Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

An update to the WI Announcement thread. My DH just got a reply to his application to join them.

966 replies

Another2Cats · 12/05/2025 19:49

This is not a thread about a thread, but recently there was a thread about the Womens Institute announcement that they would not be implementing the SC ruling anytime soon.

I was reading the thread at the time and, entirely jokingly, I suggested to my DH that he should apply to join the WI and see what they say.

So he did just that (he totally gets the GC point of view) and I posted about this at the time:

Another2Cats · 08/05/2025 19:45

I just got my DH to send an email to them:

Hello,

My name is Xxxx (very obviously masculine name). I just read your transgender policy and understand that you accept men.

I am a man and would like to join the local WI group in [xxxx city] (the nearest branch for me is in yyyy [suburb of xxxx city]).

Should I just turn up next Wednesday evening and sign up?

I'm really waiting with bated breath to see what sort of response there is.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5330297-womens-institute-announcement?reply=144143149
.

Well, it turns out that they sent a response this lunchtime.

This is their reply (although with contact details redacted):

Good morning,

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.

Kind regards,

[Redacted]

[Name Redacted]
Federation Secretary
[Two cities - well, a city and a town - redacted] Federation of WIs CIO
[Address redacted]
[Telephone number redacted]
Office hours: Tues, Weds, Thurs 9am – 1pm

Please note the new email address – [Redacted]
.

I don't know, is this something that DH should take up with the EHRC now that he has it in writing?

Women’s institute announcement | Mumsnet

Published earlier today.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5330297-womens-institute-announcement

OP posts:
Thread gallery
32
borntobequiet · 29/06/2025 09:41

Yes - literally none of it makes sense. But we know that’s a feature, not a bug.

Iamnotalemming · 29/06/2025 09:40

Thanks @Another2Cats for all the updates.

I just wanted to add an idea for later consideration in the litigation (assuming it continues). There is a useful tool in the Civil Procedure Rules, Part 18, under which a party can Request Further Information. So when you get the Defence, if you think the WI hasn't explained itself properly (eg what on earth is the disadvantage, what precisely is the WI doing for these poor disadvantaged souls etc) you could consider doing one of these.

Datun · 29/06/2025 09:29

Obviously the issue is blurred by the whole TWAW mindset, though.

It's so weird. The disadvantage can't be because they're women. It has to be because they're trans, in which case it's because they're men.

Because it's got nothing to do with actually being trans, as women who are trans aren't welcome!

edited to add and the argument that transwomen are more disadvantaged than transmen would fall apart in a heartbeat.

SidewaysOtter · 29/06/2025 09:24

To go with the example of the housing association, presumably their remit is to provide housing to all and that they prioritise certain groups within that “all” in order to correct an imbalance seems reasonable.

If they were a housing organisation that housed single people and they suddenly started prioritising families (of whatever religion etc.) then that would be outside their remit.

The latter scenario seems to be what’s going on here: an organisation set up for women is supporting a subset of men on the basis that there is an imbalance to correct, even though it’s outside their remit. Obviously the issue is blurred by the whole TWAW mindset, though.

Datun · 29/06/2025 08:55

ArabellaScott · 29/06/2025 08:44

They say that by the WI offering them things like help with leadership skills, mentoring, confidence building etc then this is closely connected with helping TIM overcome the disadvantages that they suffer in life. Or so they say.

Since when was that in their charitable objectives?

I have to say, if there wasn't so much at stake, I would be very interested in watching lawyers argue that men colonising women's spaces needed help with leadership skills and confidence boosting.

Original poster
Another2Cats · 29/06/2025 08:49

Firenzo · 28/06/2025 18:57

Oh there’s actually a Scottish WI, separate entity but the inclusion policy is incredibly woolly - doesn’t make it clear what a transgender woman is, and if I didn’t know better I would assume that would be a trans identified female.

No scary flags though on their website.

Inclusion policy:

https://www.theswi.org.uk/Equality,%20Diversity%20and%20Inclusion%20Policy.pdf

sorry for the slight detail -and if I’ve missed anyone discussing the Scottish WI previously.

Thanks. Yes, the Scottish WI is an entirely different organisation (although they are also TWAW).

It's funny looking back on it now, but it was very frustrating for my DH at the time. The name of the WI did cause problems when he commenced the claim.

So as not to cause any issues, he commenced the claim using the full name of the WI as the defendant. The full name is:

The National Federation of Women's Institutes of England, Wales, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man

So that's what he put down as the Defendant.

