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?

So could Miranda Yardley or Debbie Hayton join? TW who don't expect validation as W?

"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"

Am I the only person rendered very angry by this blatant declaration by the leadership that ordinary female WI members are being consciously used to validate the inner womanly feelings of a subset of men? Though no longer a member of the WI, I was one a long time ago and valued very much the fact that it was an organisation founded, run and intended just for women and our interests, needs and concerns. I wouldn't touch it with a very long pole now.

PS Editing to say that you can count me in if any gardening were to be needed in the future. This one I would love to see in court.

'there is no other similar organisation for trans women that offers this space, and so it is unique.'

There are several organisations for trans women. What they mean is there isnt another organisations that provides a plentiful supply of validating women to serve the special men.

Just because they say that they know that they are male, that does not mean that they do not want to be validated as women. Hayton blatantly does, Yardley too but less "in yer face".

Not THOSE women, silly. Those women need to reframe their trauma and stop being exclusionary of males. Rape victims must learn to be kinder to men. Or they can fuck off.

It's cynically positioning women as regressive support humans. The only role for real women is to be present and teach these men how to be women - to validate them.
So ironic when there are countless groups of women - marginalised, impoverished, in poor health, with mental health problems, struggling with parenting, suffering domestic violence, managing cancer and life limiting illness diagnoses and many other challenges who could benefit from the largesse of the WI with targeted community based support. Yet this tone deaf organisation has selected this powerful group of men who have positioned themselves at the top of the oppression tree for support.

Their level of hypocrisy is off the scale.

Yes. Let's see how that goes for them.

I go back to Professor of Law Micheal Foran every time.

If you want to set up a group of any sort over 15 people, then as per the EQA you must include Everybody, from all sections of society be they disabled, of any ethnic group, sex, sexuality, etc. The EQA requires that.

If you want to set up an exclusive group in furtherance of some aim that is fair and reasonable, it must be related to a protected characteristic.

You could have a group specifically for two protected characteristics, such as a group for isolated older men, (who like sheds). So that is two protected characteristics that they must all share, age and sex.

I could not complain as a female who likes sheds.

The WI have included two protected characteristics, but the problem in law is, that, as an exclusive group all the members must share the two protected characteristics that they are including. Ie being a female and being a person who is or is undergoing transition. In order to comply with the EQA.

In other words they have no exemption under the EQA.that they can rely on.

The idea that they are furthering the disadvantages faced by “trans women” can only hold if they were the only membership.

That clause only applies to the existing membership group of a membership group which is lawful.

The EQA when drafted was designed to prevent groups and clubs forming and excluding people for no good reason, eg a club for able bodied white women who like JK Rowling.

Well that helped me cement my understanding if you can be arsed to read it LOL

Also meant to say, they would have to change their governance document and remove the word woman as the SC ruling was clear on what the meaning of that word is.

it would have to be something like anybody interested in XYZ. To be compliant.

You are certainly not alone.

That women are consciously and deliberately used as validation resources for male people’s wants is disturbing. And to be led to believe it is kind to do so is red flag territory.

Yeah, they can't just make up protected characteristics.

I’ve posted this before, but I’m going to post again. In the WI FAQ, the question is posed, ‘can men join the WI?’, and the answer is ‘no’. So you can’t have it both ways!

And I want to know what ‘living as a woman ‘ means as well. My six foot five son cooked the evening meal today, so does he qualify?

I think you have identified the core of the correct way to think of this. It’s not about who is included - it’s about who is excluded.

When you analyze who is not allowed to join the WI, the unlawful discrimination becomes clear.

Exactly. One cannot just set up a group of over fifteen people, be it on line or in the real world that excludes people without a bloody good reason.

Thank you wims for finding, exploring and explaining the EDI policy, super grateful.

So the WI will permit men who identify as women to join but not men who identify as men?

Isn’t that discrimination against men who identify as men?

Either the WI accepts all males or no males?

Does that exclude me?
Today I am wearing Jeans and a blue linen shirt. I have recently been wearing a man's straw hat with a black band. Apparently I am a crossdresser according to the WI when I just thought I was gender non conforming. How exotic?!

