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?

Happy to garden, too. It’s a new budget month!

I'm a WI member and would also be happy to garden. Thank you @Another2Cats

I really don't want to derail the thread but as we're talking about law firms, this is interesting. It refers to a letter from 2020 by 8 captured firms. The ROF commentary is interesting, asking for impact on legal workspaces www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-law-firms-accused-sending-legally-illiterate-trans-letter-prime-minister

I’m happy to garden or, since it’s the WI, contribute some jars of jam.

Well done, OP (and your amazing husband!). Also very happy to do some gardening.

Girlguiding has not changed its policy in light of the SC judgment, but it would be very hard to convince a teenage boy to do what your DH is doing. When he is proved correct in law (which he will be!), orgs like GG will be forced to take notice.

Thank you!

This is interesting and helps Team Cats to build a picture of what they're potentially/likely up against.

From the text:

However, none of the firms was willing to tell RollOnFriday how their opposition was manifesting itself in the light of the For Women Scotland judgment, or what prompted their interpretation of the Equality Act.

As if the silence wasn't telling enough, two firms did offer statements by evidently reframing the question. Each statement was about them being committed to being inclusive employers - no comment whatsoever on whether their advice to their clients would change.

The criticism of their statements is fantastic:

While they may have reached for the word salad bowl, at least they tried - none of the other firms would comment.

Would it be cynical of me to think that all of these firms are prioritising how best to double down on their current position rather than how to follow the law?

Thinking ahead, if the WI follows legal advice that later gets proven to be unlawful.... because the WI loses its case against Team Cats in court..... does this mean they would either need to accept it on the chin or take their law firm to court for providing unlawful advice? It's one thing if Stonewall is caught providing duff advice about the law but they've always had the option to say that it shouldn't be relied upon as legal advice. These law firms don't have that option, so exposing one in court exposes them all and this could prove to be a highly significant case.

While they may have reached for the word salad bowl, at least they tried - none of the other firms would comment.

This would loosely match what we see on FWR when asked a very simple specific question. Eg "when you, yourself, use the word "female", what do you mean? "

Around 3/4 simply ignore the question and the rest say things that don't answer it.

I think you and your husband are amazing OP. Keep us posted about the garden xxx

OP
You and your husband are great.
this doesnt make me unconfortable it makes me happy.

This whole thing is giving me Ruth ginsberg "on the basis of sex" vibes.

I saw a Instagram video of a guy who was a female advocate joining the abortion rallies and he was shouting "we hate women. We dont trust women to make decisions. We should decide what happens to womens bodies" and it was making all the men around him super uncomfortable.
IMO we need more men doing this, not less.

I will be following this and hope you get somewhere.
In terms of support if this escalates it might be worth reaching out to someone like Glinner to see if he can help connect you with anyone

For everyone who has raised the issue of gardening. I really am quite stunned that people would be so generous. Thank you.

Unless something totally unexpected pops up, we feel that we can cope with the process ourselves.

If it does get to a hearing then that is when we would probably consider instructing a direct access barrister who is experienced in this area. This is when there may be a need for some flower arranging or jam making.

But the last thing that DH actually wants is his "day in court".

Making this claim is all about achieving the result that we want. If we can get that without a contested hearing then that would be great.

I would like to think, now that the situation for the WI has crystallised into a real case rather than just a theoretical whatif, that the WI will concede that their current position would not succeed in court.

In that case there will be no need for a hearing. But if they do put in a defence and mediation doesn't work then my DH won't be backing down from going to a hearing. Although, as I say, that is the last thing that either of us want.

@Another2Cats excelwnt update great to hear. Just like my own activist area getting my daughters secondary school to have single sec changing rooms , we’re not doing it to be trouble, we’re doing it to change things for the better huge good luck to you both.

Thanks to you and your DH for doing this, @Another2Cats ! Out of interest I just went to check the Scottish Women's Institute page, which turns out to have an EDI policy that currently makes plain that trans identifying males are allowed to join, but has a banner at the top of the policy saying they're reviewing it in the light of the SC judgement. Apart from what's in that policy it all looks very woman-y, based on a quick browse. I might join, if they sort their EDI policy so that it really is for women. (Never thought I'd be one to contemplate joining a WI but I guess it goes to show that we can change...)

I agree that their current criteria are totally irrational.

I think it's more likely that they will reframe their criteria to be something like "Anyone of any sex or gender can join, but we will always have our activities and actions chosen as things that are more likely to be of interest to people with a feminine gender identity - you certainly don't need a biologically female body to join!" Which will make the transwomen feel they are still getting the validation they want from the happy support-human handmaidens, and will hopefully be off-putting to most men, with a few notable exceptions such as OP's DH. It's more likely for them to swing that way than to reassert the boundaries of reality and become an actually single-sex organisation by expelling the males who have already been allowed to join.

Good luck, and I hope it nudges them to change their policy. Hopefully it will make then really consider the legal arguments they would rely on to defend it, and realise they all fall apart.

I do think there's a chance that if it got to court your husband would not win though. Sorry to be a downer! He would be claiming that the WI has caused him a detriment - but as he wouldn't actually want to join a WI branch I think that detriment would fizzle out in court, or before. But hopefully it forces them to consider how they would defend a decision to turn down another man who genuinely wants to join.

@Manderleyagain the OP has stated that the local branch do run a few activities that he would genuinely like to join in with, but cannot because he is a male-person-that-believes-in-the-reality-of-his-own-body rather than a male-person-who-believes-he-has-a-feminine-soul. This is discriminatory and detrimental.

Ah thanks. Hopefully it won't get that far anyway OP says.

That would require a change in their constitution (would need a member vote?). And a change of the registered charitable objectives with the Charity Commission.

On an administrative level that's a much harder route than reverting to.women=women.

They could also just wait to be sued, not spend too much money on it, let a court tell them to change their policy and then be forced into doing it. Say 'we tried' and revert to woman=woman 'our hands are tied'. Then if they are really pro twaw they can have 'change the EA' as one of their campaigns.

Wouldn't reverting to woman=woman also require a constitution change?

Not that I think this is in any way unlikely but can you imagine the insanity of the Women's Institute seeking a removal of women's protections in law? This is what seeking change to the EA would in fact mean. As well as seeking to remove protections from homosexual people and women with trans identities.

So that men can force themselves on non consenting women in a state of undress.

They could try and get an ammendment that changes the section on associations. In an ideal world where no one was being drummed out of town for their choices in this regard I would support clubs being allowed to form how they wished as long as it was made clear - if you want a club for women and men with the pc of gr then go for it. On the grounds of freedom of association. But it's not an ideal world.

It's pointless speculating about their next move really, even though I started it!

As far as I understand it, the SC decision is that woman means and has always meant bio woman, draws on historical cases in law, so no.

Probably. IANAL.

The WI will basically have two options - remain women only which will involve the horrific, traumatic and apparently world shaking consequence of saying no to men

or change their name and consistution to be something like the institute for people of feminine gender in interests (whatever the hell that means) and be unable to refuse any members of either sex because the EqA will no longer be available to use as protection against discrimination.

Either would be fine, it's up to them. They just cannot have the cake and eat it too.

All power to you and your DH, OP!! Just posting here to say will also happily do some gardening for you if it comes to that!

Or the third option - let it go to court so they don’t have to take a stance one way or the other and can let the court make the decision for them.

That way, they get to keep looking like the inclusive saints they perceive themselves to be, but they also get back to a workable definition of woman to survive as an organisation.

It certainly won’t solve their problems and would be costly, but they might be tempted by this to enable them to save face and to wash their hands of the responsibility of actively leading their own organisation.