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?

It's a possibility, but I think Occam's Razor applies here. Is it more likely that

1. The OP is engaging in months-long con requiring a fair degree of legal knowledge (I've no doubt more knowledgeable posters than I would have called them out if they got something concretely wrong) and remarkable commitment

or

2. This is real, and they're, in part, motivated not by [whatever you think would motivate someone to do that] but a passion for women's rights.

If the WI is reading, that may be a good thing. I sincerely hope they're noting the strength of feeling on this topic, and the largely calm, rational, fair-minded arguments behind it.

And as long as we do take it at face value - the OP's husband sounds pretty darn passionate about those hobbies, too!

From what I’ve read (and I could have missed some detail) the OP has said some things which have been interpreted on here as ‘weak arguments’ from the lawyers. Could that not just be OP’s lack of knowledge on the statements a top-tier lawyer would genuinely put forward? And for the case OP is making, it isn’t hard to copy what others on here have said. None of the exchanges read as real to me at all.

I have also watched enough episodes of catfish to know that yes, bored people absolutely do engage in months-long cons. Scenarios like this on anonymous forums are more likely fake than real, and that’s just basic internet experience and literacy.

Can I also just say, the idea that a partner at a top-tier law firm would disclose to a random member of the public that other charities are under pressure or being challenged legally is just not credible. That would be wildly unprofessional and potentially a breach of confidentiality. No serious solicitor would speak that loosely, especially to someone they’re not formally representing.

I’m sure if this all turns out to be nonsense you can come back & say I told you so @WhatNextCatsAsDoctors

I wanted to check the point made upthread about the WI and Nettie Pollard.

They didn't platform Pollard, per se.

She appeared on a panel on an event organised by the AHRC (I think Arts & Humanities Research Council) on grassroots organising.

So did the WI.

Unless I've missed another link.

web.archive.org/web/20240104001536/www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/womens-grassroots-activism-ahrc-research-network-online-workshop-tickets-781337630887

Pollard often comments on Sarah Jane Baker's social media posts, fwiw.

I've sent you a PM with a link to a redacted image of the latest email from the law firm to my DH (I'm not too sure if it's big enough to read clearly - please let me know if you have problems reading it).

MN does not allow images to be sent via PM so I had to create an account on Imgur.

Emails are confidential between the parties, do you really think that I am going to be putting emails from the solicitors to my DH all over the internet?

the idea that a partner at a top-tier law firm would disclose to a random member of the public that other charities are under pressure or being challenged legally is just not credible. That would be wildly unprofessional

Given the amount of 'wildly unprofessional' behaviour we've seen from certain barristers on here, and elsewhere on social media, I don't see that as undermining credibility at all.

Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. If not, it's still an excellent opportunity to thrash out the possible arguments, counterarguments, and relevant points of law.

If I were you, I wouldn't engage any further with that poster who appears to be a TRA.

I have seen that and have responded. For context, it’s a screenshot of an email which could have very easily have been photoshopped. It doesn’t show evidence for anything other than some text about a legal extension.

I understand you aren’t able to put emails from solicitors onto the internet, but I’m sorry I just don’t believe what you’re saying. The story doesn’t sound plausible to me.

‘Let’s ignore the person who doesn’t agree with all our talking points’.

Okay, enjoy your echo chamber all!

The 'wildly unprofessional behaviour isn't credible' line of argument puts me in mind of Lister's response to Hogey the Rogey claiming that everything is "the likes of which you've never seen".

"I'm just saying ...you'd be surprised the likes of which we have seen. Don't be so quick to say everything's the likes of which we haven't seen - we've seen things the likes of which you probably haven't seen yourself!"

Troll hunting is against MN's talk guidelines. Have you reported the OP?

Which part doesn't sound plausible?

@WhatNextCatsAsDoctors

"If you’re not genuinely trying to join and you’re just doing it to make a point, there’s no case."

I'm sorry but what do you know about my DH and his interests and why the WI was the only local group that provided them that he could access (if it weren't for him being a man)?

"I actually contacted the WI about it and they said they’re aware of the thread, which tells you how seriously it’s being taken."

That's great, and they should take my DH seriously.

Have a look at the redacted email I sent you.

I thought everyone on this thread was familiar with the longstanding MN 'no troll-hunting' rule ?

You report it if you don't think it's genuine but you don't derail a thread.

OP please be careful - PMs can be from anyone.

@Another2Cats This poster is clearly trying to goad you into sending them confidential information (which will probably turn up on Reddit or somewhere). It would be wise not to send them anything that you are not prepared to post on here, because once they have it you have no control over what happens to it. You can't stop a third party from posting something on the internet once you've sent it to them.

I’m expressing doubts about the plausibility of a story. That’s all.

Yes - that's exactly the thing I'm talking about!? Are you not familiar with the Talk guidelines?

In other words you're claiming the OP is a troll.

Anyway lets not get into a derail
about "what MN is like". I'm appreciating the legal perspectives, from everyone.

Which is troll hunting and against guidelines. Just report if you think it's not real.

I’m not at all. I never asked for any information from the OP, and I don’t want any more direct messages! It freaked me out a bit to be honest. I know why they did it because I was saying the story sounds implausible, but I didn’t ask for it.

I won’t be doing anything with the photo either but OP you can delete the photo of the site just to be sure.

You all seem to think I have bad intentions, I’m just pointing out that I think a story being told on here is false.