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?

@SabrinaThwaite , I think we're talking at cross purposes here, I was answering this question (in the post I've quoted), not stating what I believe they should be doing.

I think that, if they were willing to accept TIFs then they would have put that in their statement about female NBs being accepted.
I think I recall someone saying that a TiM was on the board (?), possibly helping draft the policy, so I would gather from that, the terms being used wouldn't be muddled (eg thinking TIMs were TIFs).
They probably wouldn't specifically mention TIFs because

1. they probably didn't think (or even given a thought to) any wanting to join
2. they'd said men can't join (and they believe TMAM)

Yes, of course they should accept TIFs, for the same reason they accept female NBs, if they are using the exemption but the whole crux of the matter is that they are/were claiming to use the exemption to have the WI but then ignoring it to let some men in, thereby discriminating against other men.

The other thing is though that , would someone who thinks they are male, likely to want to join a women’s organisation ?

There was this from pearlier this year - a transman upset because she wasn’t welcomed into a women’s walking group. The original Tik Tok video seems to have disappeared though. The person involved seems to have had difficulty negotiating social situations generally.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5281525-transman-tries-to-join-female-and-non-binary-space

@EyesOpening I see what you mean. The EDI policy is all about TW, it doesn’t mention anything about TM, although both are defined under “transgender” in the glossary document.

The EDI policy states (twice) that membership is open to all women who live as women, including transgender women. No mention of TM, who presumably are living as men.

I’m not sure that’s important though - the WI’s documentation demonstrates that it’s using a women only exception and that it clearly understands that you need to be female born to fall under that exception.

But a non-binary person isn't living as a woman. They're living as a non-binary person, presumably. So they shouldn't be allowed to join and should set up their own Non-Binary Institute.

Thank you to you and your DH for bringing the absurdity of this into the sunlight.

I'm astounded that they say the WI "does not purport to establish single sex membership within the meaning of the EqA". Surely the members think they have joined a single-sex organisation? Isn't that the point of the WI?

Also, the document says that people who are not trans can join if they are living as a woman. So your DH doesn't have to be trans, just "living as a woman" whatever that means. If you can say your DH lives exactly the same lifestyle as you - working, hobbies, equal housework & childcare, will that be "living as a woman"?

I suspect he would have to adopt a female name and say he was a woman in order to convince them.

(That's probably all he would have to do though.)

@borntobequiet
From the thread ( link no longer working ) it seems they not only were not good in social interactions, they were also looking for attention in complaining. Not a good example I think. My point still stands.

@Marmaladelover , I was answering a question, not disputing a point.

If you can say your DH lives exactly the same lifestyle as you - working, hobbies, equal housework & childcare, will that be "living as a woman"?

If they do everything the same then you could argue that the OP is living as a man.

If only there was a definitive list of things that only women think, feel and do. 🙄

As a WI member I hope your DH wins and this nonsense, from the WI, can be put to bed once and for all!
I am furious WI members have not been balloted about this waste of membership fee 😡

Sorry , my question was rhetorical really.

Interestingly, the WI is used as an example in the Explanatory Notes to Section 193 of the Equality Act:

Effect

608.This section allows charities to provide benefits only to people who share the same protected characteristic (for example sex, sexual orientation or disability), if this is in line with their charitable instrument and if it is objectively justified or to prevent or compensate for disadvantage. It remains unlawful for them to limit their beneficiaries by reference to their colour – and if they do their charitable instrument will be applied as if that limitation did not exist.

And:

Background

611.This section replaces and harmonises separate exceptions in previous legislation allowing charities to benefit only people of the same sex, racial group, religion or belief or sexual orientation, and creates new exceptions along these lines for charities benefiting only people of the same age group or with the same disability. This section also replicates the effect of other exceptions for charities in previous discrimination law, and creates a new exception in subsection (7) allowing participation in activities to promote or support charities to be restricted to men or women.

Examples

• It is lawful for the Women’s Institute to provide educational opportunities only to women.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/14/3

Thank you again Mr and Mrs Cats. My (thoroughly GC) felines and I totally back you. IANAL but this looks to me like an attempt to scare you off rather than provide a genuine legal challenge. They seem to be suggesting that the EqA2010 doesn’t apply because it’s all too complicated (no, it really isn’t). That sex isn’t simple (it really is). And that the SSE doesn’t apply (it must do, otherwise Mr Cats would be admitted).

Hopefully in addition to the scare tactics these lawyers have also advised their clients that they haven’t got a snowball’s chance in hell.

I think I see what they're aiming for and why it's not quite right.

I think they want "anyone who identifies as female regardless of their body" so this would include - men who say "I am female" and women as long as they don't say "I am male" (hence I think they include female with non-binary identity). They're assuming that if you are female then you identify as such unless you state otherwise.

