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 will happily donate to challenging this.

Wow. That is quite an update! I’m sure you’re on it already and I’m pointing out the obvious, but if they’re taking a similar line to city of London in the Sex Matters correspondence, I think it’d be worth contacting Sex Matters for help with your case because they could be joined and/ or any strategy and arguments by Sex Matters will be relevant to you.

You definitely need that checklist of 'living as a woman' so he can determine where he stands on this.

OMG! Anyone else saying wait, what?

The Hampstead Ponds might be more straightforward as there are already provisions for transwomen in the men's and mixed ponds.
A better angle with the WI would be that they can't opt out of the provisions of the Equality Act by changing the common meaning of words.

"You wouldn't know this definition of woman, it goes to another school"

Where does the WI get off on thinking it's got a better definition of woman than the Supreme Court's legal definition of woman?

The WI had a big stand at an agricultural show I went to yesterday. I didn't go in as wasn't sure I live as a woman enough for them. I was wearing trousers, no make up and have short hair so thought it best not to risk it.

So would I, but I wonder if a shot across the bows in the form of the OP replying with a few salient points would suffice, before getting into a round of fund-raising and another expensive court case?
Off the top of my head, I think I'd ask:

• can you define living as a woman and say how you know the OP's DH isn't.
• can you confirm whether there's been member consultation
• can you explain how this is not discriminating against biological men who don't live as women

Can anyone find the WI constitution? I'm not super at finding stuff, the website is (deliberately?) not clear.

National Federation of Women's Institutes | National Federation of Women's Institutes

I expect that all you need to do to "live as a woman" is to not say "I live as a cis man". And you only have to not say it at that specific moment when you are joining an organisation or accessing a space that is supposedly "for women". The rest of the time you can say what you like, you're living as a woman at the relevant moment and you're in. And it doesn't matter what you do at any time at all.

The legal profession are going to have fun.

There's something really unpleasant about the privileged women running the WI handing over the word woman to a group of men. Dismissing the SC judgment that clarified lesbian rights to same sex attraction / association and women's rights to safety & privacy from men (think women in secure mental health wards, Sandie Peggie & the Darlington nurses, women's sports & girls in changing rooms etc).

The WI have such a long & proud history of empowering and supporting women - yet they're abandoning it in favour of a powerful group of men with a track record of trashing women's organisations, sports and child safeguarding.

What an abandonment of a once proud women's organisation

I hope you are right - tis worth a try but I fear that the only thing to shift them is legal threat.

I suspect so too, but you're right it's worth a try.

🎶I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my purse sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
With our Equality Act's sex-based stand.🎶

Apologies to Wm Blake obviously

I would happily donate too!!

@LittleBitofBread there is an ongoing consultation to members and it’s strongly worded and not giving a equal option to women to air their options

What consultation ?

There were always going to be legal cases following the SC judgement. I agree linking up with sex matters is sensible.

The two cases are from different perspectives but fundamentally about the same thing:

• the WI case is from the perspective of biological men who are not trans and transmen (biological women) who want to join an organisation.
• sex matters is from the perspective of biological women (some of whom may be transmen) not wanting biological men, trans identifying or not, in the women’s pond and changing rooms.

The Hampstead Ponds is such an obvious case to take forward because of the mixed pond but also because the changing rooms are communal so dignity and privacy are clearly relevant. It is likely any judgement would be appealed so it’s a long process but the knock on effect would be widespread.

Any sort of write in box for I totally disagree with this? Presumably the next step is to copy the green party by expelling anyone who disagrees as they are not living as the right sort of woman.

Please tell me what I am missing. For a moment let's forget about living as a woman.

If WI is NOT a single sex organisation, why are biological men excluded? Surely that is the nub of the matter and bio men are discriminated against.

Not sure if I've go that right though.

Having a club that doesn't let some people join is the very definition of discriminatory. Just because you're picking a selection of different sorts of people to discriminate against doesn't make it OK. I can't work out whether they're stupid, think OPs DH is stupid, or are just spewing nonsense in a complete panic.

If there was a club that said 'no gay men or straight women, but that's OK cos gay women and straight men are allowed in. We're not discriminating against gay people or men or women' - no one would think that was anything short of ludicrous. It's fucking obvious it's a crock of shite and they seem to have written this (along with Hampstead Ponds) by throwing magnetic letters at a fridge, pointing at a fucking squirrel, and hoping for the best.

Are they actually insane? Is this a joke? Are we in the Tru(wo)man Show? I don't even know any more.

It is collective letter of intent requesting the members are their names to the letter of reflects the compassion and inclusivity of the organisation. It’s not my letter to share but my friend who is a member has felt pressured by the chair to add her name to this.

Surely if they argue that they are a mixed sex organisation that applies an additional criterion for membership ("living as a woman"), they have to be seen to apply it equally to all members. So if they assume that female applicants are living as a woman but require proof that a male is doing so, they are discriminating against men.

I guess they could get round that by simply requiring all members to sign a declaration that they are doing this. But if they are to avoid being challenged, they would have to define upfront what they mean by 'living as a woman", because if they don't, how do they know that any WI member of either sex is actually complying with their requirement? Could be very interesting. They would have to define it in a way that excludes non trans identifying men while including women who are gender nonconforming and/or don't reckon to have a gender identity.
We might even, after all this time, find out what "living as a woman actually entails!

Would a definition that numerically favours one sex over the other (e.g. "having an F marker on your passport") count as inherently discriminatory against men, I wonder? The situations where that is considered ok seem to be things like genuine physical requirements for a job.
So in this case presumably you'd have to prove that "people who live as women" is a category that justifies positive discrimination on that basis - including proving that you are justified in excluding women who identify as men.