Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

It definitely changed things having a man (transwoman) at the WI I belonged to. I have now left the WI, partly because of this,and people told me later that they avoided sitting with me because I used to give the tw a lift and they thought we were very pally. This was mainly because it totally changed the conversations and it's horrible when the tw is desperately trying to join in a convo about childbirth or other female experiences. I actually think a mixed group men and women would be preferable to one where there are men masquerading as women but we should be able to have a single sex special group.

What are transwomen's objections to allowing men to join the WI out of interest? Surely they would want to expand membership and be more inclusive and kind?

I too would think it should be tested.

I resigned six years ago about this. 'Hounded out' might be a more accurate description.

The problem for WI is, if they include TW, they cant say its for women only because for the purposes of the EqA, tw are men.

So they can't sell it as a women only organisation, and thats what attracts the majority of its membership.

They could rebrand it, but then risk losing membership. All it is at the end of the day is people attending the meetings. They could easily be persuaded to join another group meeting on a Tuesday rather than a monday.

I don't really see what the difference is?
If membership is open to all women, then it has to be open to all men unless the single sex exception applies. Because otherwise it would be unlawful Sex discrimination.

I wish the guidance would suggest something like an anonymous vote.

The Supreme Court know all about the chilling effect. And that if you leave things up to transactivists, people will be intimidated into compliance.

If they continue with this stance I will be joining the growing band of members who are objecting to men as members!
It was only recently that I realised TW (men) were welcome!

The WI's charitable objectives and any wills/legacies I imagine may well tie it up to providing for women only, as that was the whole point.

It is notoriously difficult to change the terms on which legacies etc have been left. Which is why you have historic funds that were set up to provide knickers for the orphaned women of Basingstoke, etc, which can't be diverted and can't be wound up, and just live in a sort of limbo.

Here's teh Scottish WI, for example:

https://www.oscr.org.uk/about-charities/search-the-register/charity-details?number=SC053058

'The Organisation's charitable purposes are: (i) the advancement of education by: a. providing a platform for social activities and networking for women and girls in Scotland; and b. promoting and work with like-minded organisations at home and abroad. (ii) the advancement of culture and heritage by: a. promoting the preservation and development of Scotland's heritage and culture; b. promoting and work with like-minded organisations at home and abroad; and c. providing a platform for social activities and networking for women and girls in Scotland. '

Oh, actually:

Purposes: "the advancement of education","the advancement of the arts, heritage, culture or science"
Beneficiaries: "Other defined groups"

Set up in Feb 2025.

'This charity has been established to replace Scottish Women's Institutes (SC011901). Scottish Women's Institutes (SC011901) intends to wind up and pass its assets and liabilities to Scottish Women's Institutes SCIO - SC053058. '

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/803793/governing-document

'THE MAIN PURPOSES OF THE WOMEN'S INSTITUTE ORGANISATION ARE: (A) TO ADVANCE THE EDUCATION OF WOMEN AND GIRLS FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IN ALL AREAS INCLUDING (WITHOUT LIMITATION): (I) LOCAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ISSUES OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL IMPORTANCE; (II) MUSIC, DRAMA AND OTHER CULTURAL SUBJECTS; AND (III) ALL BRANCHES OF AGRICULTURE, CRAFTS, HOME ECONOMICS, SCIENCE, HEALTH, AND SOCIAL WELFARE; (B) TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT BY: (I) EDUCATING PEOPLE IN THE PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE PRUDENT USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES; AND (II) PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE MEANS OF ACHIEVING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REGENERATION; (C) TO ADVANCE HEALTH FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT; AND (D) TO ADVANCE CITIZENSHIP FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT BY THE PROMOTION OF CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY AND VOLUNTEERING. '

The judgment is quite clear on this.

If you are applying a single sex exception - ie that your organisation is women-only - you can only do this while you exclude all men.

Once you start including some men, you are then discriminating against all the other men. Because the exception that created the group was sex based, not 'women and men with'.... which creates no coherent group in law. And let's face it, it's already in all honesty the 'women and any man who wants to self ID institute'.