He then got an email back from the court saying that the name was too long for their computer system so they couldn't issue the claim. Would he please come up with a different name for the defendant?

So he went with National Federation of Women's Institutes instead.

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 29/06/2025 08:46

Womens lives are not a playground for inadequate men.

ArabellaScott · 29/06/2025 08:45

The argument is that women can help TIMs learn how to be women, perhaps?

ArabellaScott · 29/06/2025 08:44

They say that by the WI offering them things like help with leadership skills, mentoring, confidence building etc then this is closely connected with helping TIM overcome the disadvantages that they suffer in life. Or so they say.

Since when was that in their charitable objectives?

Original poster
Another2Cats · 29/06/2025 08:42

KnottyAuty · 28/06/2025 17:20

And just so I understand the points above:

  1. The WI is a single sex association which uses an exception in the EA to exclude males.
  2. They propose a legal defence that they wish to allow male/TIM members as a positive action against the detriment caused by their own single sex exemption (ETA - TIMs being a group which has no shared protected characteristic with women)

Please tell me I’ve misunderstood?!

Edited

"Please tell me I’ve misunderstood?!"

Yes, slightly.

The detriment that they are seeking to overcome is not caused by lack of membership of the WI but just general disadvantage that TIM suffer in general life.

They say that by the WI offering them things like help with leadership skills, mentoring, confidence building etc then this is closely connected with helping TIM overcome the disadvantages that they suffer in life. Or so they say.

In the case I mentioned above with the Haredi Jews, the court said that Haredi Jews in particular (partly due to their appearance) are subject to racially aggravated harassment etc and also prejudice when trying to rent properties in the private sector.

They also have a need for larger houses because they typically have very large families.

So, it was ok for the Housing Association to discriminate under S158 as the provision of larger homes to Haredi Jews was closely connected with overcoming the disadvantages and particular needs they had.
.

In contrast, what the WI can offer TIM to help them overcome any disadvantages they faced I am not entirely clear.

OP posts:
Datun · 29/06/2025 08:37

borntobequiet · 29/06/2025 08:31

This is why by taking this case to court with sufficient financial backing could do a great deal of good.

And possibly why very strenuous efforts will be undertaken in order to prevent it going to court.

Edited
Show quote history

I agree completely.

The tactic of installing people in positions of authority and power in these organisations really bloody works.

I'm sure most of the membership either don't know, or would disagree with inviting people like that.

And yet, their logo is merrily trans rainbow washed, make it look like a trans organisation

borntobequiet · 29/06/2025 08:31

Datun · 29/06/2025 08:19

Good Lord. What has happened to the WI?

They've had a paedophile promoter, a man who draws up kill lists of people who disagree with his membership, and a fetishist. All welcomed.

Show quote history

This is why by taking this case to court with sufficient financial backing could do a great deal of good.

And possibly why very strenuous efforts will be undertaken in order to prevent it going to court.

Original poster
Another2Cats · 29/06/2025 08:27

WithSilverBells · 28/06/2025 16:58

I’d really echo those suggesting you get representation or legal input on this (if you don’t have it in the background already) - the case will be important if it progresses, it could feasibly be a test case for how the legal landscape works post FWS and set precedent for other decisions if it is appealed by either party.

It is one thing to read the Equality Act and to make intelligent and informed arguments about it. The OP and lots of women on here are doing that admirably. But we know bugger all about Case Law and that will require an experienced legal expert.
I'm already concerned that the OP has been put in the situation of having had a conversation with the other side's lawyers, with no lawyer of their own present.

"I'm already concerned that the OP has been put in the situation of having had a conversation with the other side's lawyers, with no lawyer of their own present."

Thank you for your concern WithSilverBells, it is appreciated.

OP posts:
Original poster
Another2Cats · 29/06/2025 08:24

PepeParapluie · 28/06/2025 16:40

I have been following this but from a distance. OP you and your husband are being courageous taking this on, particularly via formal legal proceedings. You sound eminently sensible and well informed and much more able to pursue this than average litigants in person would be.

But I’d really echo those suggesting you get representation or legal input on this (if you don’t have it in the background already) - the case will be important if it progresses, it could feasibly be a test case for how the legal landscape works post FWS and set precedent for other decisions if it is appealed by either party. It is also likely to attract media attention at some point. Litigation is so risky and so stressful; a professional team would be able to shield you from some of the worst of that and guide you through it. It must be worth approaching FSU, Sex Matters etc to see if there might be support available, either pro bono or funded (for which I’m sure you’d get lots of crowd funding).

