Page 32 | An update to the WI Announcement thread. My DH just got a reply to his application to join them.

Another2Cats · 2025-05-12T18:49:47+00:00

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 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?

NoBinturongsHereMate · 14/05/2025 08:38

I remember the case, but I thought that one was a lesbian group rather than a victim support one.

Either way, it was a group of women who legitimately wanted a single-sex group, a man followed them to a private home and agressively demanded entrance.

LittleBitofBread · 14/05/2025 08:24

TheOtherRaven · 13/05/2025 19:46

You also have to keep reminding yourself that it's bigger than just these few men and this one at least relatively harmless situation - although women have been driven out of the WI by men being admitted.

Once you remove the clear boundary of women having women-only groups, we are back to that group of rape survivors with men on the home driveway of one of them, trying to make the police force their entry to prevent those women being able to meet and support each other without them - meeting their needs in however being with those women was serving them. They would not permit escape.

Lesbian groups have been brigaded, taken over, shut down, driven underground. Women's health support groups about female only conditions were taken over and destroyed by men who insisted they had to use that group for them in the way they wanted, or stop women being allowed to talk about their biology.

We're not talking about a nice, reasonable political movement here. We are not talking about any good will towards women of any kind. Please stop with the well intentioned be kind sentimental niceness, you are just handing women straight back to that misery that drove women to fight through courts for years to get the right to say single sex MEANS no men. Not even the nice ones. Not even in harmless jam making. NO. If it's mixed sex then fine, it's mixed sex, but it cannot call itself women's and admit men.

Edited

Sorry for slight derail, but do you have a link to the (shocking) rape survivors with men on the home driveway thing? I hadn't heard about it.

BonfireLady · 14/05/2025 07:36

But if you really want to live as a woman there will be no ankle propping.

I hope that the WI either comes down firmly on this and ejects members (male or female) who display this lack of correct** womenly behaviour or that it chooses to follow the law on the single sex exemption. They can't have it both ways.

They either need to expressly declare themselves to be a mixed-sex members group that is centred around the interests, looks and mannerisms that are considered to be stereotypically female or change their policy and become a single-sex group.

If they choose the latter, they will obviously need to eject any males from their membership, no matter how daintily they cross their ankles, how soft their hands and the gestures they perform with them, how pretty their dress or how much they love [insert any stereotypical hobby/interest traditionally associated with women].

**Edited to add that this is sarcasm, in case this post gets screenshot and cropped.

inkymoose · 13/05/2025 23:37

ShockedandStunnedRepeatedly · 13/05/2025 08:59

So if I do that thing where I prop my ankle up on my opposite knee and lean back in my chair with my shoulders back, I’m not living as a woman ?

Show quote history

Oh dear me, no. Women who live as women do not prop up their ankles on their opposite knee in a manly manner.

Leaning back in the chair is slovenly rather than manly. Leaning back in the chair is more of a teenage attribute, just laziness really, but on the other hand, putting your shoulders back is optional, as it isn't necessarily either manly or womanly to put your shoulders back.

But if you really want to live as a woman there will be no ankle propping.

NotAtMyAge · 13/05/2025 22:50

Viviennemary · 13/05/2025 16:50

In the interests of diversity and inclusiveness. I can't see why not. Might liven things up a bit.

Show quote history

So a group consisting entirely of women can't be diverse, inclusive, lively or interesting? I must say you seem to have a low opinion of women as a sex...

Greyskybluesky · 13/05/2025 22:48

TheOtherRaven · 13/05/2025 18:29

Interesting too the idea that it's all dull until a man's there.

And there's something wrong with a women only situation - not 'inclusive'. Not 'diverse'. No amount of inclusivity or diversity of the women within a women only group is enough to count apparently.

Women are never enough in themselves are they? No good until you add something to spritz the wretched, tedious things up a bit.

Edited

Show quote history

Great post 👏👏👏

OdeToBarney · 13/05/2025 22:44

Following for the post-LBA update. Your DH is bloody wonderful, @Another2Cats

Gundogday · 13/05/2025 22:01

WhatNextCatsAsDoctors · 13/05/2025 19:00

I read this thread and just felt really sad. Not angry, just sad. Because if we’re at the point where we have to stage a fake situation to try and prove some kind of threat, doesn’t that say something in itself?

