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

Out of curiosity, just looked at The Inner Wheel, the female equivalent of The Rotary Club. Thought this info was interesting (and relevant) so may be helpful to op.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

There's no need for you to prove or demonstrate your DH's desire to join, OP.

If the WI think a man can magically transmogrify into a woman just by some wishful thinking then they can sure as fuck accept a man having a sincere wish to join their organisation.

Subject: Re: WI Membership Policy
Dear [Name],

Thanks for the clarification — though I must say, it's quite something.
“WI membership is open to all women who live as women, including transgender women.”
Interesting. So “women who live as women” — is that some kind of performance metric? Are there costumes? A points system? Or is this just a polite way of saying, “Anyone who says the word ‘woman’ out loud qualifies”?

Also: if “trans women are women,” why the add-on? “Including transgender women” — as opposed to what, imaginary ones? Either they are women and need no special mention, or they aren’t and you’re bending the rules. Pick one. You can’t have both.

“If you fit within this statement, you will be more than welcome to attend.”
Ah yes — fit within a definition that has no definition. So to clarify: I’m excluded for being honest about being male, but a man who declares himself female — with no change of body, behaviour, or belief beyond the magic words — is welcomed. Got it. A policy by vibes.

“I’m afraid the WI is not open to men.”
Except, clearly, it is. You just don’t call them men once they say they’re not. So your exclusion is purely semantic: the right man with the right password (“I’m a woman”) sails through.
I do admire the commitment to contradiction. It takes a certain institutional confidence to say, in one breath, “We don’t admit men” — and in the next, “We admit male people who say they aren’t men because saying that instantly makes them female.” Orwell would be proud.

Thanks again. At least now I understand: it’s not a women’s institute. It’s a self-identification club with nostalgic branding.
Best,
[Name]

If someone identifies as having an interest in joining, who is WhatNextCatsAsDoctors to question it?

He's applied to join. That demonstrates a wish to join.

Not sure we are reading the thread the same way - I read it as:

• historically OP's DH would love to have joined in a specific activity at the WI where he has an interest, but hasn't been able to because it was for women only...
• when the OP realised that the WI was choosing not to let in men, but would let in men if they pretended to be women, she jokingly said to her DH - that he should apply and see what they said

that is hardly a bad faith email - he would like to join, has wanted to historically and now there is an opportunity. Presumably OP was 'joking' because she couldn't believe that the WI would be silly enough in the light of the recent judgement to ban all women unless they wear pearls and a twinset - because that would clearly be illegal...

seems pretty straightforward...

Do female WI members have to prove a genuine interest in joining?

And why can't someone become interested, after looking into an organisation they'd not previously considered and discovering the group does a particular activity?

This contradicts what you wrote on the first page:
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:

That does not read as you outlined above at all. It was clearly a bad faith email in which your husband had no genuine intention of joining the WI, but just wanted to test what the WI would say after the SC clarification. Key giveaway word:

entirely jokingly

Now you claim it comes from a genuine, earnest place. Something doesn’t add up.

I’d read that as meaning that their policy (defining what a woman is) isn’t compatible with their constitution. Or at very least, they could see the light and comply with SC-mandated common sense by simply amending their policy to align with reality without the need for a membership vote to change the constitution. I’m glad he’s pursuing this.

Watching the thread. Keen to see what the WI eventually do. Also, will contribute to jam making and flower arranging supplies if needed. We can't directly link to fundraisers on the thread but I am sure someone will think of a way to point us in the right direction. Thank you and your DH.

And the constitution also specifies membership as being for women.

No. Because the constitution already says that membership is open to any adult woman. So there is not a need for any constitutional change. They would just have to admit they had been mis-applying their membership criteria but are committed to complying with the law/reality now that the SC has pointed this up.

No. They may have policies saying they let in TW, but the registered charitable aim and the articles of association say it is for the education of women and girls.

Or the third option - let it go to court so they don’t have to take a stance one way or the other and can let the court make the decision for them.

That way, they get to keep looking like the inclusive saints they perceive themselves to be, but they also get back to a workable definition of woman to survive as an organisation.

It certainly won’t solve their problems and would be costly, but they might be tempted by this to enable them to save face and to wash their hands of the responsibility of actively leading their own organisation.

All power to you and your DH, OP!! Just posting here to say will also happily do some gardening for you if it comes to that!

The WI will basically have two options - remain women only which will involve the horrific, traumatic and apparently world shaking consequence of saying no to men

or change their name and consistution to be something like the institute for people of feminine gender in interests (whatever the hell that means) and be unable to refuse any members of either sex because the EqA will no longer be available to use as protection against discrimination.

Either would be fine, it's up to them. They just cannot have the cake and eat it too.

As far as I understand it, the SC decision is that woman means and has always meant bio woman, draws on historical cases in law, so no.

Probably. IANAL.

They could try and get an ammendment that changes the section on associations. In an ideal world where no one was being drummed out of town for their choices in this regard I would support clubs being allowed to form how they wished as long as it was made clear - if you want a club for women and men with the pc of gr then go for it. On the grounds of freedom of association. But it's not an ideal world.

It's pointless speculating about their next move really, even though I started it!

Not that I think this is in any way unlikely but can you imagine the insanity of the Women's Institute seeking a removal of women's protections in law? This is what seeking change to the EA would in fact mean. As well as seeking to remove protections from homosexual people and women with trans identities.

So that men can force themselves on non consenting women in a state of undress.

Wouldn't reverting to woman=woman also require a constitution change?

They could also just wait to be sued, not spend too much money on it, let a court tell them to change their policy and then be forced into doing it. Say 'we tried' and revert to woman=woman 'our hands are tied'. Then if they are really pro twaw they can have 'change the EA' as one of their campaigns.

That would require a change in their constitution (would need a member vote?). And a change of the registered charitable objectives with the Charity Commission.

On an administrative level that's a much harder route than reverting to.women=women.