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?

I’ll do the usual public service announcement that shared google docs are not secure & can/do track the identity or emails of people contributing to them.

Eg: www.locklizard.com/document-security-blog/how-secure-are-google-docs/

We only went live with it this morning, but we've got some horrible stories already. Enraging ones

It's great you are highlighting this. Keep up the good work

Hi @Another2Cats
you will hopefully recall we pmed each other a few weeks ago

the firm of solicitors the WI use is Bate and Wells as you say based in London. They seem to use them for everything eg recent changes to the constitution nothing to do with Trans.
But Bate and Wells credentials are pinned firmly to the trans mast on their website . Their section on “Gender Equality” tells you everything you need to know about how they view about the the trans community being a persecuted bunch whose feelings should not be undermined by pesky biological women .

I also found out that the WI does not have any legal person on their staff . You would think that the Head of Legal and Governance might be a solicitor or something the answer is no she doesn’t ( but does have a qualification in open water diving and interior decorating so I am sure they are useful ……) Therefore the WI has no one internal to critically or rather legally analyse anything coming from their “legal advisors” .

Anyway it would be good to touch base, at some point soon as we did before with various developments. But thought others would find the above interesting too do write it here .

I just read this on sex discrimination and it speaks exactly to the circumstances of WI being trans inclusive but male exclusive, so I thought I'd share here: https://knowingius.org/p/are-trans-inclusive-policies-lawful

This bit was really interesting : In addition, this policy will also amount to direct belief discrimination. A requirement that a male person must identify as a woman to be included is direct discrimination on grounds of a specific variant of gender identity belief, namely the belief, held by a male person, in being a woman

My friend (a solicitor) sits on the DEI committee at their firm and thinks the Supreme Court judgement is “unclear” so they are delaying a firm wide response/ policy rewrite.

so fuck knows what legal advice the WI will actually get.

why have people gone so stupid over this issue. A law firm who can’t interpret the sodding law. It is madness.

Not sure if you’re in a position to say this but it’s only (slightly) unclear for the 8400-ish GRC holders across the UK. Everyone else has to be provided with single sex toilets under Workplace Regs. What unisex they choose to offer their self ID crowd is up to them but other employees can’t suffer a detriment. If they are still struggling tell them to google the LSE talk with Akua, Naomi & Ben.

@KnottyAuty oh I’ve tried.

but it’s all biased advice.

stonewall law has a lot to answer for. (It is of course totally unbiased!!!)

Well, it's game on. They're defending the claim.

DH received an acknowledgment of service. So they have a further 14 days to provide a defence

This is just the first step in the process and each step takes time. So there isn't anything else to report yet.

As yet, we have no idea on what basis they are defending the claim. Perhaps they will argue that DH didn't suffer any injury to feelings? Or perhaps there is something that is fatal to DH's claim that we have overlooked? I'm not sure. We will find out when they serve the defence.

ps. At the moment we are away on holiday somewhere that is lovely and hot. So I will not be updating this thread or responding to any posts until we get back next weekend. But I did say that I would keep this thread updated whenever I heard anything, hence this post.

Have a lovely holiday.

https://fairplayforwomen.com

Don’t know whether you know if this organisation. They may be a useful ally or the website may provide useful info (in a back-to-front ) way. I know it’s aimed at women’s rights, but that’s exactly what you’re defending as well (in a back-to-front way).

OP I too am in love with your husband, I'll buy you both a pint.

Thank you and DH for doing this. I am very fed up with all organisations that have decided to completely ignore their founding principles like this and allow themselves to be hijacked (Girl guiding being the obvious other one).

It will be interesting to see what happens next because I do think that politically this is one area that is vulnerable to change. If enough people persuade the Government that there are a sizeable number of women who actively want ‘trans inclusive, male gender exclusive’ associations, then I can see that a change could be made to the association part of the Equality Act to allow such organisations to exist. The recent Women and Equalities Committee seemed to focus on this. Such a change would however also need to protect the right of female only associations to exclude males if they wanted to.

