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 would bet that the WI has had legal advice in the past on admitting TIMs and possibly this firm gave advice saying it would be fine and now they are effectively having to defend their own (shit) advice. They will not be the only firm in this position. What they should all be doing is going back through their files, contacting clients who have had this advice in the past and issuing a revision.

Hmmm. I must look that up later. Intriguing! I've a vague recollection of a member being a TiM and welcomed with open arms. I probably read that here somewhere.

Yes, I think this is a valid point. I would be surprised if, as OP says they could prove they did all this under 'positive action' at the time - although I wonder if that's relevant and they only need to be 'starting it' now?

I see what they did there and its not 100% mad. TWs have an unmet need (female comradeship) that other men do not. I can't quite see how it can work (and, given the delay in responding, I suspect they can't either), because the conditions of Schedule 16 must surely also be met. Sch 16 doesn't even have any LAPAing examples like Sch 3 does - it's purely in or out based on legal sex.

I have some sympathy for clubs that want to be single-gender and can't. But, under the previous regime, when at least situations governed by Sch 3 could be legally either single-gender or single-sex, there was a strong bias towards the former even when the latter was very much wanted and needed.

So if single-gender clubs become legal again, female club members need to have more real control over admission of males.

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.

Good post - thanks WeeBisom

Everyone is eligible to join then except Joe Bloggs who is a

25-year-old White “cisgender” heterosexual man with no disabilities, who is single, not religious, and has no history of pregnancy or maternity.

??

what nonsense.

wonder if the auspicious law firm employees anyone who reads Mumsnet?

edit to “” around that offensive word

I agree. I think they hoped to baffle your DH’s brains with their bullshit.

Or elderly men? Or homeless men?

or…no stay with me here, I know this may be an unorthodox concept, but did they ever think of creating a special scheme to support disadvantaged women, perhaps those who may need single sex spaces?

Had they started their own “single gender” organisations, there probably wouldn’t have been a problem. It’s the wholesale takeover of single sex organisations and spaces by demanding men that has brought this about.

Initial thoughts.

1. The clause allows positive action (a form of discrimination) despite the provisions of the EA. But this presumably means 'despite the EA as a whole' (the purpose of which is promoting equality by preventing discrimination). But does that permit positive action despite the exceptions to the EA (the SSEs themselves being a form of discrimination, and also a form of positive action)?

In other words, does positive action A override positive action B? And if so, is that a necessary or merely a permissable prioritising of one over the other? And how do you decide which gets priority? This may have already arisen in the workplace case law, but I can see it becoming a very knotty legal argument.

1. The disadvantage they claim as a reason.for letting in TW would presumably have to be one that applied to TW, but not to either other men or to TM. It will be interesting to see what they come up with for that.

1. It's that pesky 'sharing' again, isn't it? Their example of housing prioritising Haredi Jews was about 1 single group. It presumably wasn't housing for over 55s that then gave priority to Haredi Jews (regardless of age), or housing for those with physical disabilities that then prioritised able-bodied Haredi.

TW and women do not share a characteristic. Which links back to point 1 - it's not a question of giving disadvantaged group A priority over the general population, but over disadvantaged group B (and in the process adding further disadvantage for some of the latter). Can they justify why A gets priority?

I don't understand how allowing TIMs membership = Positive Action?

So, an organisation set up for women is letting Special Men in because they - the WI - consider that the Special Men have (unspecified) disadvantages in life and letting MEN into a WOMEN’S ORGANISATION is the best way of overcoming that?

🤯

Dickpandering at its absolute worst.

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.

How fucking rude! Mr Clever Lawyer can shove that attitude right up his wokery.

Thank you and your DH so much for doing this.
Please, please, please see it all the way through to the end. Don't back down.

Before analyzing how this defence can be knocked down, you'll need details of what exactly the (a)disadvantage suffered, (b)different needs, or (c)activity with disproportionately low participation is claimed to be.

In all three cases it's very hard to see how membership of the WI remedies the defect, unless in (a) the disadvantage is not being allowed to join. Hard to see that a court would recognize being lawfully excluded from a single-sex organization for the other sex as a "disadvantage".

One point though: I really really think you should get some professional help with this. As talented amateurs you really shouldn't be arguing complex points of statutory interpretation against a law firm in court, especially not where the outcome is of significant interest to society. If you win - you'll be appealed against, and if you lose, you'll want to appeal. So you can assume this is going to go far. If you don't argue correctly at first instance, your ability to appeal will be damaged.

This law firm is licking its lips at having amateur you as its opponent in this important case. The WI has deep pockets and it could be you two up against a leading silk + junior in the court of appeal. And if you lose there, that's a precedent set for every single sex association.