If trans women joining the WI were genuinely causing harm, wouldn’t there be real examples to point to? The fact that someone had to get their husband to pretend to be interested, just to bait a response, kind of shows the opposite.

What makes it even more troubling is the tone. People seem to be taking real glee in this. But that doesn’t make it more convincing. If anything, it confirms what critics keep pointing out. For some, this has started to look like a hobby and fun.

We can absolutely talk about boundaries and policies. But surely we can do that without making things up. If we care about truth and fairness, we have to start from a place of honesty.

Did you know the Girl guides has a similar policy that allows trans-girls (ie boys) to go to guide meetings and also to share tents with girls?

Yes, maybe op and Mr Cats did send their email as a bit of fun, but the response shows how silly the situation has, that the organisation both allows men and excludes them at the same time, and the only difference is that the permitted ones do ‘pink’ jobs. I wonder if any of our female firefighters, train drivers, football players etc will be excluded from the WI as they do ‘male’ jobs?

WithSilverBells · 13/05/2025 21:58

WhatNextCatsAsDoctors · 13/05/2025 19:00

I read this thread and just felt really sad. Not angry, just sad. Because if we’re at the point where we have to stage a fake situation to try and prove some kind of threat, doesn’t that say something in itself?

If trans women joining the WI were genuinely causing harm, wouldn’t there be real examples to point to? The fact that someone had to get their husband to pretend to be interested, just to bait a response, kind of shows the opposite.

What makes it even more troubling is the tone. People seem to be taking real glee in this. But that doesn’t make it more convincing. If anything, it confirms what critics keep pointing out. For some, this has started to look like a hobby and fun.

We can absolutely talk about boundaries and policies. But surely we can do that without making things up. If we care about truth and fairness, we have to start from a place of honesty.

This is what happens when you bypass debate and discussion and democracy. We have to use the Law to force the discussions that should have been had all along. What you are observing is a grassroots movement of women (aided by some concerned men) trying to restore the democratic process, which is broken because gutless politicians either deliberately thwarted it or tried to look the other way or just couldn't be bothered to understand the problems because they weren't happening to the important people - adult men

Gundogday · 13/05/2025 21:50

Go team AnotherCats. What you’re doing is Purrfect. It’s simple action like this that illustrates the ludicrous-y of it all.

(Although I do get that they’re trying to be well-meaning to people ‘living as a woman’ (whatever this means), but to do this, you need a definition of ‘living like a woman’, and I can guarantee, that most actual women Won’t pass this test. Will they get evicted?)

Jellyjellyonaplate · 13/05/2025 21:49

Would Mr Cats like to become a girl guide leader?
I think you're doing a great job in rattling a few cages at the WI and hopefully rescuing it from its issues

SternJoyousBee · 13/05/2025 21:40

Viviennemary · 13/05/2025 16:50

In the interests of diversity and inclusiveness. I can't see why not. Might liven things up a bit.

Show quote history

Why would allowing TW to join for but not other men be diverse or inclusive? It sounds exclusionary to me? Allowing ALL men to join would be inclusion

But the WI is meant to be exclusive to women only. If they rely on the single sex exemption in the EA2010 then they are currently leaving themselves wide open to a discrimination case.

SternJoyousBee · 13/05/2025 21:37

Viviennemary · 13/05/2025 15:27

If that's their decision let them crack on with it. I think it would be quite interesting to have a trans person in the WI. What harm can it do. It's not the same as sports, changing rooms, prisons and the like.

Interesting? What would be “interesting” about a TW? They aren’t a piece of entertainment or a museum specimen.

SidewaysOtter · 13/05/2025 21:31

WhatNextCatsAsDoctors · 13/05/2025 19:00

I read this thread and just felt really sad. Not angry, just sad. Because if we’re at the point where we have to stage a fake situation to try and prove some kind of threat, doesn’t that say something in itself?

If trans women joining the WI were genuinely causing harm, wouldn’t there be real examples to point to? The fact that someone had to get their husband to pretend to be interested, just to bait a response, kind of shows the opposite.

