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 tend to favour 'man/woman who claims a trans identity'. It, to me, makes clear their actual sex and that it's only their 'claim'. However, it's a bit much to type or read so I don't always use it for brevity. I don't want to get in the way of whatever point I'm trying to make. Also concerned that MN might delete.

You can choose to start a £50k+ PI claim in the High Court, but you don't have to. I've just had the High Court bounce one I'm defending to the County Court, and that's pleaded up to £100k (optimistically!).

It has to be complex to stay in the High Court. They don't want bog standard claims, even if they're pleaded to a high value.

I’m sceptical about all those disadvantages, and surprised at how subjective this all is; there’s a lot of notions being presented as facts.

What I find most unpalatable is that they’ve set out all of these disadvantages and remedies that (they believe) will benefit TW, and decided that they justify positive action, simply because they benefit TW. There seems to be no acknowledgment that their policy might adversely affect their female members. Or if it does, tough luck because the TWs’ needs (wants) are greater. As a PP put it, it’s women as support humans again. All of those “remedies” are about providing TW with validation. And women have to accept that or not join.

I would never consider joining the WI now, and they wouldn’t want me, so I’ve lost an opportunity to socialise with other women because I don’t want either to be in the company of smirking men revelling in the validation and adulation, or in the company of the kind of women who are sycophantic to those men. My wish for female company doesn’t matter; I don’t deserve it, they do.

Apologies OP, this was meant to quote your post setting out their defence, but something went wrong.

Or stack up in reality. How does this logic work?

Ok so you’re non binary? Yes.
And you’re a woman? Yes.
Not a man? Yes.
Isn't that binary then?

"...under threat of paying their costs if you lose."

DH had a phone call from a partner of the law firm that the WI are using back in June. That was literally the first thing that came out of his mouth before he even said anything about the case.

As others have already said, cases get appealed (and further appealed) to the next highest level each time.

I believe it is likely that DH's case will initially be heard by a District Judge in the County Court.

But cases like that do end up from time to time in the Supreme Court. There was an example just two weeks ago.

The Supreme Court decided on a number of linked cases and said that car dealerships do not owe a duty of care to their customers (or have to disclose how much commission they're getting) when arranging a loan for them.

These cases all started off in front of a District Judge, were then appealed to a Circuit Judge, following that to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court.

But it all started off in front of a District Judge in the local County Court.

"Apologies OP, this was meant to quote your post setting out their defence, but something went wrong."

Don't worry about, it was a very long post indeed.

"There seems to be no acknowledgment that their policy might adversely affect their female members. Or if it does, tough luck because the TWs’ needs (wants) are greater."

This is very true. In fact, when it came to mentioning the harms they don't speak about women at all. In earlier correspondence they said to DH:

"These benefits [for TiM] must be weighed against any disadvantage caused to those who live as men, by their exclusion"

Not one single mention of disadvantage to women at all.

I know we see it all the time, from MRAs, TRAs, politicians, but seeing it come out of the mouth of lawyers is really quite sinister.

They know we have equality law, ffs. They're not just a normal bloke who automatically thinks women are second class.

It amazes me that they go so far as to present their misrepresentation of the law to the Court. Barristers / solicitors have a duty to not mislead the Court, and 'unique' blatantly wrong representation of the law feels like it edges close to this.

I also don't understand how people who should - objectively - be intelligent, as they're qualified legal professionals, get caught up in the gender ideology bollocks to start with.

I've said on other threads before that this bloody nonsense has narrowed down my employment options drastically, as I now have to avoid firms who've been linked to Stonewall. Well, I feel I have to. Maybe not everyone would make the same choice!

I really don't see how the WI could win based on the information they have so far provided. Very little is factual.

They may well do what NHS Fife have done and let it go to court, at huge expense, rather than back down.

But then, they will end up looking like fools, trying to claim that men's needs should take priority in the Women's Institute. They are in a really difficult position.

Crowdfunding!

Note: using TrA terminology for clarity.

I am sure you have already thought of it OP, but there are specific LGBTQ groups transwomen and trans men can attend. So it's hard to see why there is a need for them to attend WI.

It is starting to sound discriminatory against so called "cis men" once you allow a "trans man" who according to TrA could be indistinguishable from a cis man anyway.

It's women, transwomen, transmen but not men. Why not the fourth category?!

