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?

Is the new 'sisterhoold' legal if only biological women can be sisters?

If their sisterhood meetings are open to everyone of any possible combination of sex and gender with no restrictions, that's fine. Restricting attendance on the basis of biological sex is allowed under the Equalities Act if it is a Proportionate Means to Achieve a Legitimate Aim. It is not possible/legal to justify excluding some-but-not-all males (by admitting transwomen) or to justify excluding some women (by making transmen unwelcome) within the legal framework that allows exclusions as a Proportionate Means to Achieve a Legitimate Aim. This is equally true for the criteria of meeting-attendance as it is for the criteria for membership. They can have different criteria and make all meetings wholely mixed-sex but a mishmash of females (if not trans) plus some males (if trans) but not non-trans males cannot possibly meet the strict legal thresholds for when it is reasonable to make exclusions on the basis of protected characteristics.

The 'Proportionate Means to Achieve a Legitimate Aim' qualification only exists in Schedule 3 of the Equality Act which is concerned with the provision of services. Non of the other exception Schedules have this qualification which makes it perfectly legal for a charity or an association to apply a single sex exception simply because "we want to".

I'm not sure what your point is here. You are right that PMOAALA isn't repeated in all sections but that doesn't make a difference to the point I was clarifying (in any case the beneficial social and educational opportunities provided by the WI seem to me to be "services"). If they are excluding on the basis of sex they have to exclude all people of that sex, without exceptions for the people who would be made sad if they were excluded. If they don't want to make anyone sad all they need do is hold a vote on whether to become the Women&Men's Institute and admit everyone who wants to be a member

Only now seen this thread.
Not going to read 2000 posts or whatever.
I expect it has been said before on here by a number of people, that in our area at least, men have always been welcome at the WI[they are always desperate for numbers probably had something to do with it! Plus their menfolk helped build the building in the first place.].

No, that hasn’t been said by any significant number of people, because this is FWR and not a board for men’s rights.

Plus their menfolk helped build the building in the first place.

So what? Building or helping to build something doesn’t give anyone the right to use it.

You haven’t quite understood the gist of this thread. The WI website clearly states that men aren’t allowed, but trans women who are ‘living as a woman’ (no definition given or criteria as to what qualifies for this) are, so there’s a duplicity there. Either you make the WI unisex (‘ The Institute’ ) or it single sexed.

They are allowed in around here.
That is all I am saying.

I had no beef at all.

But now, this has got my back up No, that hasn’t been said by any significant number of people, because this is FWR and not a board for men’s rights.

As far as I know, and I post very infrequently, men can post on here, and any thread and topic.

Hmm. I wonder if it occurred to anyone running the group in your area that 'welcoming' men into the group might be the cause of the falling numbers, not the answer to it.

AI says

Generally, no, men cannot be full members of a local Women's Institute (WI) meeting because it's a women-only organization by constitution, but they might be able to attend specific public events, social gatherings, or campaigns, and men are welcome to attend courses at the WI's educational centre, Denman. Recent legal developments are causing the WI to change its rules, and from April 2026, membership will be restricted to those registered female at birth, though new "sisterhood groups" for trans women are being created

Note the word, generally.

AI says…

My gosh.

It doesnt have falling numbers at the moment, as far as I know.

And wow, this thread is feisty.

All I posted was that men are allowed where I live!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just in case it hadnt been mentioned.
Which presumably it hadnt, going by the comments.

Just wow.

And for the record, I am a woman!

I have noticed before, on another forum, that that always comes up when people dont like what it says!
Not when they do. Funny that.

You misunderstand.

Of course men can post here. And they do.

They just tend not to post in great numbers on a board where the topic is Feminism and Women's Rights.

Generally, men who post here post on the topic of Feminism and Women's Rights.

But the odd time a man posts on the Feminism and Women's Rights board with a perspective that ignores Feminism and Women's Rights, they will find other posters will introduce those considerations for them, that being the focus of this board.

I had thought mumsnet had calmed down in the last few years.
Appears not.

But it is the way they are "introduced".

Friendly? Not.

Amd I wasnt ignoring FWR.
Just adding something!

I've realised I've got more productive things to do this morning. There's a sock drawer that needs tidying.

Well, you don’t know me, but I can assure you I have a good understanding of how AI works in the context of summarising material, and I am ALWAYS sceptical of any summary it supplies.
I prefer to go and look things up myself and not outsource my thinking or research.

Whether or not men are allowed in the WI should be governed by the the WI’s founding rules and statutes.

In practice, if men are commonly allowed in where you live, this shouldn’t be happening. I don’t doubt that it does happen.

The WI could have become a mixed sex group and welcomed men throughout the whole of their organisation as part of their policy. They don't seem to want to do this.

I wonder what the outcome would be if the man on this thread who wanted to join the WI wrote back to head office and said...but xxxxx chapter allow men, so I should be allowed in my local one.

I know the dangers of the hitler was a vegetarian so all vegetarians are nazis fallacy and that’s not what I’m saying here.

It’s more to point out the gall that someone who has been convicted of making images of child abuse with children as young as 12 months old (making here in the sense of downloading/digital copies) loftily pronouncing what is moral cowardice or not

x.com/ericjoyce/status/1996234738462286277

No one has said that men can’t post on here, where did you get that idea from?Some who do offer useful insights and we welcome them.

But a feminism board centres women’s rights and it’s rather odd to post in favour of men’s rights instead.

If your WI is welcoming men as members, it’s contravening its purpose and charitable aims.

It’s always a good idea to at least skim read a long thread before posting - I’ve made the mistake of not doing so in the past, and it can be embarrassing.

I wonder if there will be an answer to this?

It’s always a good idea to at least skim read a long thread before posting - I’ve made the mistake of not doing so in the past, and it can be embarrassing.

This and the previous thread contain in great detail the WI's stance on who can be a member and why they were going to argue in court that certain groups were eligible and others aren't, so there's little value in regurgitating it again, particularly in light of their recent announcement where it changed.

But a feminism board centres women’s rights and it’s rather odd to post in favour of men’s rights instead.

Personally I dont see why not.

And isnt that the whole point of this particular thread anyway?!?
In reality?