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?

Sorry, you're right, I was typing quickly and misspoke.

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”.

So.. the whole WI membership is volunteered as a mental health support animals for TiMs? And that’s official now?

Thats a drum worth beating loud and often. the Daily Mail will love that. Hint hint.

edited to add… just wow. I can’t get my head around that. Entryism on steroids! (No pun intended, obviously)

"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’"

Just as background, that is the reason (not knitting but another hobby) that prompted DH to make an application to join the WI.

The WI was the only organisation locally that he could access for this hobby (were it not for the fact that he was a man). So, once they announced after the EHCR interim update that TiM could still join and be members, DH realised that they were no longer a single sex organisation.

Also, I meant to say that this point is a myth:

(iv) Trans people suffer disproportionately from poor mental health, including depression, which cannot be disconnected from their experience of exclusion, loneliness and isolation.

Studies have failed to show that being transgender causes mental health problems rather than people with mental health problems are more likely to identify as transgender. Or not. As far as I am aware, there simply has been no study that concludes that trans people suffer disproportionately to other people with mental health problems.

And regarding 'living as a woman', they are going to have to come up with a definition of the word woman that isn't just 'X is anyone who identifies as X'.

Apologies if this has been covered already, but it seems incredulous they are going to such extraordinary lengths for such a small subset of members.

I suspect many organisations are thanking their respective deities that SC FWS verdict has given them a perfect figleaf to basically say "nothing we can do, our hands are tied, soz".

Virgin Active have done that this week, and whether they issued the policy change through force or free will, matters not. And there's been very little pushback really. If I was a business, I'd be looking at how I can rush out my own version and just get the bloody saga done with. There can't be that many CEOs and Board members with secret TIM connections who they will protect to every last extent and their own expense, can there?

There can't be that many CEOs and Board members with secret TIM connections who they will protect to every last extent and their own expense, can there?

Yes.
It only takes one per organisation
and remember that many trustees are on multiple organisations
so a single person who has transed their child or is an AGP
can poison many organisations.

Absolutely! The chilling effect as described by Helen Joyce is definitely a thing. Given the age and class of the WI trustees I'd be amazed if there wasn't a trans identifying child or grandchild there. Look at the impact joanne Harris having a trans identified child now adult had on the society of authors when she was chair

Of course we didn’t get to vote on it. And those who tried to complain were shut down.

this may drive me out, and that makes me v sad and v angry. I belong to a small WI, no TW members, just older women, for many of whom this is their main or one of their main sources of friendship, activity and support. I gritted my teeth to the messaging from National on this, but it was a factor in me stepping down from my branches committee as I could see it potentially becoming more of an issue. However supporting my own branch and members felt important.

But that National will be heading towards spending serious money to defend this, that they never let us vote on, twisting our constitution, is probably a step too far for me. Half our membership fees go to county and national. For my branch the fees we have left don’t even pay for our room hire, and we have to fund raise for the rest of our costs (yes we sell homemade jam). That my money will in some way be spent on this is not something I feel I can tolerate, but I also want to see my branch survive, providing what it does to local women.

it just makes me v v angry.

Could you de-federate from national?

But what about men’s mental health? We all know that’s a big problem in society. If they’re going to use mental health as a get-out clause, then surely men’s health is important as well.

Does the constitution allow members to force a vote through a special resolution or something similar? Can you get rid of the board/trustees?

F

Apologies if this has already been mentioned anwhere already and I've missed it.

Audrey Ludwig giving a presentation on Equality Law (July 25).

Membership Associations mentioned at about 1:21. Also, earlier on in the video (if I remember rightly) is mention that organisations need to be careful/mindful as positive action could become (unlawful) positive discrimination.

Absolutely. As I said on another thread it all comes down to the main character energy of a few people.

This has got to be a sarcastic response, right?

No, I think the poster is making this point:
If one of the objects of WI is to do things to help the health of the general public, why are they focusing only on this cohort - males with the PC of GR - and not all males? Or indeed women, I would add.

The charitable objective added in 2013 doesn't seem particularly appropriate for the WI and I am sure that the OP is right about it having been part of a long term strategy.

I think there’s an argument to be made that I think farmers are the occupation with the highest suicide rate, surely as a largely rural organisation the WI is also perfectly placed to support isolated farmers with their terrible mental health. Why not include those men too?

@WandaSiri and @Coatsoff42
But the WI is supposed to be a charity for women, not a support group for mentally distressed men.

I think that’s the point the poster is making.

Ah ok.

Do they have collective responsibility? And does that mean they could all will be financially responsible? Because it does all seem rather foolhardy if so.

They obviously added the objective about improving the health of the public to get round this - as an objective it seems a bit random and sits uncomfortably with their original objectives.

I don't think so myself. I think it's very clear from the contemporaneous evidence that they thought that they could legally include transwomen in their women only policy. I don't think they had the foresight to make the amendment as a back-up plan.

Yes, but if trans women are a group of amab people who struggle with mental health and need support from WI, how are amab farmers not also supported? How are they living differently from afab farmers? Why are they being excluded? What tenuous ‘male’ behaviour makes them unsuitable despite their documented mental health concerns, if it’s not their physical bodies?

I know amab and afab are nonsense, it’s just for the purpose of the argument.

In 2013 the WI had a revamp of its objectives, and added promoting sustainable development for the benefit of the public. At the same time it split out educating its membership in health and citizenship into itemising both of these separately as being for the benefit of the public.

Did the Charity Commission nudge them into doing more for the public benefit as opposed to just providing benefits to its members?