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?

They do have male members though

You’d think so , but they do have them , pretending to be women ……( not very well)

There is no provision in the Wi's governing documents that would allow males to be admitted to membership.

Males may have been admitted as members in the mistaken belief that the WI could define the word 'women' in such a way as to include males who identify as transgender but this is not the case in law and never has been, as per the UKSC judgement in FWS v Scottish Ministers.

Any and all such memberships are null and void.

WI's and WI Federations that operate under company as well as charity law may appoint males to serve as company secretary but this does not make them a member of the WI.

>they offered to provide further information around the disadvantages faced by TIM and how the WI can help overcome that.

I am particularly intrigued (and skeptical), as I'm sure the OP is, as to whether and how, specifically allowing them full membership in the organization is the best or even a proportional way to overcome whatever disadvantages they feel TIMs suffer. There is a wide range of other less discriminatory things they could do instead.

I agree that all the male memberships should be null and void but the WI seems intent on finding a reason that they can be still included

Those memberships are null and void as a matter of law and any WI operating on that basis could face regulatory action by the Charity Commission for breaching their govening documents.

Yes, I've seen the 'positive action' idea and, frankly, its a load of bollocks - lawyers inventing spurious complications in the hope that any potential plaintiffs will lack the time, money and will to wade through their bullshit in order to get to court.

I mean, isn't this like an association open only to deaf people allowing any gay or lesbian person to join as long as they wear ear plugs?

Perhaps that example is offensive to deaf people and/or gay and lesbian people, and if it is, I apologize. But if it is, doesn't that just highlight the absurdity of what the WI is saying?

The problem is that the Charity Commission is refusing to take action.

But they're supposed to be an organisation for women, so why are they considering how to help some men to overcome their disadvantages? Particularly since in doing so, they are disadvantaging or excluding some of their female members.

I agree with you. But organizations can decide to do lots of (to the outside world) obviously stupid things that aren't actually unlawful. Normally the right answer is for the members to get together and vote in a new executive team.

The question here is how to demonstrate this is actually not lawful.

But what do we do if the WI branches continue to admit men and the Charities Commission won’t do anything about it?

When filling in the EHRC consultation on sex in the Equality Act, these two paragraphs jumped out at me. you are probably all over this already, but just in case:

13.3.19 If a service provider (or a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) admits trans people to a service intended for the opposite biological sex, then it can no longer rely on the exceptions set out at paragraphs 13.2.3 to 13.2.22. This means that if a service is provided only to women and trans women or only to men and trans men, it is not a separate-sex or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010. A service like this is very likely to amount to unlawful sex discrimination against the people of the opposite sex who are not allowed to use it. A service which is provided to women and trans women could also be unlawful sex discrimination or lead to unlawful harassment against women who use the service. Similar considerations would apply to a service provided for men and trans men.

13.5.3 If a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) decides to have a separate or single-sex service and allows trans people to use the service intended for the opposite biological sex, the service will no longer be a separate or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). It is also very likely to amount to unlawful discrimination against others (read paragraph 13.3.19).

@Catiette Thank you for standing up for me. I really do appreciate it!

Mainly because they are so entrenched in their views and want to save face. Let’s face it nobody wants to appear stupid . Trouble is the longer they continue with this farce the stupider the leadership looks

[WAVES MADLY, pointing fingers at the CEO, Chairman, Head of Legal and Head of membership et all who are hopefully reading this at NFWI HQ - yes you lot …., I am pointing at you! Stop looking behind you, and wake up and smell the coffee]

I wanted to chime in on the “are you a lawyer” query from the law firm. My thought is that was said not to flatter your husband (that might be a side-effect) but to winkle out whether he’d be susceptible, as a non-lawyer, to their spurious defence and be intimidated/bamboozled into dropping the case.

You know this thread and others is probably why the Chairwoman stood up at the Annual Meeting and said “Please will you stop being horrible to us at HQ….”

My sympathy tears ran dry years ago , and do you know what , they should know what would make us stop……!

Let’s face it nobody wants to appear stupid . Trouble is the longer they continue with this farce the stupider the leadership looks

Indeed. They had a choice of 'Kindly misguided' with a swift reverse after the SC judgement; or 'Ridiculous cultists' by clutching at increasingly flimsy straws. Not many would consider the latter to be the better look.

Phnar

Sorry. As you were.

<shuffles off sheepishly>

I completely agree.

The bit that bamboozles me on all this is how these people in charge suddenly lose all ability to consider ‘new’ information. They are having the issues and harm to women explained to them but instead of taking the obvious and dignified way out handed to them by the SC, they stick to their guns. Why??

Why would they need so many weeks to write up the disadvantages they have presumably already thoroughly assessed in order to allow them membership? I’d be tempted to write back and say I’ve been thinking about our discussion and one point I am stuck on is why you would need extra time to provide examples of all the disadvantages that this group suffer which is the reason why they’ve been granted membership. They were obviously all assessed at the time of granting membership so this is just cleaning up and presenting. I’d like to return to the original and standard time frame for these requests, allowing for the 2 days since we spoke, so i expect a response within x days.

I really don't understand the lawyer's argument here. Eligibility for membership of the WI is through being a woman, not through being disadvantaged.

Because it’s a faith position, which is the only way you can believe anything so stupid. And then rejecting it makes you look as though you’ve been credulous and stupid, so you dig in (and look even more stupid).

🤣 Still miffed that they took the LOL reaction emoji away.

Yes, perfect time to need it.