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?

But how would it look to a captured judge?
This is a good question. I dont even think they would have to be 'captured'. First level courts have come back with weird and stupid results in this area, and though I hope fws should clear things up for them I still think there's scope. I think we have to assume it would be appealed at least once.

That may be what they want to do, but there is no legal basis for them to do it.

But what if you don't put their declared charitable aims to one side?

which I'm guessing a lawyer wouldn't

I haven't read every post but just wanted to highlight the "reasonably thinks" part of s158.

It seems to be accepted that this means that there must have been a genuine belief of disadvantage and that there must have been some gathering of evidence and analysis undertaken.

There should be disclosure of documents in due course but if you or your DH do speak to the other side I would be saying that you will be expecting to see the contemporaneous evidence and analysis that was undertaken when deciding to apply s158. It's not really good enough for them to just say that transwomen are the most vulnerable group ever etc.

It's not really good enough for them to just say that transwomen are the most vulnerable group ever etc.

But that line has been repeated so many times, surely it must have become true by virtue of repetition alone?

I have been following this but from a distance. OP you and your husband are being courageous taking this on, particularly via formal legal proceedings. You sound eminently sensible and well informed and much more able to pursue this than average litigants in person would be.

But I’d really echo those suggesting you get representation or legal input on this (if you don’t have it in the background already) - the case will be important if it progresses, it could feasibly be a test case for how the legal landscape works post FWS and set precedent for other decisions if it is appealed by either party. It is also likely to attract media attention at some point. Litigation is so risky and so stressful; a professional team would be able to shield you from some of the worst of that and guide you through it. It must be worth approaching FSU, Sex Matters etc to see if there might be support available, either pro bono or funded (for which I’m sure you’d get lots of crowd funding).

‘A good barrister will wipe the floor with you in court.’

But not in the ‘court of public opinion’. If the WI succeed in arguing that ‘women’ can mean trans identifying women although the SC has disagreed, their reputation will suffer major damage. There’s not much doubt that the tide is turning fast, and that many people who had serious doubts about the whole phenomenon of TIM have been emboldened to start expressing those doubts. This case won’t be buried in the last page of law court weekly.

I’m up for the gardening, though. The WI ( XX chromosome Branch) was very helpful to me at a time of personal stress and difficulty. I would go to some lengths to pay that back.

Interesting take from Bate and Wells .

what you have to remember also is these 2 things . Firstly the entire leadership of the WI is captured and want to retain TIM . They are actively looking for a way to retain them . I know this from my own experience. Worth remembering too that the WI has no in house legal expert ( including their own Head of Legal - gobsmacking ,yes)

Bate and Wells are similarly captured. As well as representing other big organisations ( girl guides for example and Green Party I think) they have a whole section prominent on their website about “Gender Equality” . That section is of course “legal bollocks” as you would guess. So which camp they lie in is easy to see, which of course puts that whole ethos of the company and financial basis in jeopardy arising from the Supreme Court judgement.

Hence this novel approach to save their own skin, if it paid off - I don’t think it will, but I too , predict it will necessitate a high profile court case.

No problem , money aside, the OP finding a barrister willing to take the case , but they, the WI , would have to find a barrister as well and that means having a legal basis on which to make a case. Or having someone who is so captured like “Robin” White or Jolyon Maughan .

I think that would be expensive . WI finances are somewhat stretched at the moment , they are having to dip into reserves and are already looking at how they can save money by disposing of their London HQ premises - possibly on some sort of leaseback arrangement and cutting the expense of the magazine they produce for members. It’s one thing have a firm of solicitors to use as and when ; quite another to have to employ a high profile barrister to protect, not even women but a group of men.

Even the oh so captured handmaidens ( and there are plenty in the WI) I think will start to balk at that.

I do think the JKR fund is worth a shot , this is too important to take a chance.
Find it here OP

https://jkrwf.org

Lastly and apologies for the long post but I have no doubt Bate and Wells and the WI will be looking at this [waves] let’s remind ourselves what the Supreme Court decision ( the highest in the land ) specifically said about Associations who are single sexed.

Paragraph 231 it is impossible for a charity to pursue a dedicated purpose directed at the needs of biological females if they admitted on the basis of certified sex.

and Paragraph 211 and would undermine the need for the Single sex exemption in the first place that is an sse could not be justified as a proportionate means from what otherwise would be considered sex discrimination .