Thank you for your thoughts on this.

"...it could feasibly be a test case for how the legal landscape works post FWS and set precedent for other decisions if it is appealed by either party. It is also likely to attract media attention at some point."

Yes, DH is very aware of this particular point. I won't say any more but (to use the American term) this isn't his first rodeo.
.

"It must be worth approaching..."

Things are going on in the background that I would prefer not to talk about in public at the moment.

OP posts:
Datun · 29/06/2025 08:19

Seriestwo · 29/06/2025 07:28

Malcolm Clark has a thread on the WI’s relaxed attitude towards paediphile supporters. x.com/twisterfilm/status/1938957334530666964?s=46

Good Lord. What has happened to the WI?

They've had a paedophile promoter, a man who draws up kill lists of people who disagree with his membership, and a fetishist. All welcomed.

Original poster
Another2Cats · 29/06/2025 08:08

Brefugee · 28/06/2025 14:05

sorry, i should have been more clear. They don't claim to be single sex. They treat the word "woman" as a gender. So no men who identify as men. No women who identify as men. But anyone who identifies as a woman can go in.

I think we have more chance gettning the Hampstead ladies pond back, than getting the WI to say "no men, however they identify"

Show quote history

"I think we have more chance gettning the Hampstead ladies pond back"

Sex Matters have started on that. They sent a letter before action to the City of london Corporation on the 17th June. They asked for a reply by 1st July.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/letter-before-claim-on-kenwood-ladies-pond/

Letter before claim on Kenwood Ladies' Pond

We have sent a letter before claim to the Corporation of London over its failure to take heed of the Supreme Court's judgment and ensure that the Kenwood

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/letter-before-claim-on-kenwood-ladies-pond/

OP posts:
Liverstreaming · 29/06/2025 08:04

Another2Cats · 29/06/2025 08:00

Likely not, DH is a man.

Show quote history

It would be worth applying, should this progress. As it is a private fund, it can be flexible in what it supports (unlike a charity which needs to work within its constitution).

And yes I know the WI are ignoring that last bit!

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 29/06/2025 08:03

Another2Cats · 29/06/2025 08:00

Likely not, DH is a man.

Show quote history

He is a man, but the WI is supposed to be a women’s space, and a big, well-known and well-established women’s space, at that, meaning this will be well-publicised - and your action, though instigated by a man, is in essence about getting a women’s space to admit that they are nothing of the sort. I would at the very least approach the fund - the worst they can say is no.

Original poster
Another2Cats · 29/06/2025 08:00

zenai · 28/06/2025 13:06

Would the JKR legal fund be relevant here I wonder?

Likely not, DH is a man.

OP posts:
Original poster
Another2Cats · 29/06/2025 07:57

MyAmpleSheep · 28/06/2025 12:31

>The other thing, DH was asked a couple of times if he was a lawyer. I thought that was funny as DH has a very manual (although reasonably well paying) job. He appeared surprised that DH could string a couple of sentences together and put together a particulars of claim.

No offence, but he's smarter than you, and way way way ahead of you. Law firms prepare litigation every day for breakfast. Their campaign has already started. They will (obviously) flatter you and talk you up how great you are, to put you off from professional representation. A good barrister will wipe the floor with you in court.

Edited

"They will (obviously) flatter you and talk you up how great you are, to put you off from professional representation."

I asked DH about this and, no, it was not done in a tone to flatter him in any way at all.

OP posts:
Original poster
Another2Cats · 29/06/2025 07:53

NoBinturongsHereMate · 28/06/2025 12:00

Initial thoughts.

  1. The clause allows positive action (a form of discrimination) despite the provisions of the EA. But this presumably means 'despite the EA as a whole' (the purpose of which is promoting equality by preventing discrimination). But does that permit positive action despite the exceptions to the EA (the SSEs themselves being a form of discrimination, and also a form of positive action)?

In other words, does positive action A override positive action B? And if so, is that a necessary or merely a permissable prioritising of one over the other? And how do you decide which gets priority? This may have already arisen in the workplace case law, but I can see it becoming a very knotty legal argument.

  1. The disadvantage they claim as a reason.for letting in TW would presumably have to be one that applied to TW, but not to either other men or to TM. It will be interesting to see what they come up with for that.
  1. It's that pesky 'sharing' again, isn't it? Their example of housing prioritising Haredi Jews was about 1 single group. It presumably wasn't housing for over 55s that then gave priority to Haredi Jews (regardless of age), or housing for those with physical disabilities that then prioritised able-bodied Haredi.

