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?

Just looked it up and it was @RareGoalsVerge , who I see is on this thread too <<wave>>

To give due credit.

And I agree about the genderist lens. I'm female and have short hair, always wear flat shoes and never wear make-up. I have a male partner.However, I tend to prefer watching/reading costume dramas and intimate studies of people's emotions to sci-fi or superhero films/TV/books.
Am I living as a man, or a woman?
I would like to hear the WI's answer.

Just looked it up and it was @RareGoalsVerge , who I see is on this thread too <<wave>>

To give due credit.

And I agree about the genderist lens. I'm female and have short hair, always wear flat shoes and never wear make-up. I have a male partner.However, I tend to prefer watching/reading costume dramas and intimate studies of people's emotions to sci-fi or superhero films/TV/books.
Am I living as a man, or a woman?
I would like to hear the WI's answer.

sorry for duplicate post; laptop went wild.

If they think that "living as a woman" means being interested in things that "women" like, then surely him wanting to do the activities that are on offer at WI meetings would qualify him as "living as a woman"?! So they've kind of shot themselves in the foot there.

How very interesting.

Now watching the new thread with immense interest.

Except that OPs husband has never claimed to be a woman or living as one or pretending in his spare time , that’s the point of this case - discrimination against the rest of men not “living as women” in not allowing them to join under their present policy.

I look forward to the WI's explanation of "living as a woman". Is it menstruating or having children? Because that would exclude the menopausal and childfree/childless. Is it wearing a dress and makeup? In which case those who turn up bare-faced in jeans would have their membership rescinded. Is it something else?

But could he be inadvertently 'living as a woman' merely by being interested in the activities that the WI offer?

Thanks for the update/new thread, I'm all agog to hear what their definition of 'living as a woman ' is as well. Perhaps we should start a pool on what they're going to end up babbly. 😁

Thank you so much to OP and her husband for taking this on. Would be happy to contribute to a legal fund if necessary. Sorry if I have missed it from the previous thread, what is the position of the Charity Commission? Aren't the WI breaching their charitable objects?

@Another2Cats

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.

Hang on, that rather contradicts the WI EDI policy, doesn’t it?

Under the Non-binary section it clearly states that male and female are binary categories.

And it also clearly states that A person who was assigned female at birth but who identifies as non-binary is able to join the WI. This is because they fall within our women only exemption as they were assigned female at birth.

That implies that to meet the women only exemption, the WI can only admit women are assigned female at birth.

https://www.thewi.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/719730/NFWI-Equality,-Diversity-and-Inclusion-Policy.pdf

The EDI policy currently on the website is V2 and dated April 2023.

Also found these EDI National Council session notes for WIs from October 2021, which clearly states that the WI has a women only exemption under the PC of sex.

It then goes onto say that transgender members are welcome - which is clearly in conflict with the women only exemption 🤔

sefwi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ed-i-national-council-session-notes-for-wis-october-2021.pdf

So the WI clearly states that it uses the women only exemption under the PC of sex, it recognises that NB people who were assigned female at birth meet the membership requirement as they were assigned female at birth, and then says it welcomes trans identifying males.

This all sounds like a crock of shit.

Following! Thanks for the update.

Please tell me you are employing a lawyer, @Another2Cats ? Apologies if this question has been asked and answered on the previous thread.

Of all the hills for the WI to die on.

Do they not realise that championing blokes in women's spaces puts off women from becoming members? Or maybe they do but don't care. I'd be interested if their membership levels have dropped recently.

Following on from this, could a trans man (TIF) join the WI? If not, surely they're being discriminated against on the grounds of gender identity as biological women can join?

I'm agog at the WI.

Really??!!! They are so desperate to include TIMs in their membership they are willing to take your DH to court.

My flabber is truly ghasted. G'wan your DH, I am gripped at where this is going.

But could he be inadvertently 'living as a woman' merely by being interested in the activities that the WI offer?

It's as good an exemplar as any of ' living as a woman'.

The definition of "living as a woman" really is key. I am eager to hear what they say. Their argument cannot move forward without this definition. I hope they realise that.

Since a trans man was assigned female at birth, exactly the same as an NB that was assigned female at birth can be accepted for membership, then presumably they can.

But then again, would a trans man qualify because they aren't 'living as a woman'?

Oh what a tangled web we weave ...

Exactly, there is no consistency in their policy.

Same here. Short hair, can't remember the last time I wore a skirt or dress, always flat shoes, rarely make-up. But married to DH (male) and I am happily female. No children and post- menopause.

My adult ds is currently sitting next to his elderly, disabled relative, holding her hand, talking gently to her, feeding her and helping her to drink. Exactly what I do. So is my ds living as a woman? Or is he simply being himself, a man, and demonstrating masculinity?

Yes that's what I was thinking.

And do you have to know/claim/identify as "living as a woman" to be one? I don't think I identify in that way. I just am, without thinking about it, and I guess I would inadvertently be living as a woman in that case. So without knowing it, maybe OPs husband just "is" living as a woman because he wants to do WI activities, and has no need to know/claim/pretend that. So they can't discriminate against him on that basis, any more than they could discriminate on the basis of me not knowing/claiming that I am 'living as a woman'. The difference is that I just am a biological woman, but that doesn't seem to be what they care about either.

I thought the Scottish gov couldn't define what it meant to live as a woman during the GR debate so good luck to anyone else who tries to define it.