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?

I’m not accusing anyone of trolling. I’ve just said I find the story implausible based on the context and what we know. That’s different from calling them a troll, which I know breaks the rules. I’m just engaging with what’s been posted, like everyone else.

If you think it's false, report the thread to MNHQ. What you're doing is troll hunting which is banned.

You haven't explained why you think it's more likely that the OP has spent all this time making stuff up, including creating a made-up letter from lawyers especially to send to you, than that this is genuine. Why would anyone do that? What's in it for them?

If I answer that, then you’ll accuse me of more troll hunting.

Back on track- I agree with the point about this (also) being an issue under charity law. But presumably that’s a matter for the Charity Commission to pursue and not something a member of the public can enforce. It seems unlikely they would be interested, so if there’s no enforcement it doesn’t really matter if it’s unlawful. And from the OP’s perspective, it doesn’t get achieve the goal of getting her husband a membership to do his activity.

There was a name of a partner on that email (along with his direct dial number).

If you really don't believe what my DH is going through, then call him on that number and ask about the telephone conversation he had with my DH when he called at 2.45pm on Friday.

[EDIT]

Sorry, I've just changed the image to hidden and I will need to resend you the link. Please let me know if it is ok to send you a PM with the link.

We could always focus on the actual made-up nonsense behind all this - the idea that a man can become a woman, call himself something tasteful and feminine and join the WI. And that the WI is prepared to defend this (literal) bollocks.

Thanks for your posts. Message received and understood. No need to de-rail the discussion with further similar points.

[That concludes this service announcement thank you]

Para. 1 - I honestly don't know enough about the law to comment, besides saying that, having followed a few Employment Tribunals and the SC fairly closely now, I'm somewhat less inclined to trust in the common sense and competence of legal professionals by default; more to the point (again applying the sharp edge of Occam's Razor), my understanding is that these professionals are appointed to represent an argument as well as they can in the circumstances. In a world in which courts are debating the existence of a sex binary and women as a legal class, I can well believe PP's interpretations above as to why they may be (appear to be) presenting (what we see as) poor arguments here.

Para. 2 - certainly this happens; I just suggest Occam's Razor may be applicable here as regards the likelihood of this happening versus the alternative - I think this is what you would call "internet literacy".

Para. 3 - see para. 1 as my main response; however, my layperson's instinct is that something like this (I'm sure the words used in the call would have been exceptionally carefully chosen) likely could be expressed sufficiently vaguely with some confidence? interested in the views of legal bods (maybe already given above - haven't read posts filling the gap yet).

I’m sure you are absolutely correct in all of this and agree with what you say but the issue is that the WI knows all this and is still refusing to update their policies.

Afaik this has also been reported to the Charities Commission and any other relevant body but none of them are prepared to act and take any action to force the WI to stick to its charitable aims and behave lawfully.

Hence OPs and DH foray into the weeds - it seems to be the only remaining solution.

Stop bending over backwards to appease that poster. It's not worth it (and certainly doesn't matter if somebody is disbelieving).

I do imagine the solicitor DH spoke to was trying to catch him out. Was it a without prejudice conversation?

I'm interested in a 6 week defence extension. 28 days is the usual request (else you need a consent order).

I also thought 6 weeks was eyebrow raising, particularly when it’s not a case with a large volume of facts to address, nor one requiring obvious expert input / reports at this stage in order to plead, and given they’ve already outlined in the phone call the legal route they’re looking at for the defence. 🤔

"Was it a without prejudice conversation?"

Yes

"I'm interested in a 6 week defence extension. 28 days is the usual request"

They did ask for 28 days initially. But then during the conversation, they offered to provide further information around the disadvantages faced by TIM and how the WI can help overcome that.

DH said that if there were such strong evidence then that may sway his mind on what he does with the case. So they asked for an extra 21 days to get that together, DH agreed to an extra 14 days.

Trans identifying males would be perfectly welcome to join the Mothers' Union which is a similar organisation to the WI but unisex.

They'll have to sign a consent order then, as they can't agree 6 weeks between them.

I think they're just trying to extend the time for no good reason, personally.

Why do you care so much about what a random person on the internet thinks, particularly when they have been intent on undermining you?

I am gobsmacked that you would share the name of the solicitor and his direct phone number in a PM, suggesting to a stranger on the internet, who is inimical to you and your DH, that they should contact the WI's solicitor to discuss his conversation with your DH.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that this information might be used to harass the WI's solicitor, by people who are not on your side but who claim to be when making contact.

All of your posts on this matter have been so measured and rational that this tack seems completely out of character.

EDIT for grammar.

Posting simply to disable the 'scroll straight to the end of the page' bug.

As you were.

Actually, did someone say that action taken to overcome a disadvantage has to be time-limited?

Yes, I know. They just got to me.

That same number and email address for him are also on the firm's website and readily available.

I just really object to being called a liar.

"...that he should contact the WI's solicitor to discuss his conversation with your DH."

That wasn't done with the intention of suggesting that this poster should actually do it, but to point out that I can refer to a very specific event that is very verifiable. "Mr solicitor did you have a telephone conversation with a man about a case against the WI on Friday afternoon at 2.45pm"

I just noticed what you said

"...that he should..."

That's interesting. Why do you say that? Does that poster come across as being a bloke?

"Mr solicitor did you have a telephone conversation with a man about a case against the WI on Friday afternoon at 2.45pm"

To which the answer should be "We can't discuss cases with unrelated parties."

I just noticed what you said
"...that he should..."

That's interesting. Why do you say that? Does that poster come across as being a bloke?

Must do because I only noticed reading back after I had posted that I had said "he".

It wasn't a conscious thing when I was writing but I realised on reading back that I didn't know if they were a he or a she so thought I had best change "he" to "they".

Not sure positive action fits here. Isn't that only for recruitment? If it isn't, I've learnt something today!

But if that was really the argument everyone would be using it and in all the comments about the SC judgment on LinkedIn, I've not seen anyone mention positive action as a way of getting round the issue.

Doesn't sound like it will fly to me.

I agree, and as I said a few messages back, the Mothers' Union is available to them as an alternative

Except trans women ‘living as women’ are eligible to join, so men can join. Except in FAQ it says men can’t join…

It’s not just for recruitment but you can’t use it as they’re suggesting, you could offer a service/advertise a job or whatever to everyone but prioritise one particular group above everyone else, like the guaranteed interview scheme for disabled applicants who meet the job criteria. The WI could prioritise trans men if they were actually concerned about helping trans people, but that is clearly not their real motivation.

I believe the Round Table have a separate ‘women’s group’ but still manage to keep a group just for men, the WI could do something like that, but if they keep it women only plus some disadvantaged men then it’s no longer women only.

Forget what it says on the WI's website or in their press releases, the legal position in regards to their governing documents is that men are ineligible to become members regardless of how they identify or whether they have a gender recognition certificate.

The WI cannot adopt or operate a policy that breaches the terms of its governing documents. Any such policy is automatically null and void.