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?

Agree though that it's not an incapacity to read or understand - more a brain going 'clang' that it doesn't say what it's supposed to say.

As regards the current thread where the WI solicitors' claim that they are using positive discrimination because transexuals are the most marginalised & discriminated against. Ben Cooper states

113. The positive action exceptions are not limited to sex and a somewhat different analysis applies from the one considered above in relation to single sex services. Section 158 of the EA 2010 makes general provision for positive action in favour of persons who share the same protected characteristic (other than in respect of recruitment and promotion at work, which is governed by s159) where (a) the duty bearer has a reasonable belief that such persons suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic, have particular needs that differ from those of people who do not share the characteristic, or are underrepresented in a particular activity; and (b) the positive action is a proportionate means of addressing such disadvantage, needs and/or underrepresentation.

As male transexuals don't share a PC with women it's ludicrous to claim that positive action is a proportionate means of addressing a disadvantage. Section 158 of the EA 2010 does not provide the gotcha that these solicitors claim.

I cant tell from the excerpt if the group that has the ‘same protected characteristic’ is the group that is benefiting from the positive action ie trans identifying men, or if it’s the group that is benefiting AND another group, I guess being women in general here. If the first defn then that does fit the scenario here?.(Which doesn’t tell us anything about whether it’s a reasonable claim, I very much doubt it)

The point is that all members of the group need to share at least one PC before discriminating on another PC that they don't share.
For example you could take a group of women & positively discriminate in favour of disabled women because they all share the PC of female biological sex. Women & male transexuals do not share a PC.

Don’t forget though that positive discrimination is only allowed if specifically allowed for in the act or another act. Otherwise it’s illegal.

The 2 ticks scheme for disabled workers allows them a leg up of automatic interview if they meet all the necessary attributes for a job. Interview - not the job itself. That is positive action Awarding the job automatically without interview would be positive discrimination not positive action which is illegal

Examples where positive discrimination is allowed are in political shortlists (women only) or women on company boards in Scotland and some jobs which need to be by a particular sex only eg manager of women’s DV centre.

Letting TIM join purportedly a women’s organisation under s158 would be positive discrimination not positive action as well as them not sharing a PC with women ( I agree with your analysis about needing to share a PC with women, which they don’t. )

Are the WI planning to use positive action to justify having a single sex charity/association in the first place, or is it only to justify trans women as members? I wonder if they are planning to say they are doing positive action for 2 pc's - female, plus males with gr, and that's the bit of the EA they will rely on for the whole thing - that the WI exists to do positive action?

They dont need to do positive action to be single sex . It’s specifically allowed under schedule 16 of the act and called a single sex exemption. .

And what they propose is positive discrimination not positive action . Therefore illegal .

I really don't want to be thinking of that barrister's parts <snurk>

OK, so big update.

The WI are NOT a single sex organisation, apparently.

They are going to be running the same argument that the City of London Council are going with on the Hampstead Ponds.

According to the WI, the organisation "does not purport to establish single sex membership within the meaning of the EqA"

They then go on to say:

"As such, it is free to define “women who have reached the Age of Majority” within its Membership Rules as it pleases, as long as its definition is not discriminatory. As we explain below, the definition “women who live as women, including transgender women” is not discriminatory."

They then go on to say that their membership policy does not discriminate on the grounds of sex or render reassignment and that:

"The Membership Policy does not exclude anyone on these grounds. It allows for the admission of “biological” men as members, as long as they are living as women. It also allows for the admission of people who are not trans, as long as they are living as women."
.

They then go on to say that if that isn't enough then not admitting DH would still be lawful under s158:

"Even if you were subject to some kind of prima facie discrimination by the Membership Policy (which you are not), this would still be lawful, pursuant to the positive action provision of the EqA"

The WI can help TiM through:

"It offers trans women an acutely needed sense of community, solidarity, inclusion and validation with other women, as well as access to practical opportunities that they have not been or felt able to access. It offers a welcoming place where transgender women can connect with other women, socialise and learn together. As far as the Women’s Institute is aware, there is no other similar organisation for trans women that offers this space, and so it is unique. The Women’s Institute offers transgender women ultimate acceptance – a space where they are welcomed as women just as their fellow members are, with no need to justify their presence, and free from prejudice, discrimination and judgement"
.

Interestingly, when they talk about the balancing exercise that is required they only talk about the disadvantage to other men, they never once mention the disadvantage to women who are already members.

There's a lot to unpack at the moment, but this is just the highlights.

So they say they class women as people of either sex.

Therefore 'living as a woman' means 'living as a person of either sex'. Which your husband does (as does everyone else on the planet).

So why have they excluded him, again?

Edited to clarify that the italics are my reading of their claim, not a direct quote.

Well that makes it very clear that the WI now centres men.

(But only the Special Men).

Good to know 🙄

For the love of God...

They provided you with a definition of what "living as a woman" means, I assume...

...didn't they?

This may have been answered up thread, but are they able to make such a drastic change to their policy without consultation and a member vote?

Good point...

Do they share lawyers with the Corporation of London?

In that case, the WI cannot rely on the exemptions in EA2010 for Charities (s193) or Membership Associations (schedule 16), neither of which is overidden by the s158 positive action clause.

Time to crowdfund a legal challenge and make a formal complaint to the Charity Commission that the WI is operating outside its lawful objects and the provisions of its govening documents.

It's our old friend, the circular definition. If you don't know what that means, it's a definition that is circular.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition

Women members are offered up as resources to validate men with gender identities.

Fuck off National

"An acutely needed sense... of validation with other women"
🙄

I was just about to ask the same question!

I'd happily donate

Your DH needs to write back accepting he is a man but say he wants to check if he’s actually living as a woman. So could they please send him their checklist!

Presumably the captured charity sector have been advised by some of the (generally dismal) lawyers advocating for the removal of women's organisations that this is the way to go?

I wonder whether the WI would be a better case for Sex Matters to challenge rather than the Hampstead womens pond?

I’ve paid £51 to be available as a resource to gendery men

should they not be paying me?