211 does relate to services which are schedule 3 not schedule 16 but the summary of the judgement ( paragraph 265) does say that “Similar incoherence would arise as that to services for associations” . In the judgement they dealt with services first and then tackled associations so I don’t think they wanted to repeat the arguments all over again.

Tough luck mate you’re having a laff !

I'm not going to try to defend what I said. I know what I meant, and it wasn't that women are obliged to do anything. I was trying to point out that transwomen don't have any special need for comradeship with women that other men don't have. If that's still not clear, I will leave it there.

I’d really echo those suggesting you get representation or legal input on this (if you don’t have it in the background already) - the case will be important if it progresses, it could feasibly be a test case for how the legal landscape works post FWS and set precedent for other decisions if it is appealed by either party.

It is one thing to read the Equality Act and to make intelligent and informed arguments about it. The OP and lots of women on here are doing that admirably. But we know bugger all about Case Law and that will require an experienced legal expert.
I'm already concerned that the OP has been put in the situation of having had a conversation with the other side's lawyers, with no lawyer of their own present.

It's interesting that they are not relying on s193 which allows charities to proportionately provide benefits linked to a protected characteristic in pursuance of a charitable instrument. I assume it's because the relevant charitable instruments just refer to women and girls...

I agree with others who recommend seeing if you can get Sex Matters to help!

I agree with the PPs who said to get your DH to write notes of the phone call and email it as a record of the conversation.

I also agree that you need legal help going forward.

You and your DH are fabulous! Thank you so much for doing this xx

I absolutely agree with this, and I've done it several times in settings where I could have later come to rely on proving what was/wasn't said.

Send them the summary and this gives them an opportunity to disagree. If they don't and you present both the summary and proof that it was sent, it would be hard for them to claim something different in court.

Even better if calls are recorded.

And just so I understand the points above:

1. The WI is a single sex association which uses an exception in the EA to exclude males.
2. They propose a legal defence that they wish to allow male/TIM members as a positive action against the detriment caused by their own single sex exemption (ETA - TIMs being a group which has no shared protected characteristic with women)

Please tell me I’ve misunderstood?!

But you forgot. They also object to other men ( such as OPs husband) to join.

I am following this thread with great interest.

@SidewaysOtter 'dickpandering' - brilliant!
And thanks to the OP and her DH for all their hard work. I have often thought about joining the WI, but now now.

It is another thing that would be phenomenally helpful to get out in a court room and test.

There's quite a list now.

Another who woukd help fund proper representation- though I didn’t know until now there’s no WI in Scotland.

Inspiring Women. Indeed, though perhaps not the way they intended.

Oh there’s actually a Scottish WI, separate entity but the inclusion policy is incredibly woolly - doesn’t make it clear what a transgender woman is, and if I didn’t know better I would assume that would be a trans identified female.

No scary flags though on their website.

Inclusion policy:

https://www.theswi.org.uk/Equality,%20Diversity%20and%20Inclusion%20Policy.pdf

sorry for the slight detail -and if I’ve missed anyone discussing the Scottish WI previously.

Didnt Strangio try the argument about suicides in front of the US Supreme Court - but then had to admit there was no evidence to support that claim?

@Firenzo
Just had a look . The SWI policy looks like a cut and paste almost from the rest of UK one. It says they are trans inclusive. That tells you all you need to know.

Massive thank you to the OP and her DH for taking this on!

I actually think its embarrassing this Swiss cheese rationale is the best they could come up with.

You are doing brilliantly - Keep Trucking @Another2Cats and Mr. Another2Cats!!!!

🚚🛻🚛🚚🛻

@Another2Cats Well done to you and DH for taking this on.

• As a pp said write up the discussion and send to the lawyer as a record of what was discussed.
• A key factor is that the lawyer said the WI exclude Transmen. There are two points on this, firstly they are not permitting a group of biological women to join a women’s organisation because they present as male. This is discrimination based on gender reassignment I.e. it makes them transphobic.
• Secondly, if TW are so disadvantaged by being trans and that justifies positive action by the WI, how do they justify excluding TM. Are they really claiming that TW are more disadvantaged by being trans that TM?
• Ideally you would want to find a TM who like your DH wants to join the WI for the same reasons and join together.
• Finally, the Lawyer was silly enough to say “a number of clients are facing similar claims.”

I agree with pp you need legal representation to take this forward. Personally, I would be contacting Peter Daly via his firm and also Sex Matters. Explain you think there may be other potential claimants and would be happy to join with them to make a joint claim.