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?

Would a female NB be "living as a woman" though??
Although rumour has it that if you watch Love Island and are interested in fashion, you are "living as a woman" (sorry to male fashion designers etc who watch LI, dem's the rulz!)

sex (including the sex of trans and intersex people) is not binary in this way.

😝

Thank you very much to everyone who has replied (and everyone who is reading!).

A common question that has come up is "what does 'living as women' actually mean?"

Very good question indeed and DH and I are both wondering how that will play out.

I have my thoughts based on what was specifically said in the letter (and how it was said) in the excerpt that I quoted. However, I may be totally wrong.

We can only wait until early August to find out what they really mean.

There is so much more that I wish that I could share and talk about but this is not a private conversation amongst friends; it is a public forum.

As such, I am very aware of what I choose to share. Unfortunately, at the moment, this is very little.

As @NoWordForFluffy said, we are currently looking at the step beyond the next step at the moment.

Can the WI choose to define women however they want?

Doesn't the Supreme Court judgement mean that women for the purposes of the EA is a biological female? And this case hinges on the EA so that is the definition surely?

Why do they believe they can define women however they choose?

If you start arguing against their definition 'living as a women' you are conceding the argument that they can define women however they choose, and now the issue is does their made up definition make sense and is it workable.
It doesn't and isn't, but that shouldn't matter because they can't redefine women in the EA anyway.

If they are going to exclude some people on the basis they are not women they have to ensure they have the right to discriminate in this way, which would be based on biological sex for a legitimate aim if they are using women as the basis for discrimination.

Or they could I guess discriminate based on gender identity? They'd have to make it open to anyone with that protected characteristic, but can they do that and admit (cis) women but not (cis) men? What would be the legal rationale for discriminating against cis men whilst allowing TIM?
(Cos they're ladies?)
Sorry about the cis but it's the only way to make it clear who's in and who's out.

I cannot see a legal argument for barring your Dh whilst allowing a TIM? They'd have to make a case for this discrimination wouldn't they? Something more than: we want to?

They could argue it's for anyone interested in their activities. Fine so your dh could join, and they'd have to rename themselves The Institute for People who like things some Ladies and some Blokes like.

Why is the WI doing this?? Why is a legal firm so ridiculous?

I'm moving to a rural town and would love to join something like the WI for community and activities. But it's obviously so corrupted I wouldn't go near it now.

I hope this case makes the headlines and they're publicly exposed.

Looking forward to finally getting an explanation as to what it means to live as a woman.

@MalagaNights

Or they could I guess discriminate based on gender identity? They'd have to make it open to anyone with that protected characteristic, but can they do that and admit (cis) women but not (cis) men? What would be the legal rationale for discriminating against cis men whilst allowing TIM

There is no protected characteristic of gender identity. Only gender reassignment. So you can have a club for transgender people or a club for women but not both .

I could well believe Bate and Wells confusing themselves with an argument like yours . After all they have a section called “gender equality” on their website . It’s here if you want a giggle at their expense.
https://bateswells.co.uk/about/gender-equality/

Could you have a club for women and transgender people but exclude non trans men?

I presume you'd have to provide a reasonable aim for this discrimination against non trans men?
Which there isn't.

So the argument is:

1. women for the purposes of the EA and discrimination for a reasonable aim means biological sex. You can't just choose to redefine this.

2. even if you could, your definition is nonsensical as you cannot describe what living as a women means or how you could reasonably apply this to decision making on membership.

3. even if you could define living as a woman you cannot explain why there is a reasonable aim to discriminate against men who do not fulfil this.

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

What if this person has had a baby, would they be 'living as a woman'? What counts for more, when you 'live as a woman' - doing things that only living women can do, such as gestating and birthing an infant, or the name you use/your hobbies/your choice of clothing etc?

If it's your hobbies (apparently watchingLove Island and going for coffee with your besties are hobbies that define womanhood) then surely Mr2Cats must be 'living as a woman' because he has a hobby that is done by members of the WI.

Could you have a club for women and transgender people but exclude non trans men?

(a) Not if you’re relying on using a single sex exception for associations under the EA2010.

(b) Only if you want to be sued for discrimination by men. And by women who have an expectation of it being single sex.

The EHRC interim update states:

Membership of an association of 25 or more people can be limited to men only or women only and can be limited to people who each have two protected characteristics. It can be, for example, for gay men only or lesbian women only. A women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men), and a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans men (biological women).

