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 note one of the members of their senior staff team is also a Lib Dem councillor.

lib dems attitude to GC women and cheerleading of TW is well documented

From the GLP page linked above.

For example, access to single-sex cubicle toilets (i.e. toilets that are in cubicles, rather than a separate lockable room) may depend upon whether you have a GRC because the meaning of “sex” in the Workplace (Health and Safety) Regulations 1992 may be governed by the GRA

Michael Foran said this is not true because the rationale behind the SC decision applies to all laws . IANAL - I think there was a specific legal reason for this - but also it seems like common sense. Why would sex have a different meaning in different statutes?

She is and stood as a PCC candidate at an election in 2013 I think. Her pro trans views are well documented on the Internet. But there are others too. Present Chair for example.

Virtuous circle of agreement and chilling effect in action

if someone didn’t agree as a trustee or staff member with WI decision to allow men I wonder how free they would have felt to have voiced that view….

Just leaving this here for anyone wanting to hear more from equalities lawyers who have a good track record of winning cases unlike The GLP

I don’t see how they could make the s158 argument work in this case. Yes there is provision for positive action to address disadvantage and that MIGHT make it possible for some (non-charitable) associations to be trans-inclusive if they so chose (though I have not fully been down that rabbit hole). But the WI is a charity, so is bound by charity law and its own articles of association/constituion, which says it exists to promote the interest (or whatever) of women and girls. So they could not be TW-inclusive (though could be TM-inclusive) unless they change their charitable objects (which would require a membership vote and permission of the Charity Commission - not impossible, but could not be taken for granted).

Please can you let me know the law firm.

I have a lawyer here and he’s outraged

We got it don’t worry

I was so tempted to say Sue, Grabbitt & Runne.

@AlexandraLeaving

Yes there is provision for positive action to address disadvantage and that MIGHT make it possible for some (non-charitable) associations to be trans-inclusive if they so chose (though I have not fully been down that rabbit hole

I don’t think so unless they were a mixed sex organisation already. Otherwise there will always be discrimination against other men.
Positive action can only ever be training or targeted events to encourage participation eg in positions of responsibility .

I hardly think that they could prove that transwomen need to be encouraged into taking more senior roles in the WI - they are managing that quite well by themselves thank you very much - as fed board members , as officers in WI branches and even as a prospective national board member.

It’s part of the massive problem they cause —besides just being men in an all women organisation—.

Yes you are probably right. As I said, I had not fully explored that rabbit hole and I agree with your analysis. I was just trying to cover the point about it being irrelevant given the WI’s charitable objects. It all seems like a waste of time. Quelle surprise.

I suspect that if the WI became officially mixed sex, then TIMs would have no interest in becoming members…

I'd love to see a fly on the wall documentary analysing exactly how this comes about.

Do women defer to them? Do the men coerce the women? And how are they better than the women - at running a women's organisation, for women?

I'd love to see how it actually pans out. Because it's a common refrain. That as soon as men enter an organisation, they leapfrog over women to get to the top.

I have seen lectures on how women should immediately surrender all leadership positions to the men with trans identities as a sign of commitment, loyalty and obedience to the most oppressed and righteous.

This is why lesbian groups - often having initially believed in the be kind, be nice, they're just women like you bullshit - went underground to escape. Instantly everything has to be all about men with trans identities, the original purpose of the group and the interests of everyone else are dismissed and rejected on the spot. Then there's bafflement from said men that they are not liked or wanted and women get angry and won't let them in to wreck other groups.

It's like that bit from friends. Men are Here. Make Fire. Pee all over it. Not get invited back.

Yes, I can easily see that happening.

It's just so ironic, not to mention bloody galling, that it's happening to an organisation who are meant to specifically to empower women.

I've said it often here before - this isn't ironic, it's a feature. They deliberately target women only activities especially those designed to foster independence and confidence, because that's what threatens men. It's why they target Guides, women-only swimming, women's sport and so on.