This would work if the protected characteristic was gender identity, but it's gender reassignment. The male "women" and the non-binary actual women would be included under the reassignment category, but I can't see how you could possibly argue that a female person was undergoing or proposing to undergo reassignment to become a woman. That means they wouldn't be included under the same category therefore they don't share a common characteristic.

Maybe they missed the whole supreme court thing where it was pointed out that women and men with a woman identity are not a homogenous group.

With regard to "living as a woman". Since there's no legal definition, presumably all you have to do to qualify is state what you do and say "therefore that means I live as a woman". It doesn't have to be the same as another person's definition.

I believe that those in the WI dealing with this matter are engaged in much the same activity, save for using tinfoil rather than kitchen implements.

Politely placemarking to keep track of this fascinating case.

Also, many years ago I applied for a job at Bates Wells. Quite glad they rejected me now. 🙃

Wishing MrAnother2cats all the best with his endeavours! 💪💪

Less Pastafarian and more like this lovely Jam and Jerusalemer showing off a tin foiled pussy?

(I might have been enjoying Dame Katy Denise just a bit too much lately).

Haven't heard of a tin foiled pussy since Are You Being Served finished.

😂👏 Oh, MNHQ, please bring back the laugh react!

... I wonder how many of the anti-laugh complainers were hurt by readers' hilarity at their earnest explanations of why TWAW??

This would work if the protected characteristic was gender identity, but it's gender reassignment.

Actually, this is something that has been bugging me for ages.The description of “gender reassignment” in the EA is so vague as be pretty useless -

In the Equality Act, gender reassignment means proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process to reassign your sex. (from the EHRC website).

At the “proposing to undergo, undergoing” stage, how does this differ from simply having a gender identity? And surely having a GI opposite to your material sex is both a necessary and sufficient condition for gender reassignment under this definition?

I wouldn’t expect it to make sense because it’s inherently nonsense, but goodness knows how clever people could write stuff like this and not see the problems.

"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."

You seem to be describing "gender‑fluid" with the flip‑flopping.

Check out "non-binary surgery" and be prepared to be horrified by "gender nullification".

"I suspect he would have to adopt a female name and say he was a woman in order to convince them."

If he goes by a diminutive name like Pat or Chris he is already half way there, although Lionel Shriver and Julian Vigo are women with "men's names" so he should, theoretically, be OK if called Lionel or Julian.

The form to join just asks for name, email address and phone number. Maybe they ask more questions after you submit the form or just take it on trust that those not eligible would self‑exclude?

I didn't see your original OP and must admit I did a little eye roll at your title here and was coming on the thread to say LTB as no one should be a trans widow.

But good on you both for taking this on. It's either open to men or not.

"At the “proposing to undergo, undergoing” stage, how does this differ from simply having a gender identity? And surely having a GI opposite to your material sex is both a necessary and sufficient condition for gender reassignment under this definition?"

Yes. EA2010 introduced "Self‑ID" for everything except obtaining a GRC.

An amendment was proposed to the Equality Bill to include "under medical supervision" but it was withdrawn:

11 Jan 2010 Equality Bill Section 7 Amendment 10
Gender Reassignment
Bishop of Chester - moved by Bishop of Chichester

10: Clause 7, page 5, line 15, at end insert “under medical supervision”

(These are the relevant bits ‑ my bolding.)

one of the most headline-catching aspects of gender reassignment is the question of the surgery which forms part of some, although not all, cases. Normally, medical surgery removes diseased or dead tissue. Transgendering surgery removes what would otherwise present as healthy tissue, but of course that “otherwise” is absolutely critical. That is the problem, and it leads some people to question the authenticity of the condition of gender dysphoria—or, at least, the recourse to radical surgery in order to address it.

The Bill refers to people who are proposing to undergo, are undergoing or have undergone a process of gender reassignment, but to what does that “process” refer? It might seem to imply a formal process, overseen by the medical profession, but paragraph 64 of the Explanatory Notes states that the clause changes the existing requirements,

“by no longer requiring a person to be under medical supervision”, in order, “to come within it”.

What, then, is the process that is envisaged? Are we talking merely about self-certification that one is in the process of reassigning one’s gender? That is what the Explanatory Notes say, and to many of us that seems to carry the notion of individual rights too far, because it detaches them too much from the rights of others and the ultimate good of the wider community.

It is one thing to make proper provision for those suffering from gender dysphoria; it is another to enshrine in law the principle that one’s gender is a matter of personal choice. Moreover, would this change not lay the provisions of the Bill open to potential abuse? Would it not make the legal question of who is or is not proposing to undergo, undergoing or has undergone a process of gender reassignation so vague as to make the work of a tribunal potentially very difficult indeed?

There are obvious practical problems with the clause. Does wider society not have the right to require that somebody in these circumstances, if they are to claim the legal protection which society can afford, should be under the supervision of a medical practitioner? That would guard against potential abuse of the provisions and give clear guidance to the courts concerning who is or is not potentially protected by the Bill.