But then you end up with the mess that you have at the moment, with the original associations hijacked. And organisations could change their constitutions one way and then back again depending on who was in charge at any given time.

With the WI I think that if members were put to a vote they would vote female only. But it may not need a member vote to change their constitution, I don’t know.

In the long term I can’t see how this will play out.

But thank you for forcing clarity on this. Shout if you need funding!

Changing the constitution would require a formal consultation and vote ( we just had one for other issues )

this would be needed to remain a mixed organisation and include OPs husband (and trans inclusive if that were at all legal - I assume not )

However to remain a single sex organisation (that I assume the majority of members would want) , would necessarily exclude trans and only admit biological women . This would require a change to the Diversity Equality and Inclusion policy and accompanying glossary only . This would not require a vote . They have changed policies several times and have been approved by the national board of trustees only Eg DEI before they admitted trans; the recent update to the social media policy.

if the OP needs funding , there has been an offer that the OP knows about and would need to follow up with that organisation .

edited for punctuation and spelling mistake

Have a lovely holiday - heartfelt thanks to you and your incredible husband.

It will be interesting to see what happens next because I do think that politically this is one area that is vulnerable to change. If enough people persuade the Government that there are a sizeable number of women who actively want ‘trans inclusive, male gender exclusive’ associations, then I can see that a change could be made to the association part of the Equality Act to allow such organisations to exist. The recent Women and Equalities Committee seemed to focus on this.

If they took this path would that only be for people with a GRC? If it’s self ID then it opens the way for people to join nefariously, which would probably be the argument against it in parliament

And don’t forget that the SC said you can’t differentiate between those with a GRC and those without including some one who decided they were a woman yesterday .
One of the problems with the WI policy is that it’s open to anyone “living permanently as a woman” ( how do you know if they are not ) and therefore open to abuse and the very perverse situation talked about in the judgement .

Yes agree @Marmaladelover
The whole issue is how do you define the group? You can’t include/exclude a group of people legally unless you can define them. That’s why self ID doesn’t work in law as we have no definition of “living as”, and where the GRC came in as gave a definition.
But as you can’t know who does and doesn’t have one the whole thing is unworkable.
And if this was debated in parliament this is what would become glaringly obvious!

Thank you Op. Have a lovely holiday.

Well thank you OP, have a lovely holiday. if you do decide to go ahead and need funding then I would be happy to contribute even if another organisation does offer to cover the costs. Crowdfunding can help build support and it can show the strength of public support as well which might be useful. A lot of people have heard of WI and are likely to have a view even if they're not members.

Under the Equality Act 2010 "living permanently as a woman" isn't a thing. It's just fluff. But I guess we'll find out eventually in court.

Does that apply to Google Forms though? It does not mention Google Forms.

I realise that it might well apply to Google Sheets. If the Form links to a Google sheet, would someone with a link to the Form be able to access the Sheet with the data?

Interesting action. I’ve never thought of joining the WI but looked it up in my area. There wasn’t much detail. I presume some areas are more active than others. The area one had some events that are happening. TBH there wasn’t one that I could think would need to be woman only. Baking, calligraphy, a BBQ. There might be other things - I seem to need to join to find out (I am a woman).

The Equality Act seems to refer to a legitimate aim as a reason to discriminate on the grounds of sex. Do the WI in your areas do any activities which might be difficult for a woman if a man was present I can imagine a lot of important subjects, just not see that the local WI does this.

It's not about whether there is a legitimate aim for the individual activities but whether having a female only organisation is a legitimate aim.

It's not even a requirement to have a legitimate aim. Section 16 of the EA2010 allows a single sex organisation "just because we want one". No justification required at all.

The original aim of the WI was as an education in company for adult women . That is still a major focus . Education does not generally consist of pens paper and exam questions! . Early on there was a strong community focus too. That still applies too.
it’s not that the activities are ones that only women can do, its so that the organisation is run by women for women without men calling the shots or running them for us .( which let’s face it , would happen if it were mixed)

The WI does have events which involve staying overnight - camps , training and the annual meet up . They often involve sharing sleeping arrangements .