Good point and as the vast majority of us women wear jeans/trousers/shorts at some point we'd have to all come out as cross dressers as it fits the label.
Moreover, if any pretending men can say they are women then all women could be the reverse and be a pretending man. How would pretending men know what they are pretending to be?
After the loop of crazy meaningless words, we have reality; the supreme court rightly says sex exists because it always has and we know it's not about wearing trousers.

"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"

Is anyone else wondering about the sex of the person who wrote that?

It comes over as frightfully camp, dahling!

I am trying to work out whose voice I can hear in my head speaking as a I read it and I think it might be Danny la Rue.

Not to derail but this is a blast from the past documentary, from a time when Female Impersonators were more Music Hall than Drag Race:

“The Unforgettable Danny La Rue” Documentary (2010) HD

But I am not sure because the more times I read it the more it sounds like Della Aleksander from 1973's "Open Door: Transex Liberation Group" on BBC 2.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06c83f4

Then, also from 1973, I listen to posh Jill Tweedie talking to Mary Whitehouse and there is something about the way Jill Tweedie talks and I can imagine her voice reading those words from the WI:

Mary Whitehouse interview | Sex Education | Jill Tweedie | Good Afternoon | 1973 | Part 1

I am not sure now what voice I am hearing reading those words.

Jill Tweedie is the sort of woman whose voice and manner of speaking Della Alexander would have been trying to emulate.

What I do know though is that my first impression was that it read "male" and "camp".

I routinely try to avoid reading bylines before I have read the text of an article. It's a game I have played with myself since the late '70s when Psycholinguistics and Sociolinguistics were part of my Speech & Language Therapy degree, ie. the game is guessing the sex of the author from the style of writing.

Obviously, I don't mean articles where the sex of the author is revealed in the content. I used to be rarely wrong but these days the difference between male and female authors is not so marked.

So anyway, my first impression was that it was written by a man and rather camp.

Did it strike anyone else that way?

"If you want to set up a group of any sort over 15 people,"

Sorry to be pedantic but it is a group of over 24 people, ie. at least 25.

The easy way I found to remember it is that you could have a "Two Dozen Club" but no more than that if you wanted to avoid being covered by the EA2010.

(There can be more than 24 members and the club would still not be covered by the EA2010 as long as there were no rules about who could join and there was no process of selection, ie. you could never exclude anyone who wanted to join. Although I imagine a max number of members would be allowed but admission would be strictly first come, first served whoever they happened to be.

Not very relevant though when what we are concerned about is the ability to control admission according to the "Two Dozen Club" Rules.)

PART 7
ASSOCIATIONS
Supplementary

107 Interpretation and exceptions

(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Part.

(2) An “association” is an association of persons—

(a) which has at least 25 members, and
(b) admission to membership of which is regulated by the association's rules and involves a process of selection.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/7/crossheading/supplementary

"It offers trans women an acutely needed sense of community, solidarity, inclusion and validation with other women,

Like others, I really want to see this go to court. And I particularly want someone like Naomi Cunningham spell out exactly how women are being used to make men feel validated.

That these men are using all the at the WI women as a resource.

And I'm sure I'm not the only one who is infuriated by the ridiculous use of the term 'other women', it's said so often, you just know it's boner inducing.

Have there been any cases that used consumer protection law? It seems to me that when women join the WI, they are paying for a service based on representations from the organisation that all members are of the same sex. If the WI is no longer an organisation for women, they’ve been misleading their members who have paid for a service they haven’t received.

Not only that but the WI has apparently been using female members, without their knowledge and consent, as service animals for the comfort and "validation" of the men it chooses to admit to membership.

We are used to "free" or subsidised services that sell our data or that are financed by advertising but this is with our knowledge and consent if we wade through the small print that is presented for agreement.

However, the WI says it has been using all female members to provide a free service to all male members and that only the male members are aware of this arrangement.

The free benefit that male members receive from the WI has a non-financial cost to any female members who suffer a detriment, such as discomfort, lack of privacy, voluntary exclusion from activities to avoid association with any male or particular males, etc. due to the inclusion of male members. Despite this, all members are subject to the same fee structure.

Quite apart from the ethical issues of knowledge and consent, the WI should, ethically, have been compensating female members in some way, eg. by a reduction in membership fees or by providing some other benefit in recