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?

Therefore, how can they monitor whether the 'positive action' is helping or not?

Surely they’re on shaky ground with their ‘living as a woman’ criteria. What does this even mean and what criteria do they abide by? Do you have to wear lipstick, pink etc, and for how long? All day? If the trans only ‘presents’ as female at weekends, are they trans because five out of seven days they’re ‘male’? Can a trans plumber apply, because a plumber is a ‘male’ occupation? Etc etc

The WI is not just for women, but it doesn't admit men or transmen. Legal or not, that is the question.

Is that the nub of the issue really?

They’re going to have trouble proving that their cover star ‘Petra’ has suffered any significant disadvantages in life. Ditto Sue Pascoe, Robin Moira White and all the other post successful career men who have declared their laydee-ness.

Are the WI quite so bothered about disadvantaged women I wonder?

Their defence has the robustness of a jelly.

Well done to you and DH for keeping going with this.

I don’t know if posted earlier but here is a blog about a presentation from the totally not disadvantaged ’Petra’, merrily (and presumably being paid) to spread utter lies and nonsense up and down the country.

https://the-lies-they-tell.org/2021/07/31/have-you-never-met-a-trans-woman-before/

And I hadn’t realised that they allowed that violent (against women) male criminal ‘Miss Gripper’ to join, or the paedophile supporter dude. I bet those branches have lost membership pretty quickly.

I hope the WI lawyers are reading this thread and realising that their defence is one of the most pathetic reaches in history. I realise that it’s their job but it’s also their job to advise their client that they haven’t got a hope in hell.

Unbelievable!!

"They’re going to have trouble proving that their cover star ‘Petra’ has suffered any significant disadvantages in life. Ditto Sue Pascoe, Robin Moira White and all the other post successful career men who have declared their laydee-ness."

Unfortunately (in this situation), it's not done on an individual level but on a group level.

It's all about the group, rather than the individual, disadvantages, needs or lack of participation.

Positive action is supposed to address patterns of inequality rather than individual cases. So, there is no point comparing the most successful TIM against the least successful man who isn't.

Going back again to that case I linked to, the court very much said just this:

[80] Positive action pursuant to section 158 has to address needs or disadvantages experienced in connection with a protected characteristic, and so contemplates that a group-based approach may be adopted, defined by reference to one of the protected characteristics as shared with others (such as gender, disability or religion) ... Accordingly, Parliament contemplated that the proportionality of measures falling within section 158 and section 193 should be assessed on a group basis, by comparing the advantages for groups covered by the measure in question with the disadvantages for groups falling outside it.

[81] This point is reinforced by the guidance on the question of proportionality under section 158 of the 2010 Act contained in the EHRC code of practice at para 10.22:

“The seriousness of the relevant disadvantage, the degree to which the need is different and the extent of the low participation in the particular activity will need to be balanced against the impact of the action on other protected groups, and the relative disadvantage, need or participation of these groups.”

[82] In this context, the proportionality assessment would be distorted by simply taking the worst affected individual who is not covered by the measure and comparing her with the most favourably affected individual who is covered by it.

Why women should lose protection/privacy from all men because some men are unhappy about some other men is the head scratcher.

They need to go and talk to other men about the issues and stop heckling women just because we're refusing to let them in.

Plus women who want a mixed sex org for women and sad men should set up their own thing. That's not what the WI is for.

That part of their policy is very confusing, and, I assumed, based on confused thinking. They clearly state that they are using "our woman only exemption".

But I don't understand how they are relating that to including transwomen. Other than that they seem to be saying they might not know that they are transwomen?

If you wanted a more blatant example of women throwing themselves under the bus as support animals to men, you couldn't find one. The suggestion that the Women's Institute, of all things, sacrifices its very core purpose of being for women to provide positive action to boost a self-selecting group of men is beyond absurd. It's actually farcical.

It's making me think differently about the WI. I always saw it as an escape for women, education and empowerment, community. A positive thing as a resource that was for women. And now I'm thinking yes but who was all the jam for in the first place? It's about being good wives and good mothers isn't it? It's about women's value being not in who they are, or what they do, but what they give to others. And then this starts to make sense.

Except as usual it then gets even more ludicrous because it's so obvious who has to do the giving, and who gets to be the special guest star who is in receipt of nurture and services. And you can call both groups 'women' all you like, but you can split the givers and the takers on an obvious, binary sexed basis.

Sadly starting to think the WI has had its day.

100%. It's a staggering act of performative self harm.

“Who was the jam for?” Is a great question

That is an excellent point, @TheOtherRaven

Is really like to think that the WI was about support for women - both in terms of their domestic lives (anything that makes things easier, money go further etc) but also about supporting women themselves, giving opportunities for education, and an opportunity to socialise with other women, particularly at times when a woman’s life was largely in her home.

These says they just seem to be yet another vehicle for trans identifying men to get their validation. It’s like the members are being offered up.

Sadly starting to think the WI has had its day

That is what the WI is terrified of and that is why it has been performatively signalling to the yoof that it is of relevance to them. Same as BBC, IOC, Churches, Political Parties, retailers, banks etc etc. A trans invested person at the top who persuades management that #BeKind is not only OTRSOH but will also pull in the younger punters.

This will not die until we get it out of the schools.

good point about the occupation and dress - many women wouldn’t meet that criteria

I’m pondering if we have to start over again. Do we need to set up new women’s organisations now, post SC judgement, that can begin as single-sex organisations and stay that way? If the WI is still so wedded to letting in men and so desperate to let them stay that they will waste all this time and money, do they deserve us?

I would love to attend a women’s single sex group that is truly feminist and offers a variety of events. Maybe I should think about starting something locally, but would it just act as a magnet for trans rights activists?

I suspect, more awkwardly, you'd find yourself dealing with activist women joining, who have decided that their feminism is about aggressively centering men and omni causes, and who suffer from the same difficulties with tolerating diversity of thought and resources.

But we've been here before. There have always been women sent to put other women back in their boxes to block their education, freedom, independence. I suspect standing up to this is what will offer future generations of women the same new opportunities we were offered by previous generations.

Without wishing to sound critical of anyone here, this is all beginning to get needlessly convoluted.

The position that the WI is in is actually relatively straightforward.

As a matter of law, specifically the Charities Acts, it defines its primary charitable purpose as being that that the education of WOMEN.

The governing documents of the WI, its regional federatations and its member associations, explicitly define a Women's Institute as an 'association of WOMEN'.

The model constitution that the WI supplies to its member associations restricts membership to "WOMEN who have reached the Age of Majority."

The only legal question that arises from the UKSC ruling in FWS v Scottish Ministers is whether the definition of 'sex' - and by extension 'women' - within the Equality Act, as clarified by the court, should automatically be read across into the WI's governing documents, which has to be the case if the WI has operated, and wishes to continue to operate lawfully under the Charities exception in s193 of the Equality Act 2010.

The immediate effect of this is that males cannot and never have been eligible for membership of the WI, regardless of how they identify, rendering any such memberships automatically null and void.

The positive action clause in s158 is completely irrelevant here - if the WI wishes to admit TiMs as members then it has to amend its governing documents accordingly.

There is no need here to get into the weeds of discrimination claims and the like, the WI's governing documents are clear in terms of the objects and membership criteria and any WI branch or federation operating outside of its governing document should be referred to the Charity Commission for investigation.

For the record, I worked for a Council for Voluntary Services for several years and specialised in charity formation and governance, so dealt with the Charity Commission and charity law on a regular basis.

This will not die until we get it out of the schools.

The WI going all-in on TWAW seems very likely to turn teenagers off the idea.

This will not die until we get it out of the schools.

The WI going all-in on TWAW seems very likely to turn teenagers off the idea.

Because teenagers will always rebel against staid institutions? Or because teenagers are over the whole TWAW thing?

Thanks.

Can anyone report any WI to the CC, or does it need to be a member/erstwhile member of said branch?

Many people have already and received back the same Weasley words from them - we are awaiting the outcome of the EHRC consultation.

I don't think anybody here would disagree with your overarching position that the WI don't have a case to stand on.

But:

"There is no need here to get into the weeds of discrimination claims and the like"

Unfortunately, that is where DH is, in "the weeds".

"The positive action clause in s158 is completely irrelevant here"

I totally agree, but it's not irrelevant if that is what you are faced with as a defence (or possible defence).

ps DH has just mentioned your name. Apparently he follows you (and Audrey) on Twitter and has just seen your conversation there.

I agree with your reason as to why they are likely raising the issue of S158 at this time.

(pps what does the acronym PMTALA mean?)

The former. The WI is (from a teenage perspective) an Old People Thing, and therefore the antithesis of cool.