What makes it even more troubling is the tone. People seem to be taking real glee in this. But that doesn’t make it more convincing. If anything, it confirms what critics keep pointing out. For some, this has started to look like a hobby and fun.

We can absolutely talk about boundaries and policies. But surely we can do that without making things up. If we care about truth and fairness, we have to start from a place of honesty.

There doesn’t have to be harm in terms of someone getting physically hurt, it’s the harm to women who are looking for a woman-only space and either find themselves having to share those spaces with men who call themselves women - and not being allowed to speak up about it however unhappy and uncomfortable they are - but it’s also the women who either leave or who don’t join in the first place. They miss out on the community, the support, finding new friends etc, which is what the WI is supposed to be for.

Even for those who have a WI that is free of men who call themselves women, you know that one could rock up to the next group and there’s nothing you can do about it your complaints will be ignored and you’ll be told you were in the wrong.

It’s ruining a woman-only space and that’s the harm.

ThatCyanCat · 13/05/2025 21:27

WhatNextCatsAsDoctors · 13/05/2025 19:00

I read this thread and just felt really sad. Not angry, just sad. Because if we’re at the point where we have to stage a fake situation to try and prove some kind of threat, doesn’t that say something in itself?

If trans women joining the WI were genuinely causing harm, wouldn’t there be real examples to point to? The fact that someone had to get their husband to pretend to be interested, just to bait a response, kind of shows the opposite.

What makes it even more troubling is the tone. People seem to be taking real glee in this. But that doesn’t make it more convincing. If anything, it confirms what critics keep pointing out. For some, this has started to look like a hobby and fun.

We can absolutely talk about boundaries and policies. But surely we can do that without making things up. If we care about truth and fairness, we have to start from a place of honesty.

It's not a fake situation. An organisation that claims to be for women is actually mixed sex and basically lying about it. Not to mention that a man claiming to be a woman is as fake as it gets. OP's husband is being honest and not pretending he becomes or lives as a woman if he wears a skirt and a wig.

For some, this has started to look like a hobby and fun.

If you think we've been having FUN these last X years while men in dresses ran roughshod over our rights and got dissenters smeared, traduced and silenced, you've been in another plane of reality. Where is all this bloody compassion when women and girls are being shat on and why does it only make an appearance when we point out the absurdity and, indeed, the harm... and tacitly urge us to keep on taking it?

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 13/05/2025 21:20

Yes, the constitution of the Women’s Institute could theoretically be changed to admit men, but it would require formal approval and significant internal support.

Here’s how it would work and the challenges involved:

1. Who controls the constitution?

The WI constitution is a model document governed by the National Federation of Women’s Institutes (NFWI). Any change to the core constitution — including the clause that limits membership to women — would have to be proposed and approved at the national level.

2. Process to change it

The process would likely involve:
• A proposal raised by a local WI or members.
• Debate and voting at the NFWI Annual Meeting or via resolutions.
• Approval by the NFWI Board of Trustees.
• Notification to and potential approval from the Charity Commission, since it would alter a core condition of a registered charity.

3. Legal and structural considerations

&bull;	As a <strong>charity</strong>, the NFWI&rsquo;s constitution must align with its charitable objectives. Currently, those objectives are focused on &ldquo;advancing the education of women and girls.&rdquo;
&bull;	Admitting men would potentially require a <strong>redefinition of its charitable purpose</strong>, which could complicate its charitable status and fundraising framework.

4. Cultural and historical identity

&bull;	The WI has existed for over a century as a women-only space, designed to empower and educate women.
&bull;	Any change to this identity would be <strong>culturally and politically significant</strong> and would likely be controversial within the membership.

Conclusion

So yes — it is technically possible, but it would require:
• Widespread member support,
• Structural and legal changes,
• And likely a redefinition of the WI’s charitable aims.

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 13/05/2025 21:18

Cerialkiller · 13/05/2025 19:53

Does anyone know if the WI could even become a mixed sex org under the latest clarification from SC?

They are called 'woman's institute.' Does that act as a single sex space in the same way as 'woman's toilets? Would be?

