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?

So, while we can always tell…

If someone joins and doesn’t talk about being trans, doesn’t mention being male… what will they do? Will someone need to challenge them? Make discreet enquiries?

I mean, vanishingly unlikely given most men talk a lot about being a man, or say that they are fragile in a ‘I know you’ll be surprised but I’m trans..’ kind of way.

Where’s the ‘man here’ meme when you want it?

lets hope OPs husband now wants to join the sisterhood meetings

Oh dear. That must make meetings awkward.

Thank you everyone for your recent messages here. I'd also like to thank the people who have provided messages of support and practical help, both here and elsewhere, as that did make a real difference.

In the grand scheme of things, I'm sure that DH's case was only a small thing overall, but it may well have been (to use mixed metaphors) a catalyst that started the ball rolling.

Until such time as the WI offer to settle the case then it is still ongoing so I won't talk too much about that. The next update for the case will either be that they have settled or that the Track for the case has been decided and there is a date for a substantive hearing.

In the thread two days ago about the Girl Guides I posted a Tweet from Emma Hilton (@ FondOfBeetles on Twitter/X) who summarised their press statement like this:

“Girl guiding is for girls. Yay girls.”

“In April, we were surprised and saddened to learn that girls are female.”

“It’s been eight months, but we really can’t find a workaround.” 😕

(For those that don't know of her, Dr Emma Hilton is a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester and Chair of Sex Matters. She has written a great deal on the reasons why it is unfair for men to be included in the women's category of sports.)

And I can't help but get the same sort of feeling from the WI press statement.

Some posters have commented on the fact that both GG and the WI have made announcements so close together and that they are both advised by Bates Wells.

I am sure that this was another factor. Bates Wells were instructed by the WI when DH began his claim but they actually dropped out back in August and the WI then instructed a different law firm who went on the record on 1st Sept.

I didn't update the thread at that time as I didn't think it was significant. But, with hindsight, I now do wonder if (as somebody mentioned to me at the time) that perhaps there was trouble at t' mill.

Why would an organisation instruct another firm of lawyers half way through a case (they had sent their Defence by that stage but it was before the Directions Questionnaires)?

Were Bates Wells giving them advice they didn't like? Who knows? That sort of thing is way above my pay grade to consider.

Like with GG it appears that it was “It’s been eight months, but we really can’t find a workaround.” 😕 for the WI.

Just as a reminder, their defence from back at the start of August was that the WI wasn't relying on the single-sex exemption in the Equality Act but that they were open to anyone "living as a woman" - but that did exclude trans-identifying women.

Their alternative defence was that trans-identifying men were in such a bad situation that it was right for them to undertake positive action to help them.

It looks as though they may have been forced to admit that neither of these approaches was a "workaround" that would work.

However, what is rather concerning is the proposed idea of the "local WI Sisterhood groups"

The wording sounds almost exactly the same as their Defence:

"all people, including transgender women, to come together to socialise, learn from each other, and share their experiences of living as women."

Will these Sisterhood groups be only open to people who are "living as women"? If so, then it appears that there would be a challenge to that.

Also, I do wonder how that would fit in with the WI's current charitable objects and membership rules.

I'll keep the thread updated with what happens, as I said above the next update will likely be either that they have settled or that there is a court date.

"all people, including transgender women, to come together to socialise, learn from each other, and share their experiences of living as women."

You can read this as ‘all people, male and female, socialising … … learning about living as women.’
So those ‘living as women’ sharing their experiences with those who are not.

Your DH would be welcome to go and listen to men and women discussing how they perform femininity, I guess.

Thank you OP, very interesting update

Well done, OP. We will need to keep eyes on them.

Thank you @Another2Cats , very interesting about the change of law firm part way through. I think it’s highly probable that the first law firm were telling them inconvenient truths.

If memory serves, men can sign up for courses through the WI’s Denman learning hub, so maybe the NFWI is looking at some kind of similar model for the ‘Sisterhood’ proposal?

I don't know. It says they 'will offer monthly opportunities for all people, including transgender women, to come together to socialise, learn from each other, and share their experiences of living as women.' (my bold). Which makes the existence in the same sentence of the phrase 'all people' interesting.

There needs to be a completely separate funding source for the 'Sisterhood'. Not WI subs.

I'm sure lots of people have said that already!

The 'Sisterhood' is already taking on Handmaid's Tale vibes for me

I have also contacted the WI inclusion person to ask about whether our fees have been used to find their legal costs.

Smart move!
I know a lot of people who would be interested in their answer

My thoughts on “Sisterhood”

Now I have had time to look at more details I am worried

Yes there has been criticism of the “sadness” vocalised by NFWI that their hands were tied , that TW are women ( with penises ) and the waiting till next April
to obey the law so I don’t need to to say any more on that but agree totally with the criticism .

