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 think it's meant to be deliberately confusing 😕

Just found this thread. Fascinating!

@Another2Cats the acknowledgement of service doesn't necessarily mean they are going to defend, it just means they want 2 more weeks to work out what they could possibly put in a defence. I await updates with interest!

Oh and have a nice holiday.

I was in contact with the head legal person at the masons ( i am not one and wanted to find out their policy to compare it to the WI .)
They reluctantly felt they had to accept transwomen with grc into the womens section ( though none had neen admited ) or if someone in the female section became a transman with grc and therefore wanted to transfer to the mens . They didnt think that that policy would allow outsiders in since they have strict vetting and an invite only policy .
it was reluctant on their part snd only due to the scottish decision (2021?) i am sure they will now have reverted to their original rules . I still have his email address . I must write to him again and ask - he was ever so nice ! When i enquired ( just rang them up, they asked me to email in what i wanted and i was quite surprised to get a reply from the head honcho ! So we had s bit of a chat !

@Marmaladelover Honcho, not a word you hear everyday, so kudus to you x2, for using the word, and for contacting the head honcho.

OK, so there’s an update – quite a big one.

The WI are doubling down on the whole trans thing (or, at least, their solicitors are).

This is going to be a whole long post so, instead of a wall of words I think that I might split this into two. One about what has happened and another on my thoughts about the situation.

First off though, I’d just like to thank everybody who mentioned our holiday. Thank you, yes we did have a lovely time, we spent two weeks in western Mallorca, near Soller. We’ve been going there often for the last 30 years.

Well, back to the case.

The WI solicitors had previously sent an acknowledgment of service and we were waiting for their defence.

Two days before it was due they sent a four page letter saying that they couldn’t manage to come up with a defence due to the “inherent complexity” of the case. They claim that the matter is so complicated because the application of FWS is currently largely untested in the courts.

DH thought that this was a load of, I’m sure you can imagine what, but agreed to the extension of time. When he replied, he reiterated the initial points that he made in his letter before action. These were that he wanted to be admitted as a member of the WI or for them to explain on what lawful basis he was denied membership.

Following that email, a partner from the law firm reached out to DH and asked to speak with him. They had a telephone conversation yesterday. Quite a lot came out of that conversation, DH and I were up until very late last night discussing the whole thing. He put forward what their defence would be and invited DH to withdraw his claim.

Just as an aside, this law firm is a Tier 1 law firm in the area of charities & non profits. As such, they have a lot of big clients in this area. The partner mentioned in passing to my DH that a number of his clients are facing similar cases. It seems like there is quite a number of cases involving different charities that are currently in the pipeline heading towards the courts.

Second aside, they seem to be fully captured. My DH said that he had never heard anybody actually say the phrase “cis women” out loud before. He had only seen the phrase written down. He said it was quite odd to hear someone use that phrase as a matter of course during a conversation.

The partner then got on to what their defence would be. They will be relying on Section 158 of the Equality Act which is all about positive action.

So, what is positive action?

It is not positive discrimination. So, for example, if a company saw that there were very few female senior managers and wanted to do something about that, then they could not promote a woman, just because she’s a woman, to make up the numbers.

In that situation though, the company could set up a specific women’s support group and eg send women on specific women only training courses to equip women with the skills to be more likely to be promoted to those senior positions. That is positive action.

Most positive action takes place in the workplace (the above with a women’s support group for example) but can be undertaken by any organisation.

The relevant part of Section 158 says:

158 Positive action: general

(1) This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—

(a) persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic,
(b) persons who share a protected characteristic have needs that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it, or
(c) participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.

(2) This Act does not prohibit P from taking any action which is a proportionate means of achieving the aim of—

(a) enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to overcome or minimise that disadvantage,
(b) meeting those needs, or
(c) enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to participate in that activity.
.

So, this allows service providers to take action that may involve treating one group more favourably where this is a proportionate way to help members of that group overcome a disadvantage or participate more fully, or in order to meet needs they have that are different from those without that protected characteristic.

There doesn’t seem to be much case law in this area outside of workplace situations. But there was a case back in 2020 concerning a charitable housing association that was “primarily for the benefit of the Orthodox Jewish community”. So, if anybody from that community wanted a HA house then they got it before anyone else.

The court said that this was fine under Section 158 as Haredi Jews suffer disadvantage and had needs that were different from people who were not Haredi Jews.
.

Government and EHRC guidance gives examples of eg if there are few women in a particular sport then it would be proportionate to offer a discounted training scheme to women only to encourage more women to take up the sport. It would likely also have to be time limited and stop when an equal number of women were taking part in the sport.
.

OK, so that’s all the background to positive action.

The position being taken by the WI is that trans identifying men (TIM) are so disadvantaged and have needs that are different from people who are not trans identifying that it is lawful for the WI to give TIM membership in order to overcome or minimise that disadvantage.

They say that the WI offers and encourages with help in leadership skills, mentoring, confidence building and giving voice to those who haver been excluded etc. As a result, this will help TIM overcome or minimise the disadvantage that they face.
.