TW and women do not share a characteristic. Which links back to point 1 - it's not a question of giving disadvantaged group A priority over the general population, but over disadvantaged group B (and in the process adding further disadvantage for some of the latter). Can they justify why A gets priority?

"...example of housing prioritising Haredi Jews was about 1 single group. It presumably wasn't housing for over 55s that then gave priority to Haredi Jews (regardless of age)"

No it was, as you say, just one protected group.

Everything turns on the facts of a case. In this situation, the court said that this group suffers a lot of disadvantages and one particular need they have that is different is for larger homes, since Haredi Jewish families often have 5 or 6 children.

This HA mainly has larger homes for rent specifically for this reason.

The Court said that because of the disadvantages and the particular need for larger houses that this came under S158 because providing larger houses was closely connected with overcoming those disadvantages and dealing with the particular needs.

Applying that to the situation of the WI, I do wonder what they could actually do that would be closely connected with overcoming any disadvantages faced by TIM

This is the case:

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2020/40.html

Z & Anor, R (on the application of) v Hackney London Borough Council & Anor (Rev 1) [2020] UKSC 40 (16 October 2020)

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2020/40.html

OP posts:
Original poster
Another2Cats · 29/06/2025 07:37

Brefugee · 28/06/2025 10:57

So their case boils down to "no, women can't have anything for themselves if TIM want in"

But your point about admitting someone with a GRA under the belief the law forced them to do so is a good one.

Unfortunately, the rules of Be Kind, indicate to me that your DH will lose this and women will lose out. And hopefully GC women will leave the WI in droves, but i am not holding my breath.

Did your DH ask the lawyer not to use the "cis" term at all (this is an aside and you don't need to answer if you don't want)

"Did your DH ask the lawyer not to use the "cis" term at all (this is an aside and you don't need to answer if you don't want)"

No, this was very much an information gathering exercise for DH (just as much as it was for them). He didn't want to appear confrontational in any way, but just very meek and mild so that he could get them to say as much as possible.

OP posts:
Original poster
Another2Cats · 29/06/2025 07:35

Thank you everyone for your replies. I'm sorry that I didn't respond earlier but we were out at a barbecue all day yesterday.

Having read all the replies there are a couple of common themes that kept cropping up so I'll address those in this post and then reply individually to other posts.

Yes, DH does believe that the telephone call from the solicitors was somewhat of a fishing expedition to understand who he was and whether they could just make this go away.

DH was very aware of that and only shared such information that he wanted to. For example, on one topic, the lawyer asked DH basically the same question phrased in three different ways. DH simply deflected those questions.

But it was also useful from his point of view to get a heads up as to what their possible defence is going to be.

The solicitors are going to send DH examples of what disadvantage TIM suffer and how the WI help overcome that. DH requested that information from them to help gauge the strength of their argument.
.

Secondly, as to having legal representation, I think I mentioned on this thread about four weeks ago that it was never the plan that DH would have his day in court (unless it was needed as a witness).

The hope all along was that this matter could be resolved without a hearing but we were very aware from the outset that if that was not the case then legal representation would be a necessity.

With the extra piece of work I mentioned above, DH agreed to an extension of six weeks in which to serve the defence (they had wanted seven weeks). There is quite a period of time now before anything further will happen.

Depending on what they send DH next week, I will update this thread then but after that there likely won't be anything further until the middle of August.

OP posts:
Seriestwo · 29/06/2025 07:28

Malcolm Clark has a thread on the WI’s relaxed attitude towards paediphile supporters. x.com/twisterfilm/status/1938957334530666964?s=46

PepeParapluie · 29/06/2025 07:19

BettyBooper · 28/06/2025 23:48

On thinking about it, I think that the Mr Clever Lawyer was actually angling that your DHs claim was being made under false pretenses, what with his questions about your husbands interests.

I agree with the others. Lawyer up.

(I don't think your DH claim is false, I just think the phone call is well dodge and agree they are scoping you).

I agree with this, I wonder if he was hoping to get a smoking gun type comment from your DH that he can use to show this is ‘vexatious’ litigation - I.e. not genuine, so they can play the man and ignore the ball.

I’d be careful about speaking to him or other lawyers from the other side on the phone. If you get a lawyer, it’ll be improper for the other side’s lawyers to speak to you directly, they’ll have to go through your lawyer, which will give you a bit of a shield from any kind of fishing expeditions from the other side.