But I am Concerned about this new Sisterhood organisation , especially with the information sent out yesterday afternoon and other reported verbal comments .

1. they are saying it’s open to all but that’s to not fall foul of the EQ . Not sure about saying it’s open to all but restricting the topics to how to live as a woman . …

2. supporters were introduced last year to people entitled to be members but couldn’t commit time to be full members - So at the time women and of course TW . I said at the time this was to allow men in ( who could then be on Fed boards too through other changes) so it’s TIM in by the back door . ) that scheme will now be extended so that TW and presumably all men can become supporters .

3)these new groups can be set up by Feds and individual wi . So then we come on to funding . The charity objectives means that WI funds must be spent on women and that means biological women so if Wi or federations start offering things to these sisterhood groups that’s taking away from wi Members - meeting spaces , sharing meetings allowing them to listen to hired speakers , joining in activities , refreshments , denying places on workshops for women they are not using funds how they are supposed to. In fact even supporters contributions are supposed to support WI women not men .

4. Melissa Green said yesterday that she and others at NFWI Would be spending time over the next few months putting things in place . I pay her wages not to do the admin for something for men, but to work for women .

5. I am furious time and money will be spent at HQ when the finances are already looking very dodgy, on superfluous things . Fees went up again last year and keep rising more than inflation year on year . Numbers of members are falling year on year. NFWI have already announced that they are looking at cost saving measures such as moving out of London . If they have spare admin time to do something out of their remit they can afford to get rid of some staff.

6. They are going to spend money in the education online facility reeducating / indoctrinating us all on “trans identity “.

7. Again this money is supposed to benefit women not men in dresses. I strongly object to the use of my money and the fast depleting legacy the sale of Denman brought paying for activities to benefit men not women and attempts to indoctrinate me and others .

8. I think this sisterhood initiative will destroy the WI even more as we know it .

To Be honest the only thing I think we can do is to thwart its setting up by encouraging hundreds or thousands of gender critical men to join this new “sisterhood “ as they must be entitled to do ( or it would be illegal) and make it so unappetising for any TIM who would then get no validation from joining it . Join it to beat it !

I think people and organisations need to speak out about this while they have the ear of main stream media . Strike while the iron is hot!

Feel free to use any of the numbered points above if you want to write in to HQ.

Next years company accounts will be interesting reading!

"all people, including transgender women, to come together to socialise, learn from each other, and share their experiences of living as women."

Read this out to DH, who shot back, "So basically you still have the meetings, but you pretend they're not THE meetings."

Indeed, wink wink.

Yes, I agree. Will be interesting to see how they frame it.

I’ll be amazed if I get a straight answer from my message to the inclusion email address the press release directs us to. I very much suspect that their idea of inclusion and mine are very different.

Not sure that aligns with the charitable objects either:

THE MAIN PURPOSES OF THE WOMEN'S INSTITUTE ORGANISATION ARE: (A) TO ADVANCE THE EDUCATION OF WOMEN AND GIRLS FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IN ALL AREAS INCLUDING (WITHOUT LIMITATION): (I) LOCAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ISSUES OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL IMPORTANCE; (II) MUSIC, DRAMA AND OTHER CULTURAL SUBJECTS; AND (III) ALL BRANCHES OF AGRICULTURE, CRAFTS, HOME ECONOMICS, SCIENCE, HEALTH, AND SOCIAL WELFARE; (B) TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT BY: (I) EDUCATING PEOPLE IN THE PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE PRUDENT USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES; AND (II) PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE MEANS OF ACHIEVING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REGENERATION; (C) TO ADVANCE HEALTH FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT; AND (D) TO ADVANCE CITIZENSHIP FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT BY THE PROMOTION OF CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY AND VOLUNTEERING.

This isn't the point, but is it really in all caps like that? I feel shouted at or like I'm being talked to by Owen Meany

It is on the Charity Commission website - sorry, I cut and pasted and couldn’t be arsed to change it.

I think it must be a feature of that website, as it’s the same for the charity I worked for.

register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/803793/governing-document?_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_organisationNumber=803793

They can have these Sisterhood meetings as a sneaky way of continuing the status quo but will be undone because they cannot use any WI money in this cause as it's outwith their charitable objects. The Charity Commissioners will be down on them like a ton of bricks when TERFs dob in the WI leadership team.

WI’s sneaky plan - call the meetings ‘sisterhood meetings’ women will pay the subs while TW don’t have to - et voila!

Can members take the leadership to court for any inappropriate use of funds?

Fascinatingly, my local WI closed, and another women's club sprung up in its place. Same place, same time, same wide range of activities. They even have a competition each meeting. They are well attended and have a waiting list.

I wonder how many local groups this happened to. 🤔