Hmm OK I'll bite. For what it's worth I'm generally gender critical: I think bio sex is a real thing, that it forms the basis of women's oppression, and that the pretence over the last ten years that it doesn't matter/doesn't exist has been injurious for women.
But I think the insistence that an entirely voluntary association should exclude transwomen against the wishes of its board (and possibly its membership) is disproportionate and risks looking unnecessarily cruel. Nobody HAS to join the WI, and nobody will be denied crucial services if they don't join, so it feels like taking a sledgehammer to a nut. For what it's worth I feel the same about Park Run: it's a fun project whose whole purpose is inclusion. (If you want to compare competitive run times, there are dedicated sports clubs you can join for that.)
I think this is a flaw in the SC judgement (consequential on the drafting of the Equality Act) that over time might undermine the whole sex-realist project. It makes sex-realist action look cruel, disproportionate and obsessive.
What matters is that women must be able to access single sex spaces and services where they really matter, eg for healthcare and critical aspects of wellbeing (refuges, rape crisis centres, mental health services). Competitive sports are off in a category of their own and most people don't dispute the need for single sex provision there. Organisations for children are also in a separate category IMO.
Conflating those things with voluntary associations for adults, whose purpose is to provide general socialising and support is a category error, in my opinion. And risks being politically disastrous in the long run.