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?

As we explain below, the definition “women who live as women, including transgender women” is not discriminatory."

So they are not open to transmen then? Including those who acknowledge they are biological women?

Eh?

According to the WI accounts their legal advisers are Bates Wells (apologies if this has been noted before).

I have no idea how any half competent lawyer could put forward the position that the WI is now mixed sex, but only if you’re a man who thinks he’s a woman, and therefore it falls outside the EA10 and there’s nothing to see here.

I cannot wait for both the WI and Hampstead Ponds to find out their lawyers are either (I) incompetent or (ii) lying to them to spare their sensitivities or (iii) both.

Maybe they asked their EDI lead instead of legal experts? Anything is possible.

What are the options suggested in the consultation? Surely the only legal options are women-only (real women) or mixed-sex (including any and all men)?

My thoughts - i am not legally trained i just like it . Do not rely on my thoughts!

Just been looking at the section again on charities in the EA .

(1)A person does not contravene this Act only by restricting the provision of benefits to persons who share A protected characteristic if—

So key is persons who share one single PC . Not 2 groups who have 2 different PC ( transwomen share the , PC of gender reassignment ; women share their sex.

(a)the person acts in pursuance of a charitable instrument,

The WI is a charity for the benefit of women. I really cant see how that can mean anything other than biological women after the SC decision.

and
(b)the provision of the benefits is within subsection (2).

(2)The provision of benefits is within this subsection if it is—
(a)a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or
(b)for the purpose of preventing or compensating for a disadvantage linked to the protected characteristic.

So it must be linked to the PC in this case - the education and betterment biological women as they can get overshadowed by men in a similar mixed organisation.

How can transwomen claim a link
to the betterment and education of biological women? They are not biological women ( and that is also central to the NFWI argument in adding them to their membership (they are now not arguing they are women, just “live as women” )

And as i have said before , s158 can only be for positive action, not positive discrimination . This proposal discriminates against Biological men who are not trans and live as men .

They probably forgot about them

WI EDI etc. policy 2021, Section 6, list of PCs:

• Sex (though the WI lawfully restricts membership to women)

WI EDI etc. policy currently, Section 6, list of PCs:

• Sex

Spot the difference.

I suspect this avoidance of explicit reference to the SSEs is a tell that they know they could be challenged.

@Catiette When I click on your link I get Page Not Found

I’m another willing to donate if needed.

https://www.thewi.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/719730/NFWI-Equality,-Diversity-and-Inclusion-Policy.pdf

Here's a link to the policy dated 2023. Section 6 just lists the protected characteristics . Section 12 is interesting, it says

A person who was assigned female at birth but who identifies as non-binary is able

to join the WI. This is because they fall within our women only exemption as they

were assigned female at birth.

What women only exemption are they relying on here if not the SSEs

Yep. It's weird. I fought with it a while to make it work, gave up and adapted my post. It's out there, though!

Interesting.

My main 2 questions for them would be:

1. Given their (pointedly bolded, at times) emphasis on welcoming "all" women, what provisions have they made for a female survivor of male violence who is triggered by male bodies? (Would an Equality Impact Assessment be relevant here?)

2. What provisions have they made to mitigate conflicts of interest in their campaigning (some historical campaigns eg. for equal pay become rather less meaningful & efficacious with a refusal to distinguish between the sexes, and hypothetical future campaigns relating to uniquely female experiences / lesbian rights etc. could actively contravene the convictions and wishes of a proportion of TW who seek to deny the female experience).

Another quote from the current policy (my bold).

"Gender identity is a person’s sense of their own gender which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth. Culturally, it is expected that a person’s gender identity is aligned with their sex assigned at birth."

From countering "cultural" expectations of women to upholding them, in less than 100 years.

While circumventing any explicit admission of this through the circular definition of "gender identity".

And note that we then, later, have:

"Unconscious bias is where social stereotypes about certain groups of people unconsciously affect decisions, behaviours and thoughts. For example, biases can be about race, religion, ethnicity, age, gender identity, sexual orientation and physical abilities, and these biases can negatively impact the WI membership experience. It is therefore important that all members try to recognise these biases and actively challenge them. "

So we implicitly welcome cultural expectations of what it means to be a woman, while emphatically challenging social stereotypes in other protected groups.

