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?

Exactly.

It will be interesting seeing them try to marry the disadvantage, with the man. And why that particular man is given access, but not any other man.

What specific disadvantage would a trans identifying man have in terms of being excluded from an organisation that empowers women?

Ooh, I hope it's 'being subjected to sexism'. And that it's all about passing.

The country will run out of popcorn in 24 hours

I posted a link to an article about Petra Wenham who was featured on the cover of the WI magazine, questioning what disadvantage this member has suffered.

A retired 70 something year old with a long successful career in IT.

Just what exactly is the disadvantage suffered that needs this?

Farcical reverse justification.

The post is blocked , I imagine there's security on the link, IT Security being the disadvantaged career we need to give more "positive action" too.

I'm sure the name is familiar.

This Petra?

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4820740-remember-petra-wenham-the-first-transwoman-to-be-on-the-wi-mag-cover

The disadvantage will be discrimination based on their pc of gender reassignment? Which applies to employers and service providers, afaik.

Women are not service providers by virtue of sex, and we are not obliged to provide our company to men who have been disadvantaged.

But if they aren't single sex, they have no grounds for refusing the OP's husband.

For a tier 1 partner I think he’s full of shit. if they have regarded women as female and an additional category of men who identify as women as also desperately needing their support then I expect they are in breach of their constitution and policy by extending support to them given they aren’t women.

and really, they are still discriminating against men like your dh who are marginalised from practising their hobbies as they are only run locally by women’s groups, there is a stigma to men for doing it. If they decided any marginalised person can join then your dh can. If they had wanted to decide this one group of non women can also join they failed to rewrite their charter and policies to specify their mission, instead they illegally characterised them as women. But obviously there is lots of evidence that says this partner is downright lying when he says they defined this additional group needed support. They didn’t do any of that, they decided this group were women so inherently belonged with no new decisions or purpose required, which it is now clear is an illegal action.

Re the 'do they specifically say they are single sex' - I'm not sure that's going to be relevant.

They are a women's organisation, this is all over their website, and this means they are single sex, which uses and invokes legal discrimination to have a woman only membership rather than open to men and women equally.

The SC's decision on the law was that this means it's only legal to be for one sex IF no one from the other sex is involved.

No idea how this is going to work out but I am watching with fascination and willing on you and your DH!

You and your DH are brilliant OP

im reminded of what a colleague who worked in a local authority said when I was helping with a court case on behalf of a service user (paraphrase) “we don’t back down even if we know we’re wrong because we know that the vast vast majority of ppl will give up after a few strong letters from a lawyer” (we won the case)

I’m certain they think you’ll cave under the pressure

But how would an organisation meant to empower women alleviate that discrimination?

They're not discriminated against because they're women.

For what it's worth, here's my skeleton argument why their defence must fail.

Regardless of section 158, by admitting trans-identifying men, the WI is no longer single sex. Therefore it loses its shield against a claim of discrimination on the grounds of sex by the OP. Whatever the claimed disadvantage of TIM that is to be remedied by their inclusion, the discrimination against all other men is not a proportionate means to achieve that.

In other words, while it may benefit TIMs to let them join the WI, it doesn't benefit TIMs to exclude other men from the WI, so the exclusion of other men doesn't meet the "proportionate means of achieving the aim" test.

sorry, i should have been more clear. They don't claim to be single sex. They treat the word "woman" as a gender. So no men who identify as men. No women who identify as men. But anyone who identifies as a woman can go in.

I think we have more chance gettning the Hampstead ladies pond back, than getting the WI to say "no men, however they identify"

I think they are backtracking. Positive action needs to be justified and proportionate, plus regularly reviewed. Even the GLP admit PA needs to consider the needs of all service users prior to implementation. I’d be interested to see what evidence they have when making decisions several years ago.

I’m quite happy to help fund both.

I've got it, straight from the horse's mouth, as it were. Shopping.

She beams as she talks — about her new friends in the WI, the welcome she's had from the sisterhood, the lectures she now gives to improve awareness of trans issues and, of course, her ever-expanding wardrobe.
'Oh my, I love shopping — online, eBay, charity shops, the M&S outlet store,' she tells me as, together, we flick through the rails of clothes in her spare room.

'The happiest I've ever felt. I've done well and finally I'm who I should be.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9797025/Petra-spent-60-years-living-man-wife-Lorraine-transitioned-female.html

Admitting men to a single sex women’s organisation to redress some supposed disadvantage they face, has the effect of excluding a particular group of women in particular (trans widows) from accessing the group. Surely this is an argument against the action being proportionate?

This is the validation at any cost case isn't it?

How will it benefit women though if organisations just fold or become completely mixed sex due to all these actions being brought against them though??

Is it really worth compelling somewhere like the WI to just become the People's Institute and overrun with men (of all types) just to exclude the tiny tiny number of trans women who wanted to join a tiny number of WIs across the country??

It happened to WEP.

Their own stupidity caused their demise.

Women just walked away in such high numbers they couldn't pay the bosses who had decided men were women.

Sometimes the decisions of leaders cause organisations to fail.

So women are unreasonable for wanting the actual women’s institute to be just for actual women?

Why should we??! Why should we give up our stuff so that some men aren’t sad?? What’s in that for women exactly??

I mean trans identifying men.

Why is it so worth it to them to make a mockery of their organisation, decimate their mission statement, potentially throwing the lives of hundreds of thousands of women into turmoil, to the point of closing down?

For one or two men.

You're asking the wrong question of the wrong people.

It will benefit women because those that want women only organisations will create them and be able to keep them women’s only.

If the WI becomes the PI, some of the WI membership will create something new to fill the gap that has been created.

I don’t think many organisations will change when it comes to it. Stating transwomen could be included took little to no effort. Deciding to become mixed sex will be a big deal for organisations for which being single sex is a founding feature. For charities it will mean a lot of work in trustees agreeing to changing their charitable purpose and getting permission from the Charity Commission

In the WI wouldn't positive action make more sense if it was allowing trans identifying women to be members and do some how to man like an actual man courses? Not allowing subset of men to join?

If you are not a WI member you have to pay for courses on the WI training website, so anyone can access them