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?

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.

And yet the WI specifically refers to its women only exception being based on being assigned female at birth in its EDI policy.

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.

Doesn't this open up a can of worms?

If sex isn't binary (and like Isla Bumba, many people have not had chromosome tests), are they opening up the possibility that your DH could be a woman, even if he doesn't 'live as a woman'. Are they suggesting that some people need chromosome tests to joint the WI and some don't? This sounds like yet another form of discrimination against people who they assume to be men!

The WI’s defence lacks coherency.

Sad times.

Your assumption is wrong.

If I wouldn't accept this kind of differentiation at a golf club that treats women as second class members, why is it acceptable at the WI?

The WI's argument is also based on the sexist and oppressive premise that members are somehow 'living as women'.

Do you have legal representation?

It’s no bloody joke turning up at your previously supportive WI meeting and being lectured by some bloke in a dress about how you should welcome him into female spaces, and finding oout that this is now W I policy ( imposed without a vote from the membership).

Ah the legendary "scolding" 🙄

What would you call it? Telling us off for wasting time ...

Place marking OP. Thanks for taking one for the team. This 'single sex on the tin but isn't really' malarkey absolutely is our business.

Looking forward to the update, albeit with trepidation but I'm wondering if anything from the judgement on the Harriet Haynes Vs EBPF will have any bearing.
https://x.com/legalfeminist/status/1951230581838110725?

Obviously it's slightly different and I still haven't quite got my head round it but HH sued on the grounds of GR discrimination (HH has a GRC and possibly therefore didn't think it was applicable to/ was advised not to, sue on the grounds of sex discrimination).
I think the case was lost (in part?) because female people who are trans are not prevented from entering https://x.com/legalfeminist/status/1951226561379672394?
As I said, I haven't quite got my head around it (even the judge wasn't quite sure of their arguments, so I forgive myself!) but it seems as muddled as the WI's stance.

I think what was said afterwards (but not binding) was that even if the claim was on the grounds of sex, it still would have failed as pool is a sex affected sport
https://x.com/legalfeminist/status/1951239999615009233?

I think the rot comes right from the top. The boards and management of these venerable women's institutions are being populated by well educated usually female activists who are burnishing their progressivist credentials by implementing these woke policies. The policies they implement will be harmful to the institutions as membership falls off, but the instigators benefit and eventually move on to do the same in another institution. It is like asset stripping in the corporate world.

Looking forward to seeing this play out tbh.

I think the case was lost (in part?) because female people who are trans are not prevented from entering

The case was lost because HH made a claim of gender reassignment discrimination, for which the comparator is a regular non-trans male. HH was being treated the same as such a person, hence no discrimination.

Had HH made a claim of sex discrimination, the defence would have been that pool is a gender-affected sport, and therefore sex discrimination is allowed. However, this didn't come into play because HH didn't make this claim.

Someone asked if you have representation yet but I noticed earlier you mentioned you DH is thinking about his defence. If the next correspondence arrives and it this looks like it will escalate I really recommend finding a good solicitor. If you aren’t doing so what’s the reason? If it’s money, please crowdfund. If your husband or you are a shit hot lawyer, great!

If I’ve understood the case correctly, whether or not the claimant made a sex discrimination claim, the respondent defended against such a claim and the judge ruled on it: pool is a sex-affected sport. This should give other pool organisations a free hand to go back to women-only competitions and why not snooker too? Someone could make the claim that snooker and pool are different, but with one of them ruled as sex-affected, it’s much much harder to argue that the other is not.

Having now read around that part in the actual judgement (and I understand now what LF meant in their tweet) I see that, that statement is part of EBPF's defence (?) and not the judgement.

IIRC HH didn’t want to claim sex discrimination because he didn’t want to say he was a man. He would still have lost, but, while his lawyers mentioned that option they didn’t argue it.

I am outraged that women are being force-teamed with MCW. That is the only reason to try to keep out men without the PC of GR - to conflate the class of women with men who say they are women or claim to be lesbians, etc. It's a political move by the leadership.

Ideally the WI should be women-only, but if any subset of men are permitted membership, so should all men be. Otherwise it is grossly unfair.

For the record, I would have no problem with the WI limiting their membership to people who self define as having a female gender - so people who describe themselves as 'cis' and trans women. That is a belief based group, and if I don't share that belief, it is none of my business. (Although I appreciate that there would be administrative hassle if there were a split in the organisation).

I object to the the attempt to impose gender on all women, which I think is just basic feminism.

I do have an issue with it, I think all “gender” based groups should be obliged to make that clear, so I wouldn’t support them being able to call themselves the “Women’s Institute” because it isn’t true. I have no objection in principle to men who identify as women and those women who support them forming organisations but they aren’t “women only” or “women focussed”.

The Institute for the female gendered, @Merrymouse ?

Or the Female Gendered’s Institute?

It’s a bit of a mouthful, but it would no longer be the Women’s Institute.

The Feminine institute?

The institute of Femininity?

Deleted - need to think about this.

Might have to work on the new name, but if I accept that people can be Scientologists, I don't think I can object to genderists.