Hm. I'd love to ask for them to explain these subtle distinctions.

From the 2021 policy, consolidating my impressions of the meaning lying behind the current wording:

"When talking about transgender people, it is important to understand the difference between sex and gender. Sex is assigned to a person at birth on the basis of their sex characteristics (genitalia) e.g. male or female. Gender is often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, is largely culturally determined, and is assumed from the sex assigned at birth. Gender identity is a person’s sense of their own gender, whether male, female or something else, which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth. Culturally, it is expected that a person’s gender identity is aligned with their sex assigned at birth."

Paraphrased, this becomes: "Gender means masculinity or femininity. Culturally, it is expected that females will perform femininity. We specifically welcome males who perform it, too."

Way to go, WI.

I agree this would be a better test case. I donate as much as I can, but I feel that the ladies pool is too 'niche' and dare I say for me, too London centric. A nation-wide organisation would have more impact and I think, appeal to more women who can only offer small donations.

I'll stop in a minute, but perhaps this will be helpful to you OP, and I'm finding it fascinating.

I think this is the current glossary.

https://www.thewi.org.uk/_data/assets/pdffile/0003/649911/NFWI-Equality-Diversity-and-Inclusion-Glossary-of-Terms-2024.pdf

If so, again, it's fairly revealing. A few thoughts - although, again, IANAL.

1. That problematic definition of "gender" actually appears here.
2. "Cisgender" makes it fairly clear that they consider their women members as subscribing to gender-as-self-identification by default.
3. "Crossdressers" are defined in a canny way that permits their exclusion from the WI.
4. The wording of "discrimination by perception", rightly or wrongly (no idea!) does allow scope for condemning a woman objecting to the presence of a transwoman as discriminatory.
5. "Intersex" is included - and appears muddled...
6. In a comprehensive list of the current DEI terminology, "man" and "woman" are conspicuous by their absence.

They need to define what 'living as a woman' means.

If it's not about sex, then why on earth can't OP's husband join?

Surely any activities that constitute 'living as a woman' are included in the WI programme, so if he wants to carry out any of these then he is 'living as a woman'?

'The below resources and organisations can offer further information on inclusion:
• The Equality Act 2010
• The Equality and Human Rights Commission
• Citizens Advice
• Gender Identity Research & Education Society
• Gendered Intelligence
• The Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Rethink Mental Illness
• Stonewall'

My bold.

'Crossdresser is a term to describe people who dress in clothes
associated with their opposite sex, as defined by socially accepted
norms, but who identify with the gender that matches their sex
assigned at birth.'

Their words, my bold and []s...

Gender: "Gender is often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, is largely culturally determined, and is assumed from the sex assigned at birth."

Plus

Gender identity: "Gender identity is a person’s sense of their own [gender largely culturally determined masculinity or femininity], whether male, female, or something else."

Equals

Woman: The implicit definition of "living as a woman" - and, indeed, "woman" - here would appear to be "[identifying with] culturally determined femininity".

I think. It's tying my brain in knots. Which I think is probably intentional.

I would too

Never have i wanted so much that the Telegraph and Mail and GBNews and anyone else to pick uo this story !

Tangent, but I'm always slightly thrown by the term 'identify with' - that usually (or used to) means 'empathise with' or similar, which is totally different as 'identify AS' or even 'is'.

E.g. I can identify with people who grew up only having second-hand clothes, because I shared that experience, I can somehow understand them. But you wouldn't just do that for 'an identity' or an entire class of people, it more often relates to an actual shared experience by individuals.

A good time with the Peggie tribunal about to get under way and rumblings about the Hampstead Ponds.
We are unusual on here in that we know all about these things happening; for the uninitiated it must be getting more and more surreal.
Quite extraordinary that the WI seems to see its remit as validating men who are at best confused, at worst, well, I don’t want to get deleted.

Another point to consider is the carers policy and not allowing male carers to join meetings, this puts some disabled women at a disadvantage in accessing some WI activities