They either have to open themselves to all of both sexes who wish to join and re write their consistution and organisation name, or apply the single sex exception. One or the other.

This is a really good summary of what the SC judgment said in this point, and applies to associations (like WI) as well as providers of single sex services.

I don't really see what the difference is?
If membership is open to all women, then it has to be open to all men unless the single sex exception applies. Because otherwise it would be unlawful Sex discrimination.

You didn't include the "if it is open to all women" clause previously, and lots of people are apparently confused about why there are groups that are able to exclude some men while people keep saying things have to be open to all men.

Activities - how the charity spends its money
Provides national coordination for the WI organisation; advances the education of women and girls in important local and national political and social issues, music, drama and other cultural subjects, agriculture, crafts, home economics, science, health and social welfare; promotes sustainable development; advances health and advances citizenship by promoting civic responsibility and volunteering.

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/803793

That's them isn't it?

(I got CHAT GPT to take their Block caps Charitable objects)
The Women's Institute (WI) has four main purposes:

1. Education for Women and Girls – The WI aims to provide educational opportunities that benefit the public. This includes learning about political and social issues, cultural subjects like music and drama, and practical skills in agriculture, crafts, home economics, science, health, and social welfare.
2. Sustainable Development – The organisation promotes environmental conservation and responsible use of natural resources. It also supports sustainable methods for economic growth and regeneration.
3. Public Health – The WI works to improve health and well-being for the public.
4. Citizenship and Community Engagement – It encourages civic responsibility and volunteering to strengthen communities and promote active citizenship.

Yeah, 'women and girls' is pretty much the one main neon-lit founding principle.

this organisation needs to be available to women only but is the spirit of the WI. If they did a ballot tomorrow it would be women only and a minority would vote for trans women to be invited into this institution. I left in 2020 when “Petra” was in the front page of the The WI Magazine I was absolutely disgusting that they celebrated a man who had decided to wear a dress for a few months over all the wonderful women that volunteer and achieve this country. They are definitely captured by the likes of Stonewall. and need to listen to what’s going on in the world and to actual women who they serve.

Ok, I think I see what you are saying. But "women-only" is the same as "open to all women" isn't it? No women are excluded in either phrasing. Anyway, I won't labour the point.

12 years ago I moved to a rural coastal area, thought that joining the WI might be a way to make friends. Through volunteering I met a woman who was a member of the local WI and told me what a lovely branch it was, “we even have a trans woman” she said.
I didn’t join.

No, not if the charitable objects set out in its constitution state that it is ‘for woman and girls’ [it does]. They would have to remove/amend this (it requires a vote to change the constitution on a national level) and they would need to make it open to ‘persons of both sexes’. This would include all men, not just transgender women (ie a subset of men).

They are not legally allowed to include some men, and not all men. so their choices are: exclude trans women; or include ALL men.

Anonymous vote would be welcome by most members.

If you are discriminating against a protected characteristics you can not include any of that characteristics so if woman only it must only be women or you have no grounds to discriminate. You can then add in other protected characteristics to discriminate against so say anyone who is not same sex attracted so now you have a group for women who are lesbians but it can not allow in transwomen who are attracted to women because they are not women so have already been excluded. You can reduce groups down by protected characteristics but you can't enlarge them so no women plus transwomen.

The reference to women and girls in their charitable objects is about who the charity is set up to SERVE, as its beneficiaries. The question of who can be members is a different one that will be covered in their constitution. But if they restrict membership on grounds of sex, then they need to restrict it on grounds of actual sex.

Charitable objects can be changed of course. I work for a women's org that changed our charitable objects to include transwomen (added 'transwomen and men' basically).

> They are not legally allowed to include some men, and not all men. so their choices are: exclude trans women; or include ALL men.

I think this is unlikely to remain the only option - but will need testing. I think that overall the Supreme Court will want to make a space for charities/services who want to provide services for women and transwomen.