DH -v- The WI, Thread 2

[Another2Cats]

@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?

Rudely placemarking. You, DH, and tons of PPs on your previous thread are all fabulous!

Placemarking!

Politely placemarking. Wishing you and DH the best of luck!

Goodness, it's been a while since I read an update. This is fascinating!

Ooh!! How did I not see the first thread? Good for your husband!! I'm sure I read a legalese's interpretation of the SC ruling making the point that those institutes that continue to admit tims but not men are discriminatory. However their lawyers wants to dress it up, I think that letter you got kind of proves it really....

Politely placemarking. Hats off to you and DH!

Gosh and it’s nearly August. How exciting.

Placemarking because I’m fascinated and agog.

My own hopes are riding on Sall Grover.

Politely place marking too!

As such, it is free to define “women who have reached the Age of Majority” within its Membership Rules as it pleases

Are organisations allowed to define terms with legal meanings as they wish?

Isn't the WI still subject to the EA, even if it does not purport to establish single sex* membership within the meaning of the EqA*?

Hats off to you and your DH OP. I can’t wait to finally hear what ‘living as a woman’ actually means .

Ha - if their defence is we don’t agree with the law - ie biological woman definition doesn’t include men with penises despite the matter being clearly decided by the Supreme Court - you’ll have this sorted in no time.

Let us know if you need any help.

Best wishes.

Many thanks to you and your partner. People like you are making the difference.

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.

What's this now?

All humans are either one sex or another.

Moving over from Thread 1 and incredulous at that incoherent waffle quote from the WI FAQs about non-binary members being welcome to join as long as they were assigned female at birth.

FFS!

Joining in to say another well done to the OP and DH for pushing this. It will be a genuinely interesting test case.
I wonder if it will come down to what 'living as a woman' entails; there was a very interesting thought experiment on the previous thread where a poster invited us to think about (I've made up these names and some details because I can't remember them, but the principle is correct) Dr Alex Smith and Dr Sam Jones, who live together and are a couple. Both wear plaid shirts and trousers, both like knitting, cooking and football. Both have short hair and never wear make-up or heels.
One is biologically female.
Which one (if either) is living as a woman and why?

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.

Looking forward to them explaining their definition of biological sex, (are they going down the Veronica Ivy route; 'I am biological and I am a woman therefore I am a biological woman'?) and in what way it is not binary.

Will also be waiting for the definition of living as a woman, because I bet I haven't been doing it right for the last 39 years!

Huge thanks to you and your husband for taking this on. 👊

I also managed to miss the first thread, shall seek it out now. But I am gobsmacked at this! So, will they be made to define what ‘living as a woman’ is? Because whatever they say, it will be easily shown to be incorrect with easily proven examples, surely? And will they also have to prove that ‘sex is not binary’? This all sounds insane. Again, genuinely gobsmacked at their stupidity.

Thank you.

So it all hangs on how the WI defines "woman", not what a woman actually is.

Thousands of their members will have paid their membership fee based on the fact that they wanted to join a single-sex women's organisation. The WI is not providing this.

They really are a disgrace to their founders.

Thank you for the new thread.

I'm sure you're aware of this, but when you file your Directions Questionnaire (you'll be to ordered to do this after the Defence is filed), you can file a Reply to Defence with it. So if you want to tear apart their arguments, you get an early opportunity to do so at that point!

How interesting- good luck to your dh and watching with interest!

Thanks and appreciation to your DH - I'd been thinking that we were going to need some men to step up in order to get the cases that will make organisations actually apply the law.

I'd seen the previous thread but hadn't realised how far this had gone. Absolutely baffling that the WI wants to die on this hill. I'm cringing with embarrassment just reading that nonsense about "biological sex". It would be great to hear that really dug into on a witness stand.

Do you (really!) believe that some people with DSDs are neither male nor female?
And if you do, can you explain how it follows that developmentally normal people's sex is not a stable biological fact?

Do you (really!) believe that sex is a spectrum?
If so, is it possible to be more or less male or female? What are the criteria? Is a woman who's had a hysterectomy less female afterwards? Are post menopausal women less female? What would make a female person more female? Does being bald make a person more or less male? How much about their body needs to change before a person stops being one sex and becomes the other? Is there any limit on how far along the spectrum you can move? Could you go from super-male to super-female? How?

A male person and a female person walk together into the gynaecologist's office. Can the doctor be pretty confident they know who is the patient, or is it impossible to tell from the outside which of these individuals has the uterus whose test results are on the desk? If they ask the couple, how do they know which one of them has a uterus, given that neither of them has ever seen it?

It would be fascinating.

Good example.

It got me thinking of two women I know. Both good looking, work in the same profession, like sports, dedicated mothers, very practical and organised. Both battled body insecurities in adolescence. They have so much in common.

And yet through a genderist lens you'd only see the superficial differences and probably decree one of them trans. This is because they express different reactions to the gender stereotypes foisted upon us by our society. One friend eschews all fakery - no dye, makeup etc. The other has quite extreme plastic surgery and I've never seen her face bare.

It is so obvious that their choices are in reaction to the same societal pressures. Gender ideology would segregate them.

That footnote is just a joy isn’t it?Cant wait to see them argue that one in court. Either their Head of Legal or Head of membership or the TIM on the membership board or their 3 heads (filled with straw) combined , have really overstretched themselves thinking they know better than the Supreme Court!

@Another2Cats Have they given any criteria of how your DH would have to 'live as a woman' in order to qualify to attend meetings? (Apologies, I haven't read the full previous thread.)

Would he have to live as a woman all the time, or just for meetings? What does it involve? Just saying 'I am a woman'? Or is there a checklist of 'lady things'?