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?

Thanks - think I’m getting mixed up in ECHR guidance

• To establish a separate or single-sex service, you must show that you meet at least one of a number of statutory conditions (set out in this section of the guide) and that limiting the service on the basis of sex is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, a legitimate aim could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. You must then be able to show that your action is a proportionate way of achieving that aim.

The examples are very obvious single sex wards or DV services

Yes. The 'legitimate aim' is to have a group that excludes men.

The WI is an association not a service so Schedule 16 exceptions is the one you need to look at not schedule 3 .

Here is the bit that is relevant . Image may not appear straight after I post .
So an association can restrict membership to s particular chararacteristic in the case of the WI - adult women . Since the Supreme Court judgement that means biological women only . it can’t admit Transwomen too because they are biological men . It can either admit all men including TW or just stick with the Sch 16 exemption and only allow biological women in .

it really is that simple, which why I can’t understand why the NFWI can’t get their collective arses into gear !

Oh wait , they don’t want to……

Thanks - the court ruling is so obvious let’s hope the legal firm advises as such.

He needs to respond to this consultation and quote the correspondence . It's exactly the kind of thing the EHRC needs to include in the new code of practice:
www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/codes-practice/code-practice-services-public-functions-and-associations

I don't know if this helps or hinders but the WI have had a man and a dog as members.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-26133605

"In almost a century, Colonel Richard Stapleton-Cotton and his dog Tinker are the only two males ever to be allowed in as fully paid-up WI members."

Well, not quite the only two!

I think the activities are as much so that women can enjoy the company and conversation of other women, while doing something a little structured.
Once you add a man into the mix the conversation changes, women can't speak how they would in a single sex group and all sorts of other dynamics will start to play out. There'll be people pleasing and love bombing from some in an effort to be accommodating and show they have the right opinions, there'll be discomfort and self censoring from others and so on.

I feel just the same about men's sheds - that they should be for men as they've been set up to create a very specific dynamic that supports men to be more open with each other. Add a woman into the mix and it risks not meeting its original aim.

@Findthouane the activities you listed can be done by both sexes but not all women can or want to be in a mixed group.

Somewhere in my house (I have just had a root around but could not unearth it) is a membership card for Farndon WI that was issued to my father by the Committee (as a joke) in the 1970's.

My mother was never a member and we didn't live in Farndon so I don't know what was going on there . . . but I have got my suspicions!

Edit: And they are nothing to do with cross-dressing 😂

This is fantastic! Good luck OP. Enjoy your holiday.

I 100% support you and your DH in this.

You have nothing to fear in terms of costs as the law is now crystal clear.

Your claim is in no way dependent on injury to DH's feelings, it's entirely about discrimination.

The WI's solicitors' first response will inevitably be to defend/deny the claim. It's just a holding measure while they think through the many implications.

Have a lovely holiday :)

"There wasn’t one that I could think would need to be woman only."

To be fair, women don't need to have privacy or dignity in changing rooms and public toilets, or to be free from the presence of womanly penises when locked up in prison either. Women's right are an unnecessary option that men can grant and take away at will.

On the other hand, one might argue that the fact that single-sex friendship groups not only exist, but are incredibly common, suggests that single-sex environments are highly wanted by both sexes. Also one might argue that women deserve basic rights.

You are right. I have got things wrong on this thread.
I hope the OPs husband succeeds - the WI doesn’t seem to have understood the judgement. I’ll stay on in case there is a point when OP wants contributions- I can imagine it might get expensive.

Thanks for doing this, stay strong

The Masons. I wouldn’t want to join them but they let in “transwomen.” I think if they are sticking to their “men only” policy then they retain the single sex exception. If they admit “transmen” they should have to let ordinary, non-special women in.

Why would you suspect that a men-only organisation that rightfully (albeit potentially with their finger and thumb clamped to their nostrils) accepts all men would start letting in a subset of women?

Because it has said it does.

Edward Lord of Hampstead Ponds/City of London fame is/was a prominent mason when the policy was written

I think upthread there's some discussion of the Freemasons. Iirc, if a man is a member and transitions he can stay a member. Men who have already transitioned can't join. Tm can join.

Wow, insane

Scope for a woman without a gender identity to take the same path as the OP’s DH then?

I don't think so because a man who transitions is still a man, hence fots the single sex exemption requirement

If they allow tm to join then I think it's exactly the same scenario as the WI with the added wiggle that they're also discriminating, in some circumstances, against tw.

Points 3 and 4 in the attached

https://www.ugle.org.uk/gender-reassignment-policy#:~:text=Should%20a%20person%20who%20has,for%20any%20other%20male%20candidate.

I did not know that about Manchester City FC!

Of course, the problem is if successful you'll become a Freemason. They also have two Women's lodges. I've not checked but I'm assuming the membership requirement is the same with the sexes reversed.

Sorry. Poor reading comprehension there!! 🤣