And yes it sounds like they haven't bothered thinking of women, but also not good for either trans group who may not actually be welcome at any local group.

Anyone GC is not going to view them as a woman. Policy has been forced on them from above.

Unlike say "mens in sheds" which as you say is a case by case local decision whether to allow women with similar interests along.

Sorry to add to a bit hot weather rambling but if prefer a women's group that openly allowed men with similar interests, than let men in if they "lived as women" and might have a couple like my yoga clases. I would know where I stood.

Well exactly. Same with all single sex spaces. If I'm going to be forced to share with some men, the ones who explicitly campaign to erode my boundaries ain't gonna be the ones I choose.

"...let it go to court, at huge expense, rather than back down."

I rather think that this is what they are relying on.

Can a lower court refuse to hear it and send it on?

• In earlier correspondence they said to DH:

"These benefits [for TiM] must be weighed against any disadvantage caused to those who live as men, by their exclusion"

Not one single mention of disadvantage to women at all.*

Surely that's what (they think) is relevant to MrA2Cats' case? Isn't it about how they are disadvantaging him by barring him while accepting trans-IDing men?

We can't look for rationality or compassion towards women in this case, because, if there was any, they wouldn't be turning the WI into a validation service for some men.

Concerning the idea that the a charity's policy can legitimise actions by the charity that do not support its its charitable objects, the Charity Commission guidance Charity purpose and rules (one of their '5 minute guide' - ie it is considered completely basic) warns against charities 'drifting into' activities they were not set up to do. A charity's "funds can only be spent on supporting the delivery of these purposes... checking that your charity is furthering its purposes is something you will do all the time as a trustee." Then under the heading Drifting into activities that your charity is not set up to do, they say that "using charity funds or resources on other purposes is very serious. Trustees may have to repay the charity from their own money".

Did the membership of the WI ever have a vote on whether to admit trans women?

Trustees may have to repay the charity from their own money".

Well, that's got to make people sit up and listen. It's not just spending the charity's money to make a point, or further TRA aims. There's considerable, personal financial risk involved.

Does anyone know whether the OP can ask the WI's lawyers to make sure the trustees are aware of this fact?

I find the stance they are taking on ‘Transwomen have a need to socialise with other women and we can provide that’ utterly bizarre. Because whist positive action maybe something that an organisation itself can do, I think that is different to asking the members to be support people, which is different altogether.

For example, a college could put on a separate extra class for a particular group of people who shared a protected characteristic. That is something the college could do out of its own resources. But it shouldnt use its members as ‘resources’ without their agreement.

Fair enough to say, if true, ‘TW really need knitting classes and we are the only group in many areas that offers knitting classes and so we think that justifies the action of letting them in’

Not on to say ‘TW really need to go to knitting classes with women and we can provide that’.

And I think there is a part in the FWS judgement that is relevant here. From memory it is in the ‘gender affected sport’ bit. The gist is that as there is no cap on TW, you cannot assume in law that they will be a small number. So any argument you run must hold good if all the ‘women’ in the situation are TW. The WI can’t assume it is an endless supply of women for TW to associate with. It has to show that logically its arguments hold good if all the women in question are TW.

There are certain cases that must be started in the High Court, for example judicial reviews or anything to with copyright claims, or probate/wills or defamation etc.

Apart from that, cases all (or mostly) start off in the Crown Court.

"Drifting into activities that your charity is not set up to do"

That is an issue that DH looked in to. The WI made a very big change in their constitution in 2013.

This change extended membership to all women (not just those interested in rural arts and crafts) but also, crucially, added another object:

“(c) to advance health for the public benefit”

The WI are now claiming that the mental health of TiM is so bad that it is a proportionate positive action, and included within their objects, to provide mental health support to TiM by getting women in the WI to validate and accept their identity as “women”.

It almost seems as though this was something that was very much planned from the start, to slip in under the radar, when the constitution was changed in 2013. If so, then this really does speak to possibly some long term planning.

Needless to say, DH has more than one ground to refute the whole premise. It may well now be within their objects to provide mental health support, but giving TiM membership of the WI cannot be a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

The national organisation of the WI is set up as a charitable company limited by guarantee. So the Trustees are also effectively the company directors.

"... to make sure the trustees are aware of this fact?"

It appears that this approach is being driven by the trustees.

County court… crown court is for criminal cases, no?