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?

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

Yes, this.

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

I'm quite prepared to believe that TiM do indeed have worse mental health / education / work experience than the average person. However is it not the case that trans people are also more likely to be neurodiverse / autistic / have pre-existing mental health problems? (I'm sure there are statistics showing that, and presumably that is the reason why children referred to gender clinics are now required to undergo a full ND/MH assessment first.)

IANAL but is there a case to be made that the WI is not admitting all groups who have worse MH / education / work experience so why are they admitting transwomen on this basis?

Exactly. Men with learning disabilities are the most disadvantaged group, but the WI isnt planning on helping them.

So essentially TiM are sad so we must give them everything they want 🤦‍♀️

Well done Cats, I think your analysis is spot on. I’d add the charity constitution/permitted activities because I’m pretty sure this isn’t one. I don’t know if there’s anything in it about consulting members about major changes.

Good luck and we are rooting for you and for Mr Cats.

I’ve been thinking more about this defence of not utilising the single sex exception and instead relying on positive action.

In 2010, the EA2010 used the WI as an example of using the single sex exception under section 193. This was reproduced in the accompanying EHRC statutory guidance.

If the WI wasn’t relying on the single sex exception in 2010 would it have objected to being used as an exemplar?

And given that changing the WI from being single sex to mixed sex is a significant change to its constitution, where is the evidence of a decision to admit TIM on the basis of positive action? If I was a trustee I would want to see the WI management team presenting a full plan for how this would work given the WI constitution, how it would consult on the change with members and potential risks to the organisation (and ultimately to the trustees).

None of this makes sense.

I haven't read all of your defense yet but I just find this concept of "living as a woman" thing SO blatantly flawed that I'm continually gobsmacked that anyone with half a brain cell or more is using it as an argument. Especially when TRAs say anyone who says they are trans just are, and GC people recognise that gender stereotypes are completely wrong and outdated.

I personally know a TiM who believes he is a woman and living as one. Thankfully, his idea of a woman still involves his old hobbies of fixing engines and being generally an incredibly practical person who often wears boiler suits. When he's not in a boiler suit he will wear ankle length skirts, but that's about it. For the WI, would he qualify as living as a woman? He doesn't bother with make up or even put on a feminine voice. Not slating him by the way, I actually really like him as a person and admire that his idea of a woman isn't one that parades around in short skirts and lipstick, but where is the threshold for someone like him being allowed to join the WI?

Anyone remember Alex Madre de Quatro? What if HE wants to join the WI?! 🤣

Link to Alex madre de cuatro (sorry for previous poor spelling!).

As far as I know Alex is not trolling but deadly serious about being a woman.

Just to add, I work for a charity and our trustees are (rightly) shit hot on anything that impacts on how the charity operates and how it impacts on the trustees’ legal responsibilities.

I haven’t read all the threads - sorry. Is the argument we recruited TW because they believed they came under the women category and it was never about positive action until now? Obviously most of the evidence they are using is fairly recent (with the exception of one in 2018) so if TW were allowed to join pre this date it wasn’t based on this evidence but from now on they are going to use it as a reason. Have I got this correct?

That isn't spelled out exactly. The case for section 158 is put "In the alternative".

That means "If we are wrong about the sex discrimination thing, only then will we argue for positive action"

They do say:

"The WI is proud to have welcomed and included trans women for decades."

Which I don't think helps their case in any way

"None of this makes sense."

I quite agree.

"...where is the evidence of a decision to admit TIM on the basis of positive action? "

There’s a lovely thing in the Civil Procedure Rules called Part 18 – Further Information (and a Practice Direction that supplements it). I know that I said that I wouldn’t be referring to DH’s Reply but I think that it’s no surprise to say that DH will be asking for that evidence.

There has. It will be referred to in due course.

That is what they are attempting to do. I think they're doing it like this to avoid the issue of "exact correspondence" as both men and trans identifying women are excluded.

"If I truly believed I was a man, would that make any difference to the reality?"

That is the argument that the WI are making. Yes it does alter reality and you would not be allowed to join.

But women who identify as non-binary are included. So how are they "living as a woman"?

They are apparently allowed in on the basis of having been ‘assigned’ female at birth

however a transman (woman identifying as a man) is excluded (despite being ‘assigned’ female at birth)

they are in a mess!

How does the application form screen for “living as a woman”? The lawyer for the WI can concoct whatever they like - but what is the WI’s actual practice?

Is it possible to discriminate between a woman and TIW via the information a prospective member provides? In other words how do they know that they have successfully excluded the transmen that they say are not permitted?

In a similar vein would they have accepted someone like Wally Funk (albeit she’s a US citizen) who is female but never could be accused of “living as a woman”?

This particularly makes me think about your notes on the evolving constitution. Is there any evidence that the WI allowed any women with a”career” to join as a member when this was seen as highly unusual “for a woman”? It’s about 100 years of women in the law and only 75 years since the engineering institutions had full women members. Have the WI ever celebrated any of this unusual womanliness? And if they have would it help undermine their definition - confirming that they’ve always relied on sex until now?

Apart from the truly Herculean feats of twisting language, moving goal posts and switching between biological sex and living as a woman, I'm actually gobsmacked that they think that laundry list of 'what men demand women provide for them' is something that should ever even be written down, let alone used in the defence of an equality case!

There can't be a woman reading this who wasn't thinking who the fucking hell do they think they are?

And it's a great pity that's not an actual legal argument OP But I can tell you one thing, it's the sort of thing that will have donations pouring in.

I would love to see that list reproduced in a newspaper. Janice Turner, Suzanne Moore, Brenda O'Neill, they'd have a bloody field day.

I know little of the WI but, as I'm aware they do not even appear to know what women are, they'd put me off finding out more.
I'm only late 40s and working FT so hope by the time I retire they've sorted this nonsense out so it becomes a more interesting option. Women and men with untreated mental health doesn't appeal.
I also wonder how many groups have sidestepped men, left the original group and gone underground (not literally just formed separate groups).

I’ve been thinking more about this defence of not utilising the single sex exception

But they are using it.

They admit women and exclude men (ignoring trans issues this is their basic rule). The only way they can legally do that is via the single sex exemption.

If the WI is single sex, it is using the exemption. If it's not using the exemption, it must admit both sexes on equal terms.

And I can't help thinking the vast majority of ordinary branch members wouldn't be happy at being thought of as a means of validation and all-round support animals for trans-identifying men.

There is no application form and no verification when you want to join, certainly no verification. You rock up at any WI branch pay your fee and you are in. It is wholly dependent on the WI branch to judge whether you are “living as a woman”. And if you want to stand as a trustee ( wi , federation or national ) there are no further checks. So you can be trustee for £millions and not be who you say you are!

I wonder if any man has rocked up at a meeting and been refused? And then if they declare, they ‘live as a woman’, been accepted, despite not changing one thing about their outfit, job, interests etc. It would be an interesting exercise.