I’ll come on to my thoughts about that in the next post.

Just to finish with a couple of points. My DH was asked if this really was about injury to feelings or something else. This gave DH the excuse to wax lyrical about his interest in the two particular activities that he wanted to join in with. I think they got a bit fed up with him at that point, as he does go on a bit at times.

The other thing, DH was asked a couple of times if he was a lawyer. I thought that was funny as DH has a very manual (although reasonably well paying) job. He appeared surprised that DH could string a couple of sentences together and put together a particulars of claim.

So, what do I think about all this?

Not a lot, personally.

To start with, the first step is that TIM must suffer a disadvantage that is connected with being trans. Frankly, I’m not too sure what that disadvantage might be. The law firm told DH that they have plenty of examples and they will send that to him next week.

I doubt that there will be any real disadvantage but, just for the moment, let’s consider that they do come up with some disadvantage. “Disadvantage” is not defined in the Act. It may, for example, include exclusion, rejection, lack of opportunity, lack of choice, or barriers to accessing services.

The next step is that any action taken by the WI is a “proportionate means of achieving the aim of” overcoming or minimising the disadvantage faced by TIM.

(I am ignoring here the different needs or participation parts as the WI seemed to be focussing just on the disadvantage part).

“Proportionate” is something that is really open to debate, especially when it is the WI (the main purposes of which are “to advance the education of women and girls for the public benefit”) who are seeking to take steps to overcome disadvantage faced by TIM.
In particular, the WI must show that admitting TIM to an organisation set up to advance the education of women and girls is an appropriate way of achieving this.

And also they must show that it is reasonably necessary. That is, in all the circumstances, would it be possible to achieve this aim as effectively by other actions that are less likely to result in less favourable treatment of others (ie women members of the WI who object to TIM being members).

The Supreme Court referred to this in the FWS judgment at para 241

In the case of both sets of provisions, the purpose of addressing the particular needs, disadvantages or participation levels of women as a group with the protected characteristic of sex, is undermined if women as a group includes trans women with a GRC (in other words, biological men who are legally female).

In the balancing exercise that would need to be done for a test of being “proportionate” then the whole purpose of the WI (“the education of women and girls for the public benefit”) is undermined if TIM are included.

There are plenty of ways in which the WI could help with any disadvantage TIMs might suffer without giving them general membership of the WI. Perhaps they might start a separate and distinct TIM section or wing of the WI?

In addition to this, it would appear that trans identifying women (ie transmen) are excluded from WI membership as they do not “live as women”. I would question why it is reasonably necessary to include TIM but not trans identifying women.
.

However, I think it’s also necessary to look at the historical context here.

The WI’s EDI policy from 2023 admitted TIM who had a GRC as, at that time, it was generally considered that men with a GRC should be treated as women in this context. Although, the EDI policy didn’t require a GRC, but just self ID as trans.

TIM were not admitted to the WI under some sort of positive action programme, they were admitted under the belief that the Equality Act required that these people be treated as though they were women.

So, to now make the claim that this policy was intended as positive action seems unlikely and I doubt that they will be able to come up with any evidence that back in 2023 that was their thought process.
.

Finally, moving on to the specifics of my DH’s case. I think that, even if admitting TIM to the WI was found to be a legitimate positive action, the practical result is that they have still created a mixed sex association which led to direct discrimination on the ground of DH’s sex.

Now, if they had perhaps created a separate TIM wing or section of the WI then I could understand that DH could be refused membership of that section because he isn’t a TIM. However, they didn’t do that. They just admitted TIM to general membership of the WI.
.

So, that’s my thoughts on the situation. What do others here think?

So their case is basically it's ok to cause detriment to women and remove the purpose of the group for them, because these men matter more.

I don't think it'll stand up.

So their case boils down to "no, women can't have anything for themselves if TIM want in"

But your point about admitting someone with a GRA under the belief the law forced them to do so is a good one.

Unfortunately, the rules of Be Kind, indicate to me that your DH will lose this and women will lose out. And hopefully GC women will leave the WI in droves, but i am not holding my breath.

Did your DH ask the lawyer not to use the "cis" term at all (this is an aside and you don't need to answer if you don't want)

I don't think they really think they have a case. If they did they wouldn't be pulling out the big guns already and contacting your DH by phone. They're testing the water to see if they can get him to back down...

If their argument was correct there it would completely undermine any and all lawful discrimination in the EA and remove the very safeguards it intends. Surely?

The whole thing is ridiculous. Thank you Op and also to your DH for standing up to this nonsense!

Also thanks to you and your DH for doing this! Your updates are fascinating! 👍👍👍

Wow. They really don't want to stop the men with womanly feelings in their head from trampling all over women only things do they!

I can't see how their defending this on some spurious grounds that has no bearing on their original decision to let a sub group of men in a few years ago will hold up.

Why would an organisation that exists for the benefit of women think it appropriate to alleviate the disadvantage held by men who have a particular characteristic - that of being trans? Why aren’t they alleviating the disadvantage held by men with other characteristics - gay for example?

