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?

I also know of women called Michael and Steve. There are a lot of originally male names that are being used by women without reference to gender identity.

Well every day is a school day @POWNewcastleEastWallsend ! I googled as you suggested . Fortunately for me no images !
Now none of it makes sense……….( not gender identity none of that makes sense either I meant the WI policy)

So how do non binary pee then? No, on second thoughts don’t tell me , I prefer to live in ignorance!

It’s fascinating!

Well, I’ve taken one for the team, and asked the WI what ‘living as a woman’ means. They couldn’t tell me.

LOL, I have to hear more about this! What exactly did they say??

With op’s case due to proceed further in the next week or so, I don’t want to provide any further details as yet, but will in due course.

I’d be fascinated to hear the WI’s take what ‘living as a woman’ looks like.

Lady Denman came from a political and feminist family, was involved in women’s suffrage, and set up the Women’s Land Army. I think she’d know that you don’t live as a woman, you just one.

*just ARE one.

Do you not have anything better to do than make the women's institutes life difficult?

Are you seriously wasting money on this joke?

A better question might be "why is the WI determined to force the presence of a subset of men on its members without consulting them?"
Or, "why is the WI set on subverting its original mission?"

The WI is discriminating against all the male people who don’t identify as women who aren’t allowed to join.

Is it really ‘a joke’ to point out that this is discrimination?

Are you a member of the Women's Institute? If not, what business is this of yours?

But none of you actually believe men are being discriminated against or think it's a problem that men can't join the WI. You're just outraged that trans women are allowed to join.

OP has been clear from the start that it was a piss take and they've just got carried away with it. So yes, it is a joke.

Comprehension issues? There's a WI hobby group the OP's DH would like to join to go to, but isn't allowed, as he's male. Which is discrimination, as TW are allowed to join.

The WI is legally required to have membership criteria that are fair, transparent and nondiscriminatory. They are currently operating in a way that is in opposition to their articles of foundation and the charitable purposes under which they have status as a charity. If they clarify their criteria to something that is valid under the law this then they will have no difficulty. Neither OP nor her DH have created the difficulty. "All female people plus any males who say they meet an intangible and unprovable requirement that no one can define" is not a valid or legal set of criteria. OP's DH is willing to accept being excluded if their membership criteria are legally and reasonably constructed to exclude him and all other males. If some males are admitted then his maleness cannot be a legal reason to exclude him. He's not setting out to "make life difficult" he has a genuine desire to participate in the group's activities and should either be allowed to do so or should be given a legally valid reason why he can't.

The piss take was letting any men join in the first place, wasn’t it?

I dunno Sugar have you got nothing better to do than roam around these boards regularly scolding us?

What's the difference between a so-called "transwoman" and any other man?

@SugarSoiree OP and her DH were happy to respect the position of the WI excluding him from the activity he’d have liked to join in with. They had a legitimate aim to exclude men. However they seem to be allowing some men to attend, but not OP’s DH. That’s not fair. It’s not legitimate. He’s entitled to challenge it. Either he’s allowed to join or no men are.

I wonder what their constitutional set up is? I wonder whether they’d have to fold rather than admitting they include men?

Transactivism never fails to offer regressive views, does it?

"Screw the equality act!!"

The question you should be asking yourself @SugarSoiree is why you want to align yourself with people who are so desperate to discriminate.

I wonder if most of their membership know what's going on.

I should imagine a significant number would be absolutely aghast at this nonsense.

I have learnt to ignore posters such as SugarSoiree (and also WhatNextCatsAsDoctors from the previous thread)

The defence is due next week and, once DH has sight of it, he will then be in a better position to understand what "living as women" actually means as far as the WI are concerned.

I will provide a substantive update next weekend. But, at the moment it is all just speculation.

The WI have said, just like in the case between Sex Matters and the City of London Corporation over the Hampstead Ponds that they are specifically not relying on any single sex exception in the Equality Act.

The wording in the correspondence from the WI was almost exactly the same as that used by the City of London.

They have also said that they are also going with the section 158 defence.

DH is currently working through what a reply to those defences might look like.

But, DH hasn't got the actual defence yet so they may include those or they may pivot to some other defence, it's all a case of wait and see at the moment.

I deliberately didn’t join the WI as a result of this situation.

Actually, OP said her DH did want to join the WI so that he could take part in a particular hobby but couldn’t, as he isn’t a woman.

So yes, he is being discriminated against.

You can view it is ‘it’s a piss take that’s gone too far’, but what you’re really saying is that discrimination is acceptable when it suits your own personal ideology.

But if they don’t ask members to prove their sex before they can join, how do they know your DH is male? How does he? Did he have his chromosomes checked?

My grandmother used to go to the WI, she would be turning in her grave at all this nonsense.

Well done to you and your DH for taking them on.