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?

The Sustainable Development phrasing is straight out of the WEF objectives.

As you say, before 2013 mention of health (and citizenship) was not about promoting health generally but only of the WI members.

The 2002 constitution said:

"The objects of the National Federation are to enable women who are interested in issues associated with rural life, including arts, crafts and sciences, to take an effective part in the improvement and development of the conditions of rural life, to advance their education in citizenship, in public questions both national and international, in music, drama and other cultural subjects, and to secure instruction and training for them in all branches of agriculture, handicrafts, home economics, health and social welfare. It exists to give women the opportunity of working together through the Women's Institute organisation, and of putting into practice those ideals for which it stands."
.

The 2013 constitution still references "health and social welfare" education for WI members but added the advancement of health generally as a separate and distinct objective.
.

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

Interesting question. Although, if anyone I would have expected it to be HMRC. They have pursued several cases over the decades about what exactly is and isn't a charity for tax purposes.

I remember that at least one poster (sorry, I can't remember who) has linked to the Explanatory Notes for the Equality Act and the section on charities gives the WI as an example of a charity that can provide educational opportunities only to women.

I would imagine that if they were held up as an example in the Act then I would guess that the Charity Commission had no complaints about them back then.

@Another2Cats

I wondered if it was the Charity Commission because educational charities (such as the WI) have to demonstrate a public benefit.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65254203244f8e000d8e7323/the-advancement-of-education-for-the-public-benefit1.pdf

I am not a WI member so have no knowledge but given the timing I would guess the change is linked to the Charity Commision's public benefit requirement guidance that came out in 2013.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a817021ed915d74e6232442/PB1_The_public_benefit_requirement.pdf

Although I suppose none of this really matters - if they wanted to, they could just provide benefits to women as they are a sufficient segment of the public for the purposes of the charity law public benefit requirement and they could lawfully exclude all men including transwomen in line with the Equality Act SSEs. But they do not want to.

I suppose the WI might face claims from transwomen who they kick out if they changed their policy post-FWS. Maybe they think they are better off dealing with this type of claim and being forced to change their policy than if they had a claim from a transwoman.

Women make up half the public, and improving women's health and education benefits the whole public. They don't need to directly improve the health or education of men to demonstrate a public benefit.

Agree. All charities have to work for the public benefit - if they don’t, they are not charities. And women make up a sufficiently proportion of the public for work to support women’s health to be deemed “promoting health for the public benefit”.

The change in 2013 may reflect the restating of what constitutes public benefit, as set out in the Charities Act 2011.

It boggles my mind that all these reasons of mental health and community and whatnot that they're using to include trans identified males equally would apply to trans identified females, who are actually women, but the Women's institute is specifically excluding those women just so that they can justify including some men. (presumably becaue if they accepted them as women they'd have to accept the men are, well, men)

It's absolutely transparent that they've admitted men and now they're being challenged on it they're scrambling to reverse engineer a reason to do so.

I mean, we did it because of A, but if that doesn't work then it was reason B, which contradicts A, and if neither of those are any good then it's reason C which also doesn't align with A or B. It's just the Wizard of Oz shouting to not look behind the curtain at this point.

Lots of charities demonstrates absolutely no public benefit at all.
Thousands do nothing.

The WI CHOSE to centre itself around men rather than women.

I agree, but is there any evidence that they are asking non-binary and trans identifying women to leave?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15015153/Womens-science-award-Royal-Society-criticised-trans-entrants-Supreme-Court.html

Not sure how relevant this is but I’ll post it anyway as it’s related to positive action and women.

As a woman who does a lot of non-fiction reading, I 'identify as a female postdoctoral level researcher'. Can I enter?

Oh FFS. As someone who started our Athens Swan group before it all went batshit, and we achieved some great things, eg not scheduling meetings round school pick up, putting women forward for promotion when they hadn't thought to apply etc, this pisses me off no end.

Nearly as much as when the Head of the Biology Department, a brilliant woman with over 5 million in research grant income and 3 kids added pronouns to her email signature.

Looks like the WIs defence will soon be tested, if the swimming ponds are still using the same reasoning.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/hampstead-ponds-we-have-filed-our-case/

Some of the examples from Sex Matters are awful and undermine the original intent of the women’s pond.

I do hope they are successful as this will help far more people, including the OPs husband.

Hopefully it should be clear cut on the basis that men have a single sex service (the men’s pond that excludes women), and can also use the mixed pond and the women’s pond if they have womanly feelz, but women don’t have a single sex service.

Deleted because posted on wrong thread but I agree with you, fwiw

Hi @Another2Cats , I take it the two weeks is now up and presumably your DH responded. Did they have the option of conceding before the above happens and if so, I'm presuming they didn't? Do you then have to apply (?) to the courts or was that something that had to already be submitted?

You're probably/possibly already aware, but this thread is mentioned on Trans Reddit.

Reading the Reddit thread, it's clear that many on there don't undersatnd that excluding men means excluding all men and not letting some men in.

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1mvazcd/according_to_the_womens_institute_probably_one_of/

From a brief perusal of that thread there seems to be a fair number of men vowing to join the WI. If they go through with it the WI won't know what's hit them. There's going to be more blokes than women. Weird times.

Interesting comment:

Could this be the "bridge too far"? If FWS or SM were suing the WI instead of the Scottish government, would this pry open the eyes of the public as to just how deranged and vile they are, and that it has nothing to do with "protecting [some] women and girls"? It's almost as though the WI are goading them into it.

I had a similar thought!

I see without any understanding of irony, complaints about a man wanting to join WI.

"Men will not allow us to have anything for (sic) themselves."

From that thread:
"According to the supreme court ruling would this mean that WI is mixed and cannot exclude men? If so they may disagree with that and could lend legitimacy to the legal effort to scrap the ruling"

I'm sure the SC are going to say to the WI oh, you don't like our ruling on the meaning of this law? Oh ok, we'll scrap it then
🙄

I notice Helen Joyce, in this interview, agrees with what we've been saying, that the only way you can exclude one sex, is on the basis of EqA (and therefore presumably, using their definitions) and anything else is sex discrimination x.com/sexmattersorg/status/1961374308606828718?

On the assumption that the WI will lose and double down then they will then become a mixed sex organisation. I suspect their membership is mainly older women 65/70+? who will maybe just carry on and accept it given many women in this age group are used to putting men first?

Anyone who doesn’t agree will maybe setup an alternative although it would look very different to the WI. I think maybe I see the WI as quite old fashioned (like to hope I’m wrong) and because women now doing many other things as the get older (that used to be men only) this type of meeting of women will take on a more modern feel.

Anyway I’m just considering what will happen but
think we need more men like the OPs to stand up and support our fight.

@Another2Cats How are things? I’m guessing you’ve sent in your response now.