Your thoughts seem to me to be entirely reasonable, coherent and clearly laid out for what its worth.

So if the other group was not TIM but say, Jewish men, who were being allegedly disadvantaged, would their proportionate action to let them into the WI claim hold?

It would sound like a ridiculous argument.

Cross post! Yes agreed!

It’s preposterous that the WI is spending money contributed overwhelmingly by women to enable lawyers to find any old excuse to let transexual men into the organisation. Women who, if allowed to speak honestly, would overwhelmingly say that they don’t want this.

Again OP, thanks to you and your DH for taking this on. IANAL but I can’t see how they can win this.

Seems likely this is broadly top down.

Is it reasonable to speculate that some of those at the top have allowed their husbands in and know those husbands will make their lives hell if they are now excluded.

We can't let ALL men in but we can let those men in because they're special, and so special exemption to single sex spaces.

Well it needs court testing, certainly. But the Supreme Court didn't agree.

I think this sounds like a very flimsy argument. They are a womens organisation, and woman means female. If they were a TW org and wanted to exclude men who are not TW/PC of GR, or TMs for not being TWs, their argument might hold water, but I cannot see how it does here. These lawyers should be advising their client that your DH has a point and the EqA2010 (as per FWS) is very clear on the permitted exceptions and this is not one.

(Incidentally on the positive action point, there is a lot of this in the workplace and I think it's often misplaced other than in the context of sex, age and disability. Attitudes to race and sexuality have thankfully changed, and people of all races and sexualities can come from financially privileged backgrounds and have the same opportunities as others from those backgrounds. The disadvantages of biology will never go away.)

I hope Peter Daly or one of the other successful gender lawyers picks this up and runs with it; it would be a very useful test case! I note the U3A is open to all despite ostensibly being aimed at people of a certain generation. Is the WI going to have to open itself up to all or rely on the permitted exception.

Obvious questions arising - all thought of by the SC - how do you identify one of these special vulnerable men?

Are they self identified?

So it's in fact any man who says the magic words?

It will boil down to that they are welcome to call themselves the Women and Special Unfortunate Mens Institute and crack on. But they cannot refer to themselves as single sex and not be.

One wonders why it is so crucially important to keep claiming the right to say single sex while providing mixed sex? That is the legal right they're willing to fight for.

And they're not denying it's mixed sex: they just want to be able to have some men and not others. Isn't this going to be two separate things?

-if you want to call it single sex then no one of the opposite sex at all ever, goodnight.
-if you want to include two groups without a shared protected characteristic you're in trouble - in this case all women and some self selected men.

I'll get the popcorn in.

They should just change their constitution or whatever is needed to make WI a mixed sex organisation now, except they won't or don't want to do that to allow non "trans" identified men in. You could not make this up could you?

Is it reasonable to speculate that some of those at the top have allowed their husbands in and know those husbands will make their lives hell if they are now excluded.

These husbands must be trans? Otherwise like OP's husband they would be excluded.

Worth noting the very special partner of someone very senior in the organisation.

I think he should have written „I am a male“ rather than a man. Because what they are saying is that they accept trans women (who are males) and as living as a woman is not clarified, he could’ve gone in to a meeting in his average get up and said hang on I live as a woman. I sit down to wee. Or some such nonsense. And made everyone in the room question their ridiculous badly worded policy.

To be honest, it all makes me sad as the WI is a fantastic organisation that I would
like to join myself.

Positive discrimination can only be used in very narrow , select circumstances. For example , you can’t offer a job to someone solely on the basis of a protected characteristic in the name of positive discrimination. The police have got in trouble in the past for exclusively recruiting from BAME communities and excluding white candidates. What you can do is offer a non employment scheme that is targetted at a protected characteristic. So a mentoring programme just for women in a male dominated industry would be permissible so long as it wasn’t an actual job and was of a limited time span. Applying the analogy to the WI, it seems that if they wanted to offer a limited programme of support to black women, for instance, that would be ok but the WI would not be allowed to only recruit black women and not accept applications from white candidates.

Just on an initial analysis their argument seems flawed. If they are aiming to promote the protected characteristic of gender reassignment then they would have to also admit trans men and non binary people (no matter their sex). It seems very difficult to restrict this just to trans women.

the second big difficulty is the WI haven’t launched a discrete programme that would assist trans women in some way (like a mentorship or training programme). They seem to be trying to use the positive discrimination legislation to permit trans women to enter the WI membership in general. This seems very close to the case of positive discrimination in the employment context - which isn’t allowed.

another element which complicates things is the fact that the WI is ostensibly for women only. Imagine a charity that was set up for disabled people only, but it then launched a programme that explicitly included non disabled people. Would the charity still be able to say that its aims and purpose was for disabled people only? Probably not - the admission of non disabled people seems at odds with the charitable aim. If the WI wants to admit males when their charitable aim is targetted at women and girls it seems there is a conflict here. So they have wider things to consider than an organisation that is open to everyone.