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?

Thanks for the update @Another2Cats

My question is - in these conversations betweem your DH and the WI, has the possibility of the WI reconfirming as a female-only organisation and removing all male members (fnar) been discussed? Would that actually satisfy DH? Potentially with an option that transwomen and all other males may join as associate members for the purpose of being included in activities (but still able to be excluded when that would be detrimental to women) and with no voting rights.

The thing is that thiscase is pushing for making the WI a fully mixed-sex organisation and it's not clear that a path of becoming an actually single-sex organisation has actually been discussed.

The stuff about the detriment that TW suffer is somewhat irrelevant. When trans-idemtifying men suffer a detriment that could be overcome by positive action it most be shown to be by comparison with other males. TW are a subset of males who have the PC of gender reassignment. Any charitable body which addresses the need for positive action would need to have among its objectives that they aim to address the barriers that disadvantaged groups of males suffer. That is not within the remit of the WI and is an abuse of their resources that should be taken up with the Charities Commission rather than a court case to make them widen their offense against their founding principles to start including all men rather than just men with a specific PC.

I would speculate (and it is speculation) that given the age and general class of the WI Board that there will be the chilling effect of trans relatives possibly children or grandchildren affecting thinking as well

There was a suggestion upthread that trans wives of board members may (I repeat may) also be in the mix.

True. I can see why Stonewall were so keen to indoctrinate children from 2+ - not only are the kids pushing the belief but the (less resistant to cult-think) adults in the families of those kids are also then co opted into the fight.

Every time I look at it the web gets deeper and more tangled - and I’m sure there’s loads more.

Sorry, this was a reply to someone asking about male organizations being quizzed about accepting transmen. I should have quoted it, but it's my first post here and thought using add from the post would show that. 😳

The freemasons have it in their regulations that they accept trans-identifying females (and the lady freemasons accept trans-identifying males). I do wonder how long that will last.

Incidentally the wordings for the two organizations for these policies are nigh identical, probably drafted by the same person.

The The Freemasons General Counsel ( Head of Legal ) confirmed that their ED and I policy has been withdrawn as a result of the Supreme Court decision but has not yet been replaced..

This would seem a sensible response that most other orgs could learn from.

Remove the policy. Which is obviously illegal and risks expensive legal action if you're not actually interested in women or their legal rights and protections.

Freeze memberships if necessary with a pending further decisions, (or provide third spaces if necessary and applicable, again with the interim message)

Await the EHRC guidance peacefully, and then confirm new policy.

As opposed to the headless chicken approach of run around in circles shouting 'we're waiting!'

"...in these conversations betweem your DH and the WI"

Before he commenced the claim the WI didn't respond in any way at all. The conversation was with their solicitors.

"The thing is that thiscase is pushing for making the WI a fully mixed-sex organisation and it's not clear that a path of becoming an actually single-sex organisation has actually been discussed."

Don't worry, it very much has been discussed or, at least, DH has kept on referring to it. All along, DH has asked that he either be admitted as a member or the WI explain upon what lawful basis he was excluded from membership.

The only lawful way to exclude DH would be if the WI were to be a truly single sex association.

Well done OP. Great job so far.

@Another2Cats

I am incredibly impressed with your DH's efforts. My only worry is that you are carrying the weight for everybody arguing that associations cannot claim to be single sex if they include people who self-identity into that sex. I understand that you are using professional advice but please, please, please pull out if the professionals indicate that there is a realistic chance that you will lose.

FWS Scotland lost before they won. Maya Forster lost before she won. 🤷‍♀️

The argument they have come up with is nonsense. They could have as a women's group, target particular groups of women, on the basis of recruitment, and offer special privilege or exceptions. Such as for eg, Muslim women, who would not be attracted to a primarily Christian organisation.

but they cannot recruit men who think they are women, or further the cause of TIM because they are men.

Oh I do agree but a verdict in a civil court carries a weight that a similar verdict in a T1 EAT doesn't.. TBH, I expect that the WI will get their arses handed to them on a plate.

Why would that be bad?

Isn't it right that organisations must be specific about who they are for, and mustn't purport to be single-sex while actually being mixed sex?

There's no problem with there existing a mixed sex organisation that runs educational and charitable activities for all in a similar way to the WI.

Charities in particular, if founded for the specific purpose of addressing the disadvantages that women face relative it men - and especially charities that have capital assets that were donated to them as a single sex sex organisation, cannot decide to become mixed sex without a proper process to redefine theur charitable objectives which should be overseen by the Charities Commission, and will include an impact assessment to ensure that they properly think about what women and girls will lose if they do.

A specific ruling that all charitable organisations founded for the benefit of women and girls must either go through this process and become an officially mixed sex organisation or must restrict their activities to the benefit of female people sounds great to me. If a lot of them choose option 1 then that will provide a clarity that will allow women to organise opportunities for women that don't currently exist because there are organisations pretending to be single sex whilst not being so.

Your OH is brilliant for following through with this, well done.

The lawyers seem to be falling into the old trap believing that trans women are a subset of women as opposed to reality that they are a subset of men.

That’s it really. Nothing more.

The lawyers need to remember their legal training and remember how to interpret a SC judgement, it shouldn’t be that difficult for them, it’s really basic stuff.

In the EHRC Consultation I specifically asked them to include an example of a single sex charity/association who had misapplied the law and had male members. With advice on how they might deal with this situation because they can’t be full members - and to clarify that any “associate memberships” would have to be open to all males if offered to trans women…. Given that this is a situation being faced by many organisations it would be very useful to have an example spelled out… fingers crossed

Excellent point knotty Women’s Aid had associate members who were not female led providers, many moons ago.

Been delving a bit about this novel s158 idea that the solicitors presented in their phone all last Friday to the OPs husband. It’s on the Good Law Project website ( along with lots more crap. They boast their crap guidance was drawn up by a KC and team of other barristers which is supposed to impress us until you realise that the KC is Jolyon Maughan who specialises in tax law . So it looks like Bate and Wells are getting their advice from GLP or just accessing their FAQ as I did. .

I will post a couple of screenshots from the page but in the meantime here is the link to the page .

https://goodlawproject.org/resource/trans-inclusion-after-the-supreme-court-decision-faqs/

Fascinating thank you - it is interesting that having been given such amazing advice including by a Kings Counsel no less - the GLP statement is so full of maybe and we believe and other clear clauses to give an impression without committing to a point of view! The one thing that JM seems to be good at is giving himself escape clauses:

I didn’t promise - it was maybe and we believed, but sadly a lawyer came along and used the actual law as an answer, so I am sorry I seem to have lost your £400,000…

If there was a clear case against the SC judgement a) the judges themselves might have been aware and b) the GLP would be talking with far more certainty…

this is more of the same trend - say lots of things that aren’t quite true in a way which makes them sound authoritative and absolute and if you yell loud enough no other voice can be heard…

basically no case to answer!

I'm getting really quite curious as to what's going on there.

Message to MG the CEO of NFWI as I presume you are still reading this thread.

Another novel idea ( but better than that s158 one) : Get some decent legal advice from someone who actually specialises in Equality law - maybe a barrister even ( hint not the GLP who don’t have a great success rate in this field ) or

Another novel idea : why not save the unnecessary wasting of our funds and take heed of what Kier Starmer said yesterday and just implement the Supreme Court decision?

If it’s discriminatory to include only some men, then surely what they are asking for is positive discrimination, which is illegal?

Yes