Get representation.

OP I concur with this . FSU offered support before - I would take them up on it if the offer is still there!

>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.

No offence, but he's smarter than you, and way way way ahead of you. Law firms prepare litigation every day for breakfast. Their campaign has already started. They will (obviously) flatter you and talk you up how great you are, to put you off from professional representation. A good barrister will wipe the floor with you in court.

So, if a TW is accepted with open arms into the WI (or any other allegedly single-sex organisation) and then says one day - actually, I'm not sure, sometimes I feel I am woman, sometimes I feel I am a man. Would they only be allowed in on the days they felt like a woman?

There's no definition of gender, so they cant have what they want - open to all women and men who want to be women.

Ultimately, if the WI want to prioritise men, they will just have to be honest and change their policy to be open to everyone. And just hope few men actually join and upset the TIMs.

I'd be more likely to spend more than a few seconds think about the disadvantage idea if other groups were pressure to include TIMs in the same way. Where are the disability and TIM sports groups?

I guarantee that NC or any of her learned friends would absolutely jump at an opportunity to take this to court.

And gardening will be plentiful, I am also sure.

12.1.1 The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) permits associations, other than political parties, to restrict their membership to persons who share a protected characteristic (Sch. 16). The only exception is that membership can never be restricted based on colour (Sch. 16 paragraph 1(4)).
Example
12.1.3 A trans woman applies to join a women-only association and her application is refused. This would be lawful because membership is based on sex and restricted to women and, under the Act, she does not share that protected characteristic

The WI does not need to demonstrate a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Section 193 of the EA allows for restriction of benefits to persons who share a protected characteristic if the person acts in persuance of a charitable instrument. See WI charitable objects.

FWS judgement para 229 - 231.
(iv) Single characteristic associations and charities 229. Similarly, Schedule 16 paragraph 1 EA 2010 allows for an association to restrict membership to persons who share a protected characteristic (which would otherwise be unlawful discrimination in contravention of section 101(1)(b)). However, if sex means certificated sex, this exception from the sex discrimination provisions for single characteristic associations would not permit such associations with 25 members or more (see section 107(2) of the EA 2010 discussed above) to be limited to biological women. This is because, as we have said, a certificated sex definition of the protected characteristic of sex would include trans women with a GRC. 230. Nor would single-sex charities be able to use the exception in section 193, which allows them to restrict the provision of benefits to persons who share a protected characteristic in pursuance of a charitable instrument. So far as material, section 193 provides: “(1) A person does not contravene this Act only by restricting the provision of benefits to persons who share a protected characteristic if— (a) the person acts in pursuance of a charitable instrument, and (b) the provision of the benefits is within subsection (2). (2) The provision of benefits is within this subsection if it is— (a) a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or (b) for the purpose of preventing or compensating for a disadvantage linked to the protected characteristic.” 231. Schedule 16 and section 193(1) plainly intend that single-sex associations and charities should be permitted to exist along with other single-characteristic associations. A certificated sex meaning applied to these exceptions would make it impossible for any women’s association or charity – including, for example, a mutual support association for women who are victims of male sexual violence, a lesbian social association, a breast feeding support charity – to be set up or to pursue a dedicated purpose which is directed at the needs of biological females. To require such associations or charities to reconceive of their objects as targeting a group that does not correspond with their original aims, and to allow trans people with a GRC (of the opposite biological sex) to join would significantly undermine the right to associate on the basis of biological sex (or sexual orientation based on biological sex as we have discussed above). Page 71

Thank you for doing this, and please please see it through.
But I agree with posters above, this is too important for you to try to do it yourselves. Please get proper legal representation.

Thinking about it, surely the 'positive acts' taken by employers are for sub-groups of people who would already be expected to be part of the organisation? e.g. an employer who hasn't got many disabled people might encourage help etc for them, because they would expect to see X% of people in the org be disabled (or other PC).

Whereas a WI by definition would not 'expect' to have any males in at all, so why take positive action to encourage a proportion of males? If anything I'd say they would be better off encouraging more female people who ID as not-women - they are female, would be expected to be in the WI and might have a PC of GR or be non-binary, etc.

This law firm is licking its lips at having amateur you as its opponent in this important case. The WI has deep pockets and it could be you two up against a leading silk + junior in the court of appeal. And if you lose there, that's a precedent set for every single sex association.

I completely agree OP

Yes, I would strongly agree with this. Equality Law is complex and it is very important to your sanity and to the cause of women's rights in general that any case is represented by specialist lawyers who agree that there is a realistic prospect of winning. We will all happily crowdfund for that.

This. It sounds very strange.