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 for the update OP and thanks to your DH.

The WI lawyers ringing up to discuss matters is a bit suss. Not putting things in writing always puts me on alert. Their lawyer may have been on a fishing expedition to check out DH, to see how the land lies with him. Potentially checking to see if he is prepared to go ahead with a case against the WI. How patronising of them to remark about his employment.

To add to all the excellent comments here.

Good luck with them arguing positive action in court. I don't think they will be able to demonstrate that effectively.

The WI are positively discriminating against men like DH, whiilst letting TiM's (who are not women) join. That's unlawful.

Free access to courses for TIMs for which other men would have to pay, would make perfect sense as a positive action, if the WI wanted to do that.

Thanks for the update and for what you are taking on.

I think the first hurdle the WI have is under what legal basis are they admitting men in the first place? I think their constitution says women? This was sort of OK when it might have been thought that ‘women’ included transwomen, but it seems fairly clear now that it doesn’t.

IF their constitution allowed them to admit everyone, then under the positive action they are claiming they may be able to, for example, restrict some meetings to women and transwomen on the basis of helping the transwomen. Why on earth they would do that for an organisation that is supposed the centre women is beyond me. But restricting actual membership to only women and transwomen, particularly when they haven’t given members a vote about this, seems odd to me.

I also think the phone call was very much designed to suss out and try and intimidate. That is presumably because the lawyers have advised the WI this will be a very difficult case. And will probably bring a fair bit of, on balance unwanted, publicity.

I'm surprised that TIMs are allowing this course of action to be considered really because it's as outing as unisex toilets in their passing mindset.

I imagine the Reddit response would be that it's outrageous to claim positive action for TIMs when they are already biological and women therefore eligible (as distinct from robots as we learnt from Dr Beth Upton as the Fife tribunal).

Sounds like the lawyer was fishing for info. Whole thing seems a bit of a stretch on their part.

Fascinating assumption that every branch will see their only options as cease to exist, or embrace all men with open arms. You really don’t think any will go ‘oh shit that’s illegal alright we only permit women’? Which will benefit women

@Another2Cats
There have been some cases recently through employment tribunals in this area where the claimants (men) have represented themselves. They are educated, articulate and have put in a great deal of effort, but I have watched them risk throwing their cases away because they don't have a legal background/are too involved or emotional/ either don't know, or forget as the case progresses, what they need to focus on and argue for in the context of a court or tribunal. However right you may be, you have to be right along the lines of what the court or tribunal needs you to say and address.

Every case that is lost (and some probably didn't need to be) makes it more difficult for the next person who comes along.

Please get good, legal help. And funding if you need it. Possible names have already been mentioned on here.

Apologies if this has been said previously but according to the WI, the answer on their website to "can men join the WI?", is "No. The Women's Institute is based on the idea of bringing women together, providing them with educational opportunities and the chance to make a difference in their communities. Therefore, the WI is set up as an educational charity with a constitution which states that membership is only open to women. While WI membership is only open to women, men are welcome to attend courses provided by Denman, our educational centre for learning, and take part in many activities, events and campaigns both locally and nationally". (my bold)

As we know, the EHRC issued draft guidance following the Supreme Court's confirmation that woman means biological woman aka female. According to the EHRC: "Membership of an association of 25 or more people can be limited to men only or women only..."

The WI website says that membership is only open to women, therefore admittance of any male as a member would appear to be in breach of their rules. So, do you have to be a member of the WI in order to participate in their activities, events and campaigns? If the answer is yes, then how do men "take part in many (WI) activities, events and campaigns"?

FAQs | National Federation of Women's Institutes

An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment | EHRC

The phone call was, I imagine, to try to ensure there was nothing in writing.

Always best to insist on things being in writing I would imagine?

The only way, i presume, WI can exclude men is to use the EqA SSE, that has clear definitions of man and woman.

I can't see how they can do that, then use a completely different definition for 'women' in their membership?

It'd exclude several groups of women. And as far as I can tell, the membership themselves are certainly not all in favour.

Phone calls from your own lawyer. Fine.

