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?

Good idea.

Yes, me and DH had already spoken about this and the last thing he would ever want to do is to turn up in front of some unsuspecting woman and try to gain entry to a WI event.

That was never going to happen.

To be frank, it started out light heartedly but, given the written response, I do think that this requires progressing through their official complaints procedure.

Could you provide a link to the complaints procedure at all?

No problem it not, I can have a look tomorrow.

We've had "what is a woman?" - before the Supreme Court definition, no-one could really say what a woman was - and now there's "how does one live as a woman?"

But it shouldn't matter how one lives "as a woman". Because organisations are now legally allowed to exclude members of the opposite sex from a single-sex organisation. So if an organisation is for women, men can't belong.

Clearly, in this case, the Women's Institute is choosing not to exclude members of the opposite sex, provided that they appear (on paper) to be female. However, they are not female, but male, and so the Women's Institute is letting its female members down by pretending that some of the members are female when they aren't.

A foolish decision by the Women's Institute.

But the Equality Act 2010 still has Gender Reassignment as a protected characteristic onwards you expect them to say? Law is Law, and the SC specifically stated that the EA2010 still stands.

re-enactment of OP's husband turning up to his local WI

committee see him enter the church hall and assume he's the speaker for the night

committee member welcomes him

he clarifies that he's there to join

committee members says 'I'm sorry, we don't accept men, have you tried the local men's shed / the rotary club / the rugby club (delete as appropriate).

OP's husband either folds and goes home, in which case everyone just assumes he was a weirdo and gets on with their night. or goes full on i'm a laydee and insists on staying, in which case you now have yet another man clogging up what was a single sex space and the local committee can do fuck all about it because he's allowed to be there under the national policy.,

either way you've achieved fuck all

The WI has a certain classist bias which accounts for the ‘don’t make a fuss’ mentality. But is it bad that I find the gormless betrayal of other women far more depressing than that of the men?

Does this mean he should accept sub-standard, poorly-researched, medical care? Get used to inappropriate comments and accidental bodily contact and smile sweetly? Accept that he must become hyper-vigilant when walking alone at night, or using public transport. Expect to justify his apparel if sexually assaulted or raped? Expect regular judgments on his hair, clothing, and body shape. Get used to being told his anger is just hormones. Be more vigilant about contraception. Expect to be overlooked in his career unless he starts working twice as hard? Adjust to health and safety requirements which don't take into account his size and strength? Accept the blame if his children develop any mental health issues?

I think you may have posted on the wrong thread?

I'd suggest either going to

Membership - [email protected]

or

General enquiries - [email protected]

I do intend to write to them myself, and I think I'm going to email from my WI email address and also send a letter by post.

I'm also toying with contacting the charity commission as I believe they are acting against their charitable aims

Kudos to your DH.
It's quite a tricky one this as for example I wouldn't be happy if a man (of any gender) tried to go in the women's pond on Hampstead Heath, or shares a YHA dorm, as in some situations this would breach boundaries. But just writing letters is enough here to expose the madness.

??
What normal man would want to join the Mothers Union?

I think they mean that that is what living as a woman is really like.

What a hero!
Please do keep us updated on Mr Another2Cats application!

As we know certain aspects such as significant inheritance are totally male sex only, no women. That ought to be challenged.

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but does the SC ruling comply the WI to exclude men who identify as women. Or, is it a personal choice for them as an organisation?

I totally agree that there are things we need as women. I don't think that men should be allowed to join. But does the SC ruling mean they can if that is the stance the WI choose to take?

Oh FFS, am fed up of this shit. Not productive I know, but am just so angry about the WI, not to mention feminism for some being centred around men, because that's what trans women are.

Anyway, yes, please ask them to clarify what they mean to live as a woman. Also, by their thinking, a trans man lives a man, so this means they would exclude a biological female?

Oh, okay, I get it now.

Sorry @youkiddingme I didn't the point you were trying to make.

All women live as women, because they're women. All men live as men, because they're men.