"Resisting TERF’s and Transforming Their Organizations"

Scroll down this thread for the archived link as the original article has been deleted (the author, "Laura", has also posted it on other blog platforms):

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3921532-Resisting-TERF-s-and-Transforming-Their-Organizations

Some people dismiss this "master plan" as the mad ravings of a psychopath but the examples given where it has been put into action are all real.

The Supreme Court has at least put an end in the UK to this little wheeze:

"With TERF groups, many will likely try to ban trans women from membership. This can be worked around. Cis women allies can easily enter a given organization. If they work as a collective, it’s a matter of figuring out the number needed to achieve a simple majority (or whatever number is needed to overrule attempts to stop the bloc). For example, if a collective has about 25 members, then a group as small as 30 could wrest control from the bigots.

Then, when it comes time to select leaders, remove the old bigoted guard and install rational leadership. Done correctly, this is a wonderful bloodless democratic coup. It’s enabled since TERF’s are a tiny — if loud — minority of all women. Finding women willing to help replace their hate with love and inclusiveness is therefore not an impossible task.

This tactic is especially sound when trying to take over a group that has resources and performs functions that are important to the broader community, but happen to be biased against women. (By "women" Laura of course means men.) For example, discriminatory rape crisis centers on one hand perform an important function for the segment of women (the "segment of women" formerly known as "women" 🙄 ) they do serve, even as they impose misogynist exclusionary definitions of who they’ll treat. Maintaining continuity for the delivery of this kind of service is important — no one wins if they’re shut down or disappear. A gradual internal take over simply allows the organization to stop being a hate group while still caring for women in need (as long as they include men they are allowed to survive!)."

And then they'll all huff in rage when holding gender ideological views becomes incompatible with being a part of a sex realist women's organisation. They're working towards it very hard. But look at the sheer disrespect for women in this, or for other people in general? Send in the handmaidens to be the vanguard and do the work to capture those women for the men: the women are always the dirty work people to be used, even the ones stupid enough to enable it. It's beyond nasty. It's all about permitting women to have nothing; everything must be stamped out, owned and controlled by men. Misogyny on crack.

The next generation of women's organisations are going to be wise to this shit, trust nobody and be a hell of a lot more aware of staying man-free.

I actually know real people who believe all this shite.

It's not possible to talk to them, of course. If a conversation opener is "I hate anti-trans bigots" there isn't really anywhere to go after that. People on here have suggested that I should get rid of these friends who dislike "anti-trans bigots and terfs" but I believe that eventually they will realise what fools they've been. Also I don't think there's any point in confrontation, because if one end of the scale is confrontation, the other end of the scale is capitulation, but you don't get reasoned debate in the middle. Just a nasty messy punch up.

For example, if a collective has about 25 members, then a group as small as 30 could wrest control from the bigots

Of course an actual ‘TERF’ has sneakily read the relevant legislation and would know that by adding 30 members to the group you bring the association within the scope of the EA, and that at that point it must be either single sex or mixed sex.

I am so depressed by my own face to face group at the moment . I proposed a moratorium on membership pending the results of the review NFWI are doing . Not one would support me . I despair, i really do.

Just leaving this here for you @Another2Cats - as Ben Cooper KC specifically discusses provision of single sex spaces that are trans inclusive. See his conclusion at para 85.1.

oldsquare.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FWS-Why-the-SC-decision-does-not-breach-trans-rights.pdf

Ben Cooper also addresses positive action: to be lawful it must address the entirety of a PC-sharing group. To lawfully discriminate in favour of gender-reassigned people the WI would have to offer the same disadvantages to both men and women sharing that characteristic - not just gender-reassigned men.

Wow! That document is such a clear explanation of the SC ruling couched much more in layman's terms than the actual judgment. The SC expressed particular gratitude to Ben Cooper KC for his written and oral submissions on behalf of Sex Matters, "which gave focus and structure to the argument that “sex”, “man” and “woman” should be given a biological meaning, and who was able effectively to address the questions posed by members of the court in the hour he had to make his submissions".
This document is something that everyone can read to understand the SC judgment but doubtless there will continue to be a failure of comprehension on the part of TRAs.

Can't help comparing Ben's clarity of communication compared to a few other barristers well known around these parts.