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
Igmum · 22/05/2025 08:45

Thank you Mr and Mrs Cats. Hopefully this will help to make the WI a single sex space. I don’t have a DH but like to think if I did he would be totally up for this too.

borntobequiet · 22/05/2025 08:32

ThatCyanCat · 22/05/2025 08:06

And I'd be happy to contribute to a crowdfund.

Me too.

TangenitalContrivences · 22/05/2025 08:25

Maybe he could ask them if they will change their gendered name as well :) “project female”, same town, exactly the same issue…..

ArabellaScott · 22/05/2025 08:23

I'll raise you a malt.

Daleksatemyshed · 22/05/2025 08:13

Tell your DH I'll make it two beers🍻

EweSurname · 22/05/2025 08:11

Me too!

ThatCyanCat · 22/05/2025 08:06

And I'd be happy to contribute to a crowdfund.

Chersfrozenface · 22/05/2025 07:51

Thank you and well done the Cats

If you have the strength to keep pushing, I'll be cheering you on

Gundogday · 22/05/2025 07:38

Team Cats!

Original poster
Another2Cats · 22/05/2025 07:34

So, a very small update.

A quick recap; a week ago DH sent a letter before action to the WI giving them 28 days to accept him as a member or change their membership rules.

They replied yesterday. Well, it wasn't much of a reply. Essentially they said we're going to ignore your letter before action and we might condescend to consider your complaint eight weeks from now:

Dear [XXX]

Thank you for contacting NFWI.

I am writing to acknowledge the formal complaint you have submitted regarding the NFWI membership criteria. I can confirm your complaint has been opened and will be investigated by NFWI within the 8 week timeframe where possible as outlined within the policy.

I will be in contact in due course, attached is the NFWI Complaints policy for reference.

So, instead of engaging in any meaningful way with the complaint they've just kicked it into the long grass, presumably in the hope that it will all go away.

Well, my DH doesn't work like that.

So he replied to them asking if that is the only reply they have to the letter before action? He went on to say that unless they engaged meaningfully with the substantial complaint in the letter before action within seven days then he would have to assume that they had no intention at all of dealing with the matter. He would then commence a claim.

Which means that I'll have to start getting the Particulars of Claim sorted out over the weekend (with some help from DH).

Perhaps they'll take DH a bit more seriously once they have the claim form?

OP posts:
Gundogday · 15/05/2025 14:10

I guess if they change their name to ‘WI’ then they take the ‘woman’ out of their name as well, although the constitution will then have to change from ‘women’ to ‘people’

or change it to ‘PI’ - People’s Institute.

zenai · 15/05/2025 14:00

If they must allow transmen, would they have been "living as a woman"?

Also, how would anyone know short of a genital inspection, that a trans man is not a bio man anyway?

The whole issue is crazy.

I say make it mixed sex, since then the TiM won't have the drama and attention of being "women" and adored for it in female company.

Gundogday · 15/05/2025 13:51

I’d love to know the ‘living as a woman’ definition.

Davros · 15/05/2025 13:18

ThatCyanCat · 13/05/2025 09:05

Your husband is great.

Now he needs to reply saying "Well I've now decided my name is <<feminine version of his name>> and that I'm actually a woman, so can I come now?" As this is quite literally what you have to do to join as a man, it'll be interesting to see how they respond. Maybe include a photo of himself in a wig and makeup. We're going for a Bugs Bunny in drag aesthetic.

Don’t do this. Continue to interact with them as a man

IfYouPutASausageInItItsNotAViennetta · 15/05/2025 13:16

The WI should have seen this coming a mile off... or maybe they did and they actively wanted to make the organisation mixed sex?

Of course any males seeking validation that they are 'women', those determined to 'live as a woman' (whatever that could mean) and those who have decided to centre their whole life and identity around wanting to be a woman are obviously going to make a beeline to any group with 'women' in its actual name, and one that was originally established as an exclusively female organisation.

TheOtherRaven · 15/05/2025 12:56

This entire movement has worked on the principle of out of sight, unseen, manipulate leaders with 'cosy cups of tea' and chats in back rooms, and at all costs avoid transparency, democracy or anyone being allowed to consider that perhaps other people have rights or a say too.

lcakethereforeIam · 15/05/2025 12:56

Don't get me wrong it's not sympathy. I'm not the one socialising with these men. If some women have created an ethical dilemma for themselves they should have considered that. It's where 'be kind' can lead you and, by far, not the worst result. My sympathy lies with the women who've been kicked out, self excluded or gritted their teeth and endured because of men being coddled. I don't care how personable or lonely these blokes might be.