To be under medical supervision would not require that any particular medical procedures have been carried out or are in prospect. People can, after all, undergo gender reassignment without surgical intervention. Nor would people need legally to reassign their gender in order to come under the protection of the Bill; they would simply need the supportive supervision of a medical practitioner, and to have got to that point in the process before claiming the formal protection of this law. To accept this amendment would not, of course, justify discriminatory behaviour towards those who are not under medical supervision, but it would mean that the formal support of the law could be claimed only by those whose sense of compulsion to reassign their gender had a degree of recognition and support by the medical profession.

I finish on a more general point that may be the most fundamental of all. The Bill appears to reduce gender identity to a matter of personal and individual choice. If so, are there wider problems beyond the specific and specialised issue of transgendering in such a move? We often dwell in our debates on the social consequence of family breakdown and the general confusion over human relationships in our society, and it is usually the children who suffer most, as the recent Second Reading debate on the Child Poverty Bill made plain once again.

The constitution of the human race as male and female is fundamental—equal and different. Certainly, the genetic and physiological differences between male and female are far greater than the other protected characteristics. Furthermore, it seems significant that people usually have an awareness of themselves as either male or female. There is no protected characteristic of being neither male nor female, or the androgynous state of being both male and female. Most people have a sense of being or wanting to be one or the other. Would giving legal protection to transgendering or transgender people on their self-certification alone serve further to undermine a proper sense of the differentiation of male and female and, therefore, equality? It is too important an issue for wider society to be regarded merely as a matter of individual decision and self-certification.

These more general concerns undergird the practical considerations that I outlined earlier. Would it not be safer all round—not least in relation to young people, who often feel confusion about their gender as well as their sexuality—to continue to encourage the proper support and supervision of the medical profession; and to require this if legal protection against discrimination is to be invoked? It seems as though there is some confusion over whether the intention is to give protection to those who are seriously engaged in gender reassignment—which is how the clause sounds and, indeed, how it appears in the title—or whether, in accordance with the notes, it is designed to give protection to all and sundry, including those who are experimenting with cross-dressing.

Young people are most vulnerable in all this, not least because there are those who may experiment, suffer confusion about sexual identity and orientation, and need every encouragement to seek professional help. This is, at this stage, a probing amendment, designed to clarify what the Government intend in amending the Sex Discrimination Act by removing the requirement for medical supervision. I beg to move.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2010-01-11/debates/10011139000077/EqualityBill#contribution-10011146000033

Baroness Thornton:

My Lords, this amendment would mean that transsexual people would have protection from discrimination because of gender reassignment only if they were under medical supervision. It would change the definition of the protected characteristic back to what it is in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2010-01-11/debates/10011139000077/EqualityBill#contribution-10011146000053

The Protected Characteristic of "Gender Reassignment" is a dangerous nonsense that has gone on long enough and needs to be removed from the Equality Act 2010. There are already sufficient protections in the Equality Act 2010 to cover people who think that they are the opposite sex, merely claim to be the opposite sex or do not conform to culturally‑determined sex‑stereotypes.

Getting a GRC is also essentially Self‑ID because, in essence, all you need to do is convince a couple of health care professionals that you have an opposite‑sex gender identity and it make you sad, ie. you have "gender dysphoria", and you do that indefinable "living in the acquired gender" thing. Such as changing the name on your gas bill from Larry to Loretta.

(1) An application under section 1(1)(a) must include either—

(a) a report made by a registered medical practitioner practising in the field of gender dysphoria and a report made by another registered medical practitioner (who may, but need not, practise in that field), or

(b) a report made by a [F4registered psychologist] practising in that field and a report made by a registered medical practitioner (who may, but need not, practise in that field).

“gender dysphoria” means the disorder variously referred to as gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder and transsexualism,

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents

The GRA needs to be repealed.

What does Goodwin really say?
Why the GRA can be repealed
Apr 14, 2025 ‑ Allesandra Asteriti
https://alessandraasteriti.substack.com/p/what-does-goodwin-really-say

GRA Repeal - Not Such a Pipe Dream
August 02, 2023 ‑ Danny Nicol
https://grarepeal.blogspot.com/2023/08/gra-repeal-not-such-pipe-dream.html

WDI UK Safeguarding Campaign - End Sex Falsification & Repeal GRA

RESTORE SAFEGUARDING – END SEX FALSIFICATION
Why the UK Government should repeal the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and remove the concepts of ‘gender reassignment’ and ‘gender identity’ from all law, policy and practice

Women’s Declaration International UK is calling on the UK Government to restore the safeguarding of women, children and other vulnerable groups by ending sex falsification. This would involve removing the concepts of ‘gender reassignment’ and ‘gender identity’ from all law, policy and practice.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5224792-5224792-wdi-uk-safeguarding-campaign-end-sex-falsification-repeal-gra?reply=142116848