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?

@Datun The sexism is off the scale.

Completely agree, but a lot of people have been caught by a double-jawed trap: the conflation of sex and gender, followed by the erasure of sex as a societally important variable and the recasting of gender as a personal identity instead of a socially constructed nexus of stereotypes.

The WI has succumbed to the trans activists’ sleight of perspective and believes 'woman' and 'man' are gender categories, rather than sex categories. This is why it's crucial that we don't acquiesce by using terms for sex categories when talking about gender or gender identity. I'm not doing it any more, I've concluded that putting quotation marks around the sex terms to indicate that they are being misapplied is too subtle - and doesn't work in conversation anyway, so until someone comes up with something better I'm going with simulomale and simulofemale (see above).

I take your point but I think very few people would know what you intended as the meaning of simulomale or simulofemale.

Wannabemale and wannabefemale?

Naa, scratch that. Just stick to wannabe for both. Just like 'woman', the words 'female' and 'male' are taken.

@Miffylou
In a sense that is the point: assiduously query-quoting and explicitly distinguishing between sex and gender has little impact on most people. They hear familiar words and fall into the double trap, succumb to the trans ideologists’ sleight of perspective. Many people are simply oblivious to the trick being pulled (not wilfully, ideologically motivated sexists or misogynists) because the language makes that so easy.

If I have to explain what I mean every time at least I'm jolting people into noticing that sex and gender aren't synonymous. That’s a decent starting point for establishing why the double trap is so dangerous.

@JellySaurus
I don't have a gender identity, but apparently many men and women do and for as long as people use the concept we need a way to refer to it that includes both TIMs and the relevant women in the simulofemale category.

If WI membership is based on (self-declared) gender identity, it would be legitimate and expedient for the likes of the OP's husband to declare himself simulofemale, or a woof, so that he can enjoy his hobby. WI would, of course, stand for Woofs' Institute (whilst it admits men it really shouldn't be called the Women's Institute). No stigma need attach to being nominally woof in order to pursue a hobby. Plenty of people are happy to be identified as nominally having other affiliations or identies for the fringe benefits.

To anyone thinking all that sounds nuts: blame gender identity ideology, not my attempt to coin clear terminology.

I don't have a gender identity, but apparently many men and women do

If so, it's a feeling they have not something they are. Like arachnophobia, or a liking for rollercoasters. So if we're inventing words, they should be words that clarify we're talking about a feeling rather than a physical reality.

I'd suggest femaesthesia and mascaesthesia, but ladyfeels and blokeyfeels might need less explaining.

(Yes, for classical purists I did consider gynaesthesia and aneraesthesia, but that would need even more explaining. And I don't think linguistic authenticity is actually right here -whatever people 'feel', it isn't actually feeling like the opposite sex.)

I feel like drinking coffee, later I may feel like drinking tea.
Pip Bunce has similar changing feelings about something he calls gender.
Crazy eh?

Fair enough. Then isn't it self-contradictory of the WI to say that NB AFAB people can be members of the WI, when they exclude TM?

I assume there's no legal definition of NB?

In my experience as a previous member ( resigned when the first cover praising the husband of one of the committee for being a woman now) nothing much would happen. You join your local branch, they are affiliated to the overall association and abide by the constitution ( until it didn’t suit the TRAs). So as long as the newly minted ‘man’ was still the same person, it wouldn’t make much difference( though facial hair might cause some gossip at the Scrabble group). It would, I think, just be ignored unless the person started behaving in a very aggressive or boring way, in which case I think they would just find that no one sat next to them at the meetings…

But of course that was when it was a woman’s club, run by and for women ( and yes it was rural).

This actually happens in relation to autism!

Yes, NB was never intended to fall under “gender reassignment” in the EA because it wasn’t a thing in the noughties.

I don't believe that there is any commonly accepted legal definition of non-binary.