I'm surprised you took that from my post.

Gettingmadderallthetime · 15/05/2025 12:54

Greyskybluesky · 15/05/2025 08:38

A friend sent me this update she received in an email from the WI so I'm posting it here for info (sorry if already posted).

The WI works to connect, empower and support women, and we are committed to treating all our members with respect, dignity and understanding. In light of the Supreme Court ruling and interim update from the EHRC, we are taking time to consider carefully the implications for our organisation. While we consider and understand the impact of the judgement, our existing inclusion policies continue to apply. We encourage all members to continue supporting each other with respect and care at this time, as we have done throughout our 110 year history.

Did they ever have a vote or consult about including transwomen? If not I feel it's been VERY sneaky and based on members in leadership roles permitting this on behalf of other members because they were happy that TWAW. It's going to be awkward but perhaps the membership can now be consulted. They may wish to go mixed sex or set up another separate group. I suspect that trans members will not be happy except perhaps transmen. If TMAM then has the WI been excluding this group and they could now join?

JamieCannister · 15/05/2025 11:27

lcakethereforeIam · 15/05/2025 10:05

I suspect there might be a few Hayley Cropper-type tw who are probably valued and even loved members of their WI. These men might be genuinely vulnerable and may lose a major part of their social lives. On a case-by-case basis it could be genuinely, emotionally difficult to tell these men they are no longer welcome. However, if the law says they have to go then go they must.

I'm sure there are many lovely men who would benefit and benefit from an organisation such as the WI. It seems discriminatory not to also let them join just because they're not prepared to put on a skirt and lippy and....soften their hand movements, whatever the fuck that means!

The WI should signpost these men to other organisations that could fill the void in the event that they are told to leave.

Yeah, when the police turn up at a burglar's house, confiscate the stolen TV and return it to it's rightful owner, I tend to feel a lot of sympathy for the poor bloke missing Corrie too.

lcakethereforeIam · 15/05/2025 10:05

I suspect there might be a few Hayley Cropper-type tw who are probably valued and even loved members of their WI. These men might be genuinely vulnerable and may lose a major part of their social lives. On a case-by-case basis it could be genuinely, emotionally difficult to tell these men they are no longer welcome. However, if the law says they have to go then go they must.

I'm sure there are many lovely men who would benefit and benefit from an organisation such as the WI. It seems discriminatory not to also let them join just because they're not prepared to put on a skirt and lippy and....soften their hand movements, whatever the fuck that means!

The WI should signpost these men to other organisations that could fill the void in the event that they are told to leave.

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 15/05/2025 10:03

That should be in the EHRC guidance... what should you do if you've already illegally allowed some men (not others) to join your women's association? The options are, change your consitution to be mixed-sex or eject the men and prepare for a legal fightback? Would the EHRC offer any practical support if you do the latter?

SternJoyousBee · 15/05/2025 09:03

Greyskybluesky · 15/05/2025 08:40

Further to the above, I don't know why it's taking so long to "consider the implications" of a woman's organisation being only for women, but I appreciate they've put themselves in a very difficult position by not previously sticking to their own rules (and to existing law) so they have to work out a way of digging themselves out of that.

They are delaying as much as possible in the hope that they don’t have to tell the men they have to leave. They probably know how difficult these men can be especially when they are told “no”.

ZeldaFighter · 15/05/2025 08:58

I'll be honest, I started writing a complaint to the EHRC but I stopped. As with so many things touched by this madness, if they break up as an organisation by illegally centring men, women lose out. If they keep admitting men, women lose out. There never seems a way for women to win, even with the law on our side.

Gettingmadderallthetime · 15/05/2025 08:44

ZeldaFighter · 15/05/2025 08:32

Surely this is all now moot after the SC judgement. Transwomen are men in law and so if the WI allow them into the organisation, they are either breaking the law or they have to remove "Women" from their name.

They can't be that stupid. Their policy, accessible to the public on their website, is illegal.

More significantly they need to change their constitution with the Charity Commission as they are not operating within it.

Greyskybluesky · 15/05/2025 08:40

Further to the above, I don't know why it's taking so long to "consider the implications" of a woman's organisation being only for women, but I appreciate they've put themselves in a very difficult position by not previously sticking to their own rules (and to existing law) so they have to work out a way of digging themselves out of that.