Men pretending to be women are men living as men pretending to be women. A man who say he thinks he's living as a woman is mistaken, deluded or lying. If he thinks that complying with stereotypes of what it is to be a woman means that he's living as a woman, he's a sexist arsehole.

"I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but does the SC ruling comply the WI to exclude men who identify as women. Or, is it a personal choice for them as an organisation?"

No it certainly is not a stupid question. A lot of people have been confused by this.

A woman by the name of Akua Reindorf explained it very clearly.

Who's she? You ask.

Well, Akua Reindorf is a KC (a senior barrister) and a part time Employment Judge. More importantly, she is one of the Commissioners of the EHRC. This is the body that will be coming up with the statutory guidance that interprets the latest SC judgment.

She will be having a very large input into what that guidance says.

She tweeted about this two weeks ago and I posted about it at the time:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5324127-interim-guidance-from-ehrc-is-out-thread-2?reply=143886518

This is what I posted:

Coincidentally, Akua Reindorf KC (one of the Commissioners of the EHCR) tweeted on this just now to somebody who had a similar question.

Question: My understanding is that it says, for example, that lesbian groups must exclude trans women? Rather than can just legally exclude them if they choose?

Reply from AR:

It’s an inevitable consequence of the judgment. In general an association mustn’t discriminate against a person by depriving them of membership because of a protected characteristic: s.101(1). So eg a reading group can’t say “no disabled people” /1

But there’s an exception which says that an association can be limited to people who share a protected characteristic: Sch 16 para 1. Thus an association can be limited to women, disabled people, older people, black people etc /2

An association can combine protected characteristics as long as it’s for people who all have the same two (or more) PCs: lesbian women, black men, young Asian disabled people etc. This way, everybody in the club falls within both/all the PCs /3

But you can’t have an either/or association: disabled people + older people; black women + white men; young people + disabled people. This is because the association can’t satisfy the single protected characteristic condition for any one of its PCs /4

So you can’t have an association for lesbian women and heterosexual men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which is what trans women who are attracted to women are for the purposes of the Act) /5

This wouldn’t be an association for lesbians because it would have straight members; it wouldn’t be an assc for women because some members are men & it wouldn’t be an assc for trans people because some members aren’t trans. Hence it’s discriminatory and unlawful /end

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/1916748422658359573

So, the practical upshot of all this is that the SC ruling does indeed compel the WI to exclude all men if they wish to remain as a single sex organisation.

The EA10 provides that you can provide a single sex service, organisation etc (ie discriminate against men/women as appropriate by excluding them from you service for women/men) if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

So the WI could say “we exclude men because women need spaces to meet where they can speak freely, enjoy each others company [insert whatever the purpose is of the WI]”. If challenged by a man who wants to join, they can argue that their discrimination is lawful because of the single sex exception.

Running an organisation for women “and some men who say they’re women” is not covered by the single sex exception, as the SC made clear that “sex” means biological sex, not “certificated sex” (the Scottish Gov had already conceded that men without a GRC, however they identify, are not women for EA10 purposes).

The WI is currently mixed sex, and so if they deny access to any man they cannot say “you’re not a woman so you can’t join” as they do let people who aren’t women join. The excluded man can now claim direct discrimination, and the WI has no lawful defence as they are no longer within the single sex exception.

A woman could also potentially sue for indirect discrimination if a single sex service is needed (e.g. hospital ward) and NOT provided. So everything going gender neutral isn’t a panacea (I think the WI could probably decide to go mixed sex without this risk, but the NHS couldn’t for hospital wards).

Thank you, that's quite clear and makes sense to me now.

So could Eddie Izzard join the WI but only attend events on mondays, wednesdays and fridays because those are the days he is in “girl mode”?

You beat me to it @Another2Cats - Akua is brilliant!

If the OP joins the WI then that is a tick for his living as woman badge. Although before he joins he's living as a man, which means he can't join. They're standing in the way of him being his true authentic self.

So if I ask to join the WI and tell the I am a trans man they won't let me join (regardless of my sex)?!