But helpfully the WI do say what they think it means in their EDI policy, and any form of NB person (whether they feel a bit female and a bit male or neither) is able to join as long as their sex is female, which doesn't seem to stack up with their defence 🤨

My understanding, after speaking to some Masons, is that it depends on the lodge. Some TiMs have been black balled for a reason other than their transition; other TiMs have been allowed to stay. Apparently, this has not been tested since the SC ruling, but I could be wrong because I’ve only spoken to a few.

The court then decides which court the case will go to, the one nearest us or the one nearest the WI in London.

It will also decide what "track" the case will be on. This goes from the small claims track for the simplest and/or lowest value claims up through the fast track, intermediate track to the multi-track. Each level deals with bigger and/or more complex claims.

DH says that this is a simple case of discrimination so it is appropriate to be heard in the small claims track. The WI may argue that it should go in one of the other tracks. If that happens then things become more complicated and take longer to get to court.

If it does stay in the small claims court then, I believe, there is a compulsory mediation session and then, if the case isn't resolved, a hearing date at court will be set after that.

In my experience as a previous member ( resigned when the first cover praising the husband of one of the committee for being a woman now) nothing much would happen. You join your local branch, they are affiliated to the overall association and abide by the constitution ( until it didn’t suit the TRAs). So as long as the newly minted ‘man’ was still the same person, it wouldn’t make much difference( though facial hair might cause some gossip at the Scrabble group). It would, I think, just be ignored unless the person started behaving in a very aggressive or boring way, in which case I think they would just find that no one sat next to them at the meetings…

Tut, tut, @Allthegoodnamesarechosen I thought that the reason for women being members of the WI was to be support humans to men with ladyfeelz...

(ii) The WI offers trans women a sense of acceptance by providing a space where they can expect to be welcomed as women alongside women who are not trans, with no need to justify their presence, and free from prejudice, discrimination and judgement.
😂

Broadly speaking, small claims is the only one where each side generally pays their own costs. It wouldn't surprise me if they fight hard to get it out of SC by muddying the waters with faux complexity. They will then have the leverage to pressure you to settle/drop it under threat of paying their costs if you lose.

Just be aware of this tactic, its all a game of chess especially when the supreme Court is clear about biological sex and the WI seems to be making up its own rules about "living as a woman" while only setting those parameters retrospectively which means they're arbitrary and discriminatory.

Any female person could surely continue to attend the WI while internally identifying as a man. Men and women are feelings, remember, and your clothes, appearance and sex are irrelevant.

The WI's claim that men can't join would obviously incentivise such people not to be open about their gender if they want to continue to enjoy membership.

The WI could currently be 90% men (female men) and they wouldn't know. Imagine the poor TW who find out they've unknowingly been enjoying the company of men all this time!

Surely a low level court can't decide on a matter of such importance? They wouldn't have the expertise. Are decisions at that level setting precedence?

Is it just me that finds this a bit chilling

The WI offers trans women a sense of acceptance by providing a space where they can expect to be welcomed as women alongside women who are not trans

My bold.

What would happen to the women; GC women or older women with cognitive decline who aren't welcoming enough, what can they 'expect'. I imagine it's nothing good. Have women been expelled from the WI for being insufficiently welcoming?

Typically you start with the lowest level of court and each appeal takes you up to the next level until
you reach the top court.

Decisions that set a president depend on what level of appeal you reach.

This is why the Supreme Court FWS judgement is so powerful. Lower courts have to apply the SC judgement. Only parliament can overturn the SC by writing new legislation.

Edit for grammar

No. County court decisions are not binding. Appeals go to the High Court.

Civil claims for more than £100k (£50k for personal injury, so I’m told) start in the high court instead. Those judgments are binding on lower courts including future county court hearings.

Woman Rejecting Womanhood.

Man Rejecting Manhood. Why use the word "woman" as part of a description of a man, especially when using man twice is more accurate?

100% agree that we should not use the word 'woman' in any descriptor of a man.