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?

@AmaryllisNightAndDay I so so hope you are wrong. I know there is a full process they have to undergo to do this, to be compliant... but sadly if lots of members have left because of their policy of having men, it means that those left are more likely to be pro. Hmm. Are there enough to vote against???

And @Gundogday that is fascinating about Inner Wheel - I see they were brave enough to be female only from 2022. That is truly stunning and brave - and it sounds like they didn't get any kickback for it. One of the very few organisations I have heard about who used the exception, and didnt have a massive "transphobia" pile on

I think you're right. But also there maky be a schism, and there'll be a "people with a feminine gender" institute (which in the small print of the constitution will say that actually anyone of any sex or gender can join) as well as an "actual-female-people" institute. They'll need a joint custody arrangement for the word "Woman" - perhaps it can mostly stay with the "actual-female-people" institute, and visit with the "people with a feminine gender" institute Every Other Weekend plus one day Midweek.

This reminds me of all the student societies for Greek/Polish/Russian/Chinese students at University Freshers Fair who each insist that you don't have to be Greek/Polish/Russian/Chinese to join - because it is a condition of being an SU Affiliated society that all societies must be open to any student unless they are for a Protected Characteristic and nationality isn't a PC.

I hope WI stays for women too. And if some of the gardens I've been working on find another gardener over the next few months I'll gladly put some efforts into jam-making and flower-arranging.

I agree.

The process of successfully poisoning a women's resource has involved getting rid of anyone who holds any actual values around women, and so what is left of the leadership is usually activist controlled. I don't think there's going to be a way back to women-centric for any such organisation, how can there be when they now exist by believing that women-centric anything is a sin? Anything that held out in non-compliance is either infamous either through being smeared and subjected to the Daily Hate like JKR, or was destroyed entirely.

It will eventually (eventually) be realised that anything the TRAs controlled, including all policies, is compromised past repair and has to be begun again from scratch by those who themselves aren't compromised by Stonewall lawed activist training, involvement with rainbow points schemes, or having Nigels of their own.

I agree. I think lots of women’s organisations will be lost this way sadly. The boards and top ranks were infiltrated by TRAs so theyre unlikely to be ejected. And theyre unlikely to resign. Hopefully new organisations will be set up to meet women’s needs where demand is high but it’s unfair that women have to start again from scratch. I wonder if the government can be lobbied to set up a compensation/support fund for single sex groups they allowed to be destroyed by being unclear about the law?

We could run a sweepstake; I reckon WI will go mixed-sex.
This is a bit defeatist.
Either: women could re-join and swing the vote.
Or past members could organise a class-action to threaten to sue but will agree to drop it if WI agrees to abide by the law and its single sex constitution, as evidenced by removing membership from non-females.

Didn’t the membership already try to oppose mixed sex and got nowhere? Unless they vote out the executive and wrest control they may have little say

They have the law on their side now. They can take legal action which could cost the WI. Money talks.

I reckon they are going to clarify that they are a women’s organisation after getting legal advice, possibly waiting until the EHRC guidance is out. Alternatively they will go to court and lose, with the same outcome. That way they get to return to common sense but without being seen as the bad guys.

I know they should be sticking up for women and should have been all along, but I doubt they want to risk the ire of TRAs. There is a thread about a rabbit rescue organisation being targeted FFS, imagine how viciously the WI would be attacked.

WI membership is open to all women who live as women, including transgender women.

Is this criteria actually there to exclude women who don't live as women - i.e. transgender men, biological women who identify as men?

It seems like the membership they are after is 'people who we think look like women' - very stereotyping and regressive

Dirty cash I want you, dirty cash I need you. Whoa-oh.

I’ve got trousers on, wearing a brown jumper, haven’t got makeup up on, was just talking to my son about basketball, so guess I’m not living as a woman so does that exclude me?

Good quesion. I'm not sure exactly what the WI use as a sorting hat

I'll do some research and get back to you

I am not sure how the Charity Commission think / work, but how do others think they would react to the WI coming to them and saying "we no longer see a need for a women only institute like ours used to be, but we believe that we should be able to offer the same sort of provisions on a mixed sex basis for men and women and believe that we should still retain charitable status"? Would they be asked to demonstrate that women are no longer in any need of things like the WI to themselves? Would they be able to demonstrate that a mixed sex hobby group deserves charitable status?

I wouldn’t like guess what the CC would actually say, but they should say don’t be bloody ridiculous. If the WI according to its stated aims is no longer required, surely it should be closed as a charity. If someone wanted to set up a WI-type-thing to include men that should be a new organisation with god-know-what charitable objectives.

To clarify, I personally really don’t want this to happen. I want the WI to go back to being a women’s organisation and carry on doing what they do, without pandering to men. I always thought I would join one day but don’t fancy it under the current conditions.

If the WI doesn’t sort this out soon then there are going to be a lot of very upset biological women 😡
I know they are trying to appease their younger members but this is all just a mucking fuddle!

After checking using AI, the WI selection process is something like this

If your eligibility is not immediately clear to you from your feelz then you need to use the sorting bag of gender yarn.

The sorting bag contains all the odds and ends of left over wool from past and present members' projects. You reach inside, rummage around and pull out a piece.

If it's pink then you can join.

I'm not convinced that the Charities Commission would block a change to being a mixed-sex organisation, if the change was voted for by a majority of the current membership under the existing constitutional rules which will include a section on rules to govern future changes to the constitution.

To look for similar examples - there used to be numerous women-only colleges at Oxford and Cambridge - there are none left in Oxford and only 2 left in Cambridge (both of which admit Transwomen). One by one each womens' college held constitutional votes to become mixed-sex, and were able to do so despite being founded as charitable institutions founded specifically for the education of women. I remember one such vote happening at an Oxford women's college when I was an undergraduate, and if I recall correctly I think it was explained that the reason that the college was significantly poorer than other colleges is because the college was unable to apply for various funding streams for academic advancement because their single-sex status made them ineligible, if those funding streams had incompatible policies which meant they had to be open to anyone of any sex, so even though the college members voted "No" on that occassion, the college kept on holding votes over and over again every few years until eventually they got a "Yes"

I do wonder though how many of the current membership are happy to have men in the WI. And if it was a blind ballot (I don't know if it is), people could vote without fear of any untoward personal consequences.

As a current WI member, together with the current annoying doublespeak, I would want a secret ballot of every member. The voting slips could be sent out with our monthly magazines. I would not trust my WI, with most of the committee being very woke, to vote in accordance with the majority of our branch members.

Ah, but would you trust those counting not to do an Edward Lord and simply throw away the papers that didn’t agree with the centrally desired outcome?

It all depends just how captured it is.

Hello, we've been agitating about this and have formed our own GC virtual WI - if you want to join us send me a DM, I might be a bit slow in replying.

We're collecting anecdotes about mixed sex WIs if women are able to share

Mixed Sex WIs Survey

Well done. Good luck!

Well done. Have you had many responses?