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

[Another2Cats]

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?

This is perfect.

it’s much easier to argue that they’re discriminating against your husband due to his lack of trans status than it is for women to claim they’re disadvantaged by the inclusion of a man.

they can’t let in one flavour of man and not another. I’d imagine he needs to complain to them and follow their process then he can escalate it if he gets no joy.

I assume (hope) it’ll be sorted soon enough but it makes a good daily mail article.

I guess transgender women could mean transmen, women living like men but actually women? Its not very clear they mean transwomen.

I don't think I have a well thought though answer for you but my first thought was he could ask them what "living as a woman" means , because he wants to work out whether he would count as a woman under their definition.

But it would certainly be interesting to see what the EHRC made of this!

🍿 🍿

I want them to clarify what “living as a woman” means.

I love your DH, WI or not, I'd still be happy to buy him a beer one day

If he's happy to do so, definitely!

IANAL but it's a very clear case of sex discrimination. If they let in some males, they can't then exclude your husband because he's male.

Me too 🍺

He could reply asking them to say what living as a woman means, as a PP has suggested.

Well done your DH! He should definitely pursue it further, if WI is a mixed sex organisation then it cannot rely on the single sex exception on the EA 2010 and so is unlawfully discriminating against him by not allowing him to join when it allows other men in.

I’d be happy to assist with any letter/email (I’m a lawyer, not quite the right kind but I understand the principles of why the WI is wrong!).

Then we can all do some gardening for him to engage some GC heroes & sheroes to take them to court.

This is completely and utterly hilarious

‘All women who live as women, including trans gender women’ - WTF?? What if you’re a woman who doesn’t live as a woman? What does that even mean???

as a recipient of emails from people enquiring about joining our WI, I do have a certain degree of sympathy with the poor woman replying to the OP's husband. In her shoes I'd be going to my county WI adviser in the first instance in the hopes of getting someone higher up the chain to deal with it.

I think what the OP's husband is doing is fine, but do remember that you're dealing volunteers who are in general a force for good in their communities. it's the organisation that's gone bonkers, not the members.

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).

Perhaps the right thing to follow up with is to claim to be a man, living as a woman?

Ruh-roh.

Can I join if I identify as a woman 50% of the time?

Thank you for your response. I am sure I qualify because apart from my sex I live every day like my wife.

We both get up at similar times and eat the same food. We both wear jeans and tee shirts by choice and neither of us wear make up.

I make a cracking Victoria sponge but she can’t bake for toffee, though she is great at DIY.

Tell him to pop some nail varnish on and practise tilting his head. That should do it.

Can you write back and ask them to define what "living as a woman" is like? If how your DH lives is similar to a way that any given woman might reasonably live then surely he is living as a woman

DH and I have similar haircuts, similar clothes, both have the title Dr and have similar jobs, we share housework equally mostly, though he does a lot more laundry than me. There is no fundamental difference between what we "live as" in terms of any observable facts about us except our basic biology obviously - unfortunately he isn't GC (Don't go there. I have to pick my battles) so wouldn't be up for this, but there must be similar couples out there ready to challenge WI to define exactly what the difference is between a male person who is allowed to join WI and one who isn't.

"...it's the organisation that's gone bonkers, not the members."

Oh, I do totally understand the point that you're making.

But his original email was sent to a main email address at thewi.org.uk.

Instead of responding in any way at all, they simply passed it on to the local CIO (whatever that acronym stands for?) at an entirely different email address XXX[redacted]wi.org.uk.

To me it seems an incredible cop out that they didn't do anything with the email but simply passed it on to a local person. It seems to be a total abdication of any sort of responsibility.

Perhaps it would be far simpler that anyone who wishes to do the activities offered by these orgs can join, this should include “male” orgs allowing women. If you want to watch talks and make cakes why does it matter if you are male. Mothers Union allows men to join, the local MU to me has male members, no issues at all

He's got to respond to that waffle from them.

Hm, let me think about that for a moment. Possibly because the group is set up for women and the women may not want men there.

Well, in Scotland, it seems that nonbinaries can join, if they are actually female.

'A person who was assigned female at birth but who identifies as non-binary is able to join the SWI. This is because they fall within our women only exemption as they were assigned female at birth. As mentioned above, The SWI does not ask members to prove their sex when they join.'

'Protected characteristic 9: Sex (except that we are a trans inclusive, woman-only organisation)
We believe we best meet the needs of women by being a women-only charity, led by women. This is part of our constitution. '

I didn't know 'yeah but no but' was a legally protected characteristic.

And of course, men with ladyfeels can join:

'including transgender women furthers our objectives and enriches our membership toensure we are a place for all women to celebrate who they are and influence positive change in their communities'

From the EDI policy:
www.theswi.org.uk/about-us/

There are plenty of mixed sex groups; sometimes we just want to hang out with our own sex.