In which case their options would be either change their name or comply with the law? Or can they keep their name and simply allow anyone in?

They have a constitution which states it is for women only.

They'd have to vote to change their constitution to admit men.

EyesOpening · 13/05/2025 21:13

Justme56 · 12/05/2025 20:06

I asked ChatGPT what living as a woman meant and in amongst the answer is this gem:

Body Language

Socially conditioned gestures, posture, and movements that are considered “feminine” (e.g., crossing legs when sitting, softer hand movements, smiling more often).

That's me and my resting bitch face out then.

StellaAndCrow · 13/05/2025 20:20

illinivich · 13/05/2025 15:29

Petra gives talks to anyone who will listen in the suffolk area.

"ELMSWELL W.I.
After welcoming the two new
members, Margaret and Hilary, Terry
introduced Petra Wenham, who is a
transgender woman. She told us about
her life and how she became the person
she is today.
From the age of four, Petra felt that she
was the wrong gender. She was born a
boy and was treated as such. At school,
she was bullied and was later sent to an
all-boys school, to “toughen her up”, but
this experience resulted in worse
treatment. Consequently, she only
managed to pass two ‘O’ level exams.
Her lack of education did not hold her
back and she became very successful
in many fields, mainly to do with
communication, eventually gaining a
degree in electrical engineering. She
met her soulmate, Lorraine, over fifty
years ago. They married and had
children although she still felt that she
was in the wrong body.
One in two thousand babies are born
with indeterminate gender and others
have unusual genitalia. However, there
is also the mental aspect, i.e. How you
feel about your body and gender. With
the advent of social media, around
the year 2000, there was a lot more
sharing of information on-line. This
resulted in far more referrals for gender
reassignment. There is also lots of
information on the N.H.S. Website and
“Susan’s Place”.
After a lifetime of feeling that she was in
the wrong body, Petra suddenly realised
she wanted to change her gender, whilst
having hospital treatment for something
else.
In 2017, she went to the Tavistock
Clinic and eventually, to a private clinic,
to begin her transition. She has now
had hormone treatment and several
operations and is officially female. She
even has a new NHS number, passport,
and driving licence, all showing her
gender as female. Recently, she was
interviewed, with two other transgender
women on Anglia News.
Petra belongs to several W.I.’s including
“Virtual Vixens”, an online group who
meet on Zoom. She also gives lots of
talks about being transgender.
She has had a long and difficult journey
in order to become the person she wants
to be and has been supported through all
these years by her wife Lorraine. During
Petra’s talk, our knowledge was
broadened and our awareness
increased.
Next meeting we are learning about
Climate Change and reducing the carbon
footprint."

I thought that was a spoof.

It's not though. Is it?

Is it?! I'm not sure any more.

Brefugee · 13/05/2025 20:05

DrUptonsGardenGnome · 13/05/2025 17:24

More like ball breaking, surely?

the slang word for testicles in German is "Eier". Eggs. QED

Cerialkiller · 13/05/2025 19:53

Does anyone know if the WI could even become a mixed sex org under the latest clarification from SC?

They are called 'woman's institute.' Does that act as a single sex space in the same way as 'woman's toilets? Would be?

In which case their options would be either change their name or comply with the law? Or can they keep their name and simply allow anyone in?

TheOtherRaven · 13/05/2025 19:46

You also have to keep reminding yourself that it's bigger than just these few men and this one at least relatively harmless situation - although women have been driven out of the WI by men being admitted.

Once you remove the clear boundary of women having women-only groups, we are back to that group of rape survivors with men on the home driveway of one of them, trying to make the police force their entry to prevent those women being able to meet and support each other without them - meeting their needs in however being with those women was serving them. They would not permit escape.

Lesbian groups have been brigaded, taken over, shut down, driven underground. Women's health support groups about female only conditions were taken over and destroyed by men who insisted they had to use that group for them in the way they wanted, or stop women being allowed to talk about their biology.

