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 wonder if the wording of the constitution reflects a time when the word ‘women’ was understood to mean only biological females and was not expected to include transsexuals.

Stephen Whittle wrote an article for The Guardian in 2010 on the history of transgender issues, and states:

'Transsexual' was not coined until 1949, 'transgender' not until 1971, and 'trans' (a very British term) not until 1996.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jun/02/brief-history-transgender-issues

(The EqA 2010 uses the term transsexual in the definition of gender reassignment).

Also worth bearing in mind that the WI had its roots in the women’s suffrage movement:

https://www.thewi.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/145290/The-WI-and-the-Womens-Suffrage-movement.pdf

The first constitution was drawn up in 1917 - this archive article includes the wording used in the 1950s and 1960s (the fourth iteration of the constitution from 1948), which refers to ‘countrywomen’:

archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/76656370-ee18-3033-a100-f45ba16e54e9

The wording of the constitution hadn’t changed that much by the time the WI became a charitable company limited by Guarantee - ‘countrywomen’ had become ‘women’.

Doubling back over the 'living as a woman' criterion: I think it's a red herring. I think they really just mean anyone who says they're a woman. If I'd applied to join something and they'd asked me if I live as a woman, I'd have replied that I simply am a woman. So would a transwoman.

A transman would not say she is a woman. I think they've put their foot in it with their enby inclusion, as others have remarked, though I guess nonbinaries of either sex could say they are women twice a week and on bank holidays; that might be sufficient for the WI.

When it comes down to it, the salient point is still that WI wants to apply different criteria to male and female membership: all women will be considered, but only men with the characteristic of 'reassignment' - and it's important to remember that 'reassignment' is the protected characteristic, not 'gender identity' or lifestyle.

I understand why it's important to argue all their irrational claims and more, but I get terminally exasperated just reading them over! Admiration and gratitude to everyone with the patience & determination to deal with it. That includes you and Mr Cats, of course, OP.

"When it comes down to it, the salient point is still that WI wants to apply different criteria to male and female membership: all women will be considered, but only men with the characteristic of 'reassignment' "

Not to nit-pick but I don't agree with this.
Not all female people will be considered, those who don't "live as women" won't be (discounting those who consider themselves non binary, for some reason).
This is why (IMO) they don't consider themselves to be discriminating on the basis of sex.
They also (IMO) don't consider themselves to be discriminating on the basis of gender identity/ reassignment as they allow male people who fall in this category, to join.
They think (IMO) that because they're not using the definitions of woman and man as defined by the EqA, they are free to use their own definitions and exclude other groups of people without realising (caring?) that they are being discriminatory as there is no legal basis on which to do this.

Not to nit-pick but I don't agree with this.
Not all female people will be considered, those who don't "live as women" won't be (discounting those who consider themselves non binary, for some reason).
This is why (IMO) they don't consider themselves to be discriminating on the basis of sex.

“Living as a woman” would be the poster child for a criterion that indirectly discriminates against men on the grounds of sex (because under any definition at all men are vastly less likely to meet the criterion than women), and there’s no way that banning the vast majority of men from an organization could reasonable be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

@EyesOpening - yes, I should have said all women without the characteristic of 'reassignment'.

They're trying to use identifying/living as a woman their unifying quality but, in doing so, they discriminate against 'cis' men and transmen.

I agree they seem to think they are able to redefine the sexes. They're behind the times - organisations got away with that for years, but have now been unequivocally told sex is biological.

I love how the Women's Institute describe biological women as 'people who are not trans, but living as women.'

To me this is an eyeview seen only from right down a rabbit hole.

I had no idea I was a 'not trans person, living as a woman', I just thought I was a woman.

Should rename it 'Person's Living As A Woman Institute'. Or PLAAWI. Stick that on your jam jars.

Yes, I wonder if they take that approach to the definition of other protected characteristics. “Well we don’t agree with the definition given of a race, so we’re free to make our own category up”.

Unless they can show that they are asking all female members to confirm that they are 'living as a woman', (and excluding those who don't), they are treating men and woman differently.

Dear Universe....Please make the Baroness write the WI a letter...... Would be spectacular 😄

I bet she would if she knew this was happening.

I'd love to read it. In fact I want a collection of the Baroness's letters on this subject.

I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if this has been answered.

My question is. If a biological woman who is already a member later goes on to transition, would she have to give up her membership?

If so, where is this written. If not, why is she allowed continued membership as a transman?

The masons allow men who transition after joining to stay, but doesn't allow anyone already transitioned to a TW to join. Don't know if the WI rule is similar.

That's surely not legal? Seems like open discrimination against men who are trans.

It's the Masons. They have no fucks to give. They will do just as they like.