No , they need to share a PC in your trans inclusive example you are mixing up 2 different protected characteristics.

Look up Ben Coopers recent note para 52 -59 following the SC decision.Ben Coopers was the KC for FWS . It deals with services rather than associations but as the SC said in the conclusion to their judgement, there are crossovers in the principles applying to both.

https://oldsquare.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FWS-Why-the-SC-decision-does-not-breach-trans-rights.pdf

That's not want they want to do though anyway, they only want to allow male trans people and not the female ones, so they can't use the PC of gender reassignment.

Have they said this?

That's Ben's opinion in contrast to the other opinions put forward.

It makes sense to me but I'm interested in the argument the WIs law firm believe they can make.
Steel man their position anyone?

It's been said in previous posts:
"Thank you for your enquiry. Our policy states that “WI membership is open to all women who live as women, including transgender women.” If you fit within this statement, you will be more than welcome to attend. I am afraid the WI is not open to men."
And
"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."

So by process of elimination, as well as not accepting men (who don't claim a trans identity), they don't accept women who claim to be men or men who claim to be non binary.

They are saying they accept any women assigned female at birth.
So transmen would qualify?

I think they are accepting female people and trans identifying men. But it's not entirely clear.

I understand the argument for why this is absurd, but I don't get why they think they have a case. Or how they'll address the points we've raised.

It would probably help the OP if we steel manned their position.
It's not that useful to just agree we're right and their lawyers are stupid.

They are putting something together.

"They are saying they accept any women assigned female at birth.
So transmen would qualify?"

I'd say no because they said
"A person who was assigned female at birth but who identifies as non-binary is able to join the WI."

But who knows what they've decided any of these terms mean anyway 🤷🏻‍♀️

they fall within our women only exemption as they were assigned female at birth.

But none of it makes sense!

The WI has said it accepts NB people who are assigned female at birth as it fits with its women only exception.

I haven’t seen anything from the WI about TIF, who are assigned female at birth but identify as men.

Logic suggests that TIF have the same biological characteristic as NB people assigned female at birth, who are welcome to join the WI as they meet the criteria for the women only exception (as expressed in the EDI policy).

The people who don’t meet the women (female) only exception are TIM,

Hence the legal shenanigans about shoehorning in positive action for TIM.

I would be interested to see the documented records for the positive action measures taken to enable TIM to be members of the WI, given that the WI relies on the single sex exception under the EA2010.

As they say .. say, do, document, review.

"I haven’t seen anything from the WI about TIF, who are assigned female at birth but identify as men.
Logic suggests that TIF have the same biological characteristic as NB people assigned female at birth, who are welcome to join the WI as they meet the criteria for the women only exception (as expressed in the EDI policy)."

They have said this though:

"Our policy states that "WI membership is open to all women who live as women.....” If you fit within this statement, you will be more than welcome to attend."

I would take it from that, that they exclude TIFs.
I'm not saying any of it is logical, just trying to deduce what they mean.

That should be do Plan Do Check Review - and document every stage.

Oh yes, I agree with you. None of it makes sense when the WI is relying on the women only exception for associations.

TIF meet the WI criteria as ‘assigned female at birth’ (as per the NB policy) but do they meet the trans policy of ‘living as a woman’?

I originally thought that they did accept Transmen due to the non binary position. Now I don’t think it’s that clear cut. aFAIK non binary flit flop one to the other and therefore it follows to me that they are less likely to take hormones or have surgery but rely on outward appearances . Please correct me if I am wrong about that . So less likely to look a beardy macho person, so more likely to be acceptable in the WI than a transman?

The other thing is though that , would someone who thinks they are male, likely to want to join a women’s organisation ? I think they would run a mile in the opposite direction wouldn’t they? Maybe it’s an unlikely scenario, it’s not one I tend to think about that much because I don’t think it would arise. It would be the opposite of validation.

I think you need to just consider that if the WI accept female NB people then it also has to accept female transmen (TIF), as that complies with the women (biological female) only exception in exactly the same way.

Whether transmen want to join or not is irrelevant (they might want to join if, like OP’s DH, the local WI supports an activity they want to do and can’t do elsewhere).

I’m still pondering on OP’s DH’s hobby (I’m not fishing here).

My local WI would have activities like making hats out of kitchen implements.