We're not talking about a nice, reasonable political movement here. We are not talking about any good will towards women of any kind. Please stop with the well intentioned be kind sentimental niceness, you are just handing women straight back to that misery that drove women to fight through courts for years to get the right to say single sex MEANS no men. Not even the nice ones. Not even in harmless jam making. NO. If it's mixed sex then fine, it's mixed sex, but it cannot call itself women's and admit men.

Original poster

Another2Cats · 13/05/2025 19:38

WhatNextCatsAsDoctors · 13/05/2025 19:00

I read this thread and just felt really sad. Not angry, just sad. Because if we’re at the point where we have to stage a fake situation to try and prove some kind of threat, doesn’t that say something in itself?

If trans women joining the WI were genuinely causing harm, wouldn’t there be real examples to point to? The fact that someone had to get their husband to pretend to be interested, just to bait a response, kind of shows the opposite.

What makes it even more troubling is the tone. People seem to be taking real glee in this. But that doesn’t make it more convincing. If anything, it confirms what critics keep pointing out. For some, this has started to look like a hobby and fun.

We can absolutely talk about boundaries and policies. But surely we can do that without making things up. If we care about truth and fairness, we have to start from a place of honesty.

I would disagree with you totally.

There are many women who are in different situations where they are very uncomfortable but either do not feel they have the ability to speak out or are concerned (for very genuine reasons) that if they do speak out then they will suffer real consequences at work or in other situations.

Are there women in the WI who are unhappy that there are men pretending to be women in their organisation? I'm sure there are.

Are there women unhappy about this who are too scared or intimidated to speak out in person? I'm sure that there are.

If my DH can step up and do a little bit to help even one woman who feels intimidated about speaking up for herself then I am all for that. Regardless of how "fake" a situation you may feel this is.

I listened to a podcast over the weekend which was an interview with Peter Daly, the solicitor involved with, amongst other cases, the Forstater case, the LGB Alliance charity case and the lesbian interveners in the FWS case at the Supreme Court.

One thing that struck me from that podcast was when he talked about the difference between ideology and strategy and how that affects how a case is run.

In my very basic idea of a strategy, I think it is entirely appropriate for my DH to bring a case against the WI rather than a woman who is afraid or concerned about repercussions such as being expelled from the organisation.

https://gcls.substack.com/p/the-island-where-feminists-can-sue

The Island Where Feminists Can Sue Their Bosses for Discrimination

Meet Peter Daly, an English lawyer whose advocacy has revolutionized UK civil rights law

https://gcls.substack.com/p/the-island-where-feminists-can-sue

OP posts:

CriticalCondition · 13/05/2025 19:23

WhatNextCatsAsDoctors · 13/05/2025 19:00

I read this thread and just felt really sad. Not angry, just sad. Because if we’re at the point where we have to stage a fake situation to try and prove some kind of threat, doesn’t that say something in itself?

If trans women joining the WI were genuinely causing harm, wouldn’t there be real examples to point to? The fact that someone had to get their husband to pretend to be interested, just to bait a response, kind of shows the opposite.

What makes it even more troubling is the tone. People seem to be taking real glee in this. But that doesn’t make it more convincing. If anything, it confirms what critics keep pointing out. For some, this has started to look like a hobby and fun.

We can absolutely talk about boundaries and policies. But surely we can do that without making things up. If we care about truth and fairness, we have to start from a place of honesty.

Oh, the irony.

A man trying to pass himself off as a woman is pretty much the definition of 'staged', 'fake' and 'made up'. The OP's husband is honestly stating he is a man.

And despite the jokes, we all know this this isn't a game. This is holding the WI to account.

Annascaul · 13/05/2025 19:11

Another2Cats · 13/05/2025 19:09

A small non update.

DH just got home and checked his emails. The WI email addresses have just sent an automated response saying that they will reply within ten working days (so that is two weeks).

Although one of the addresses does seem to have a sent a response that was later deleted before my DH could read it - not sure what was going on there.

All I will say is that the letter before action still stands and they have 28 days and counting until DH commences a discrimination claim under the EA2010.

If we hear anything then I will update this thread as much as I can, but it is certainly unlikely that there will be any updates in the next two weeks.

I'll keep this thread updated whenever we hear anything.

Your dh is an absolute star ⭐