Exactly how I feel.
We know that transactivists of all types trash any organisation for women - that's their modus operandi - to colonise and wreck anything single sex for women and girls.
But the privileged women running the WI openly using a long standing women's institution to wedge their mates / husbands / sons into this organisation are unbelievable. And as has been said before, there are countless groups of women with massive needs who they could have selected to support. Instead they use WI members as support animals to train their favoured men in superficial "aspects of womanhood".

Contempt for women runs very deep in the upper echelons of the WI.

I think they've put their foot in it with their enby inclusion, as others have remarked, though I guess nonbinaries of either sex could say they are women twice a week and on bank holidays; that might be sufficient for the WI.

Surely that's genderfluid, not non-binary? NB would see themselves as neither male nor female, so I'd have thought that no NB could be in the WI.

Of course, Mr OP could always declare himself genderfluid, living authentically as a woman only when his local WI group meets.

If the case does turn on the definition of 'living as a woman' that will be interesting. I would argue that I don't live as a woman (woman is something I am, rather than something I do; noun rather than verb) and that any definition which includes me would necessarily exclude men, including TIM.

In other words, membership based on 'living as a woman' would exclude gender-critical women, because there is no action I perform, no activity I do that is diagnostic of my 'womanness' that isn't dependent on my female biology. It follows that no man, whether trans-identifying or not, does any of them. I suppose one or two might parody them (e.g. carrying tampons, periodically inserting them into a pseudovagina - I don't know and don't want to know every detail of TIM performances of femaleness).

I might accept being excluded from hobby groups constituted for people who think that woman is a verb, were it not for the impossibility of policing a performative definition. I think that such groups would be reduced to membership based on self-declared gender identity. The OP's husband would then be eligible for membership, so long as he declared a simulofemale (rather than simulomale)* gender identity.

*Female and male refer to sex categories. Using them to refer to gender identity categories, which are, apparently, not related to sex, is at best confusing and at worst deliberately misleading. I suggest 'woof' and 'woom' as colloquial alternatives/FWR slang terms.

“Non binary” means anything these people want it to mean. It means identifying as both sexes and none, or some of the time as one and some the other. Or having a “xenogender”.

I suspect the "living as a woman" phrase source is exclusionary rather than inclusionary. That is it is meant to exclude i.e. drag queens, but when taken away from that context sounds odd.

Apologies if someone has mentioned this or I did and forgot but "men in sheds" is primarily for men but allows women.

I hope there will be a collection of homemade jam and some assorted scones in the evidence for this case. Get practicing!

Other eclectic thoughts. The full response seems very anti GC / pushing views on members.

Not all women view transgender women as women and want anyone who claims to "live as a woman" to come along. Some want a safe space with other biological women.

Not that I'm entirely sure I "live as a woman" whatever that means...sounds a tad discriminatory to me.

"I suspect the "living as a woman" phrase source is exclusionary rather than inclusionary. That is it is meant to exclude i.e. drag queens, but when taken away from that context sounds odd."

Yes, it is meant to exclude cross-dressers, but they are also taking it to mean men.

The phrase seems to have first appeared in a 2020 "NFWI Transgender WI Membership" policy. This gave a Stonewall definition for transgender (ie included people with DSDs and also "bi-gendered" people). It seems as though the whole "living as a woman" thing was initially to facilitate TiM being able to join.

Part of the policy answered some questions:

Can male to female transgender people join a WI and attend WI events?

Yes – anyone living as a woman is welcome to join the WI and take part in all WI activities. They should be treated in exactly the same way as all women who are part of your WI.

Can crossdressers join the WI?

No – only those living as women can join the WI and take part in all WI activities.
.

With regard to Men's Sheds, I believe that it is up to the individual Shed to determine that - each is autonomous in that respect. So some sheds are exclusively for men, others have mixed sex sessions and some have separate womens groups that share the same space at different times.

From their FAQ:

"There are many Men’s Sheds in the UK with female members, but most Men’s Sheds exist for the benefits they bring to men’s health and wellbeing. Therefore, it’s down to each individual Shed whether they invite women, or have separate days for women to join in. ... We advocate gender specific sessions as part of the make up of Sheds."

How would the WI tell the difference between a cross-dressing man and a man who lives as a woman?

They both might turn up to the WI in a dress, they both might call themselves a female name, and they both might claim to be a woman.

'Being a woman' isn't the membership criteria, so they're best to not refer to that!

What I want to know is how the criteria of 'living as a woman' is tested when you show up at your local branch wanting to join? I'm almost tempted to find my local one to go and find out!

The sexism is off the scale.

Can you imagine doing this with any other protected characteristic.

Like race or disability.

That say able bodied people want to join a group for people with a disability, because disability is 'subjective'. They've always truly felt disabled and want to enjoy the facilities provided to help those with a disability, because otherwise they feel left out.

And people with disabilities in this national organisation need to accommodate them, because they tend to be excluded from these groups elsewhere and it makes them sad.

Morning @Another2Cats , you said that your husband has 14 days to reply, are you able to tell us what the steps after that are please? Thanks.