - (age+Sex). Women and MCW do not share Sex and GR protected characteristics.

"I can't see how it's illegal to have a club for women and transwomen as long as you are clear that it's not single sex."

But excluding men then makes it single sex by its intention.

And another issue is what happens if one of their male members detransitions? What do they do then?

They would have to have a clear definition of what they meant by ‘trans’.

I don’t think they could restrict it to anyone with a GRC because you’re not allowed to ask to see them, (or have I got that wrong?) so they’re left with ‘anyone who says they are trans’ ie anyone.

Membership could be for women and trans people, surely?

No. Because you're applying different membership rules to males and females. Which is sex discrimination, which is not generally permitted.

You would have to justify the exclusion of men who don't say they're trans when you let in women who don't say they're trans.

I think this all remains to be tested.

I don't think the intention of the Supreme Court was to prevent charities and organisations from organising around women+transwomen if that's what members/service providers want.

I think there's a difference between that and providing a single-sex service where service providers actively WANT to be able to legally exclude transwomen.

But I think it will need further legal clarification.

ooh, yes, I agree. 😊

I mean, I agree it will need to be tested. It will be a very short case.

But transwomen aren't a protected characteristic. People with GRCs are.

Can you accept women and transwomen and refuse to accept men though? That sounds discrimination

it is no longer a single sex organisation/association/service/space and it can't exclude any men.

I can see phrasing it like this is confusing people. It's not that they can't exclude any men.

It's that they can't exclude people because they're men.

They have to have the same admission criteria for men and women.

(Which does equal not excluding any men if they don't exclude any women.)

I suspect it could be considered 'proportionate' discrimination (which I think will still be allowed).

No, gender reassignment is a PC. Not just those with a certificate.

Genuine question, no judgement but there are 180,000 members of the WI. Does anyone know how many are trans women? How many trans people would be affected if it became biological women only?

I think a pp mentioned that the WI (branches and the federation) is a charity. IANAL, but I think that charities can only restrict their good works to people who share one PC. (The charities exception.) I don't know if this affects who can become a member, though.

Also some organisations/charities have aims to help or permit membership on the basis of characteristics which are not protected - eg the male veterans. Sex and Age are PCs, but being a veteran is not. So that could be where shared experiences comes in.

I should think there will be a process about changing their constitution- to be the Institute for the Interests* of Women, open to all.

*by Interests I mean political interests rather than traditionally feminine skills and hobbies.

This was posted by my local WI group on its socials today. My comments on it being the same (imo) ‘holding’ statement issued about 2 days after the SC ruling and one that, incidentally, ignores both the law and the objective fact of biological sex was immediately deleted from the message board. The local committee is now made up of captured #bekind transmaidens who are incapable of performing the most basic critical reasoning tasks because they have no grasp of reality. They’re trying to drive me out because I advocate for women. That’s such a bizarre stance for a women’s organisation to take, it’s almost funny. I only stay because I know I’m not the only one ; just the only one who hasn’t been cowed into submission and silenced.
I’ve already written to the WI Nat Fed, politely asking how their public liability insurers and the Charities Commission view their continued law breaking - not that I expect a coherent or any reply anytime soon.