Phone calls from the other side's lawyer. Hmm.

I think your husband shld now email the lawyers back a summary of what they said in the telephone conversation and ask them to confirm receipt. No need to repeat what your DH said, just what they said.
Always have a paper trail. It was poor practice on their part to enter into a phone discussion. They will have made a file note of their version of the conversation. There needs to be your version. Also state in the email that all future contact must be in writing, not by phone.

Interesting how so many people are noting that the phone call was dodgy at best

I'm not sure I can agree. Many men have a need for female comradeship. It's not an absolute need - we can survive without it - but it's on a par with, say, the need to have a holiday sometimes, or the need for more than one meal a day. I really don't see how transwomen are any different in this respect.

Yes! And I'm sure if it ends up in court then recollections of that phone call will vary.

Luckily the OPs husband has made plenty of contemperaneous notes!

I'm so hoping the OP and husband recorded it. (I don't actually want the OP to confirm or deny that, let the WI lawyers reading remain unsure)

I think this was a scoping call from the lawyer. If that defence had any merit, you would have it in writing in advance of a friendly chat to discuss a way forward.
The problem for the WI is they are transparently changing tack retrospectively. Their position before the SC judgment was TWAW no debate. Suddenly, when TWA men, they want to make them a special sub category that they intended to help all along.
Where is their evidence? The minutes from meetings? The policy documents? The correspondence to objectors stating the special purpose? There won't be any. All of the evidence will be to the contrary ie our position is TWAW.
All relevant documents will need to be disclosed and no competent lawyer will let this case be litigated.
Hence the phone call. Just to see if you're a pair of bumpkins who can be frightened off.

Try reading that through again. Women are not obliged to provide for men's 'needs'. We are not equivalent to a meal or a holiday.

Men may have a desire for women's company.

Yes, and actually having shared your notes on here may be useful in future, OP. Maybe worth archiving the page. I can do that for you.

Plus women have a need for single sex spaces.

Men can go seek out the comradeship of women, well, practically anywhere.

Because this is not about this one situation. This is about whether single sex means single sex, and women's resources and services can withstand those who would force men on women against the law.

Hence the phone call. Just to see if you're a pair of bumpkins who can be frightened off.

I hope that's it. And the, oh you're not the dunderheads I thought you were, comment means that things might take a bit of a different tack.

Archived, OP.

Here: https://archive.ph/2eCJC

Well I don't agree with it, but I'm trying to get into the mindset. What we've got here is a mixed sex club (no SSEs involved, and let's put the WI's declared charitable aims on one side for the moment), which deliberately excludes transmen and men who don't claim to be women. To justify this discrimination, they call on S158 - it's to mitigate a disadvantage suffered by TW but not by their comparators.

Disadvantage = no access to quasi-single-sex womanly comradeship.

Comparator 1 = transman or man who doesn’t claim to be a woman. Doesn’t want access to quasi-single-sex womanly comradeship.

Comparator 2 = woman. Already has access to quasi-single-sex womanly comradeship.

The downside for the women is slight, given low TW numbers and the potential co-existence of equivalent single-sex clubs.

Yes, it's bollocks, and doesn't fit with the usual aims of S158 (ie to mitigate an imbalance which it is hoped will cease to exist in the fullness of time). But how would it look to a captured judge?

Thanks for the update OP. Very interesting. Curiouser and curiouser.

As others have alluded to i don't see how this defence actually helps them with the main problem of defending their discrimination against the op's husband. Presumably jn general they are an association, and this allows them to be single sex because its very much allowed under the EA. But now suddenly they are also a service provider who provide a service to a completely different pc. So it will go like this:

OP's DH - how is it lawful for you to decline my membership?
WI - because we are a single sex association.
DH- what makes you think you are a SS association?
WI - because all our members are female.
DH - so how come you let some males in?
WI - we are offering a service to males with the pc of gr, as a positive discrimination measure.
DH - what do they get?
WI - membership.
Dh - so are all your members female?
Wi - no, some are male.
Dh - so are you a single sex association?
Wi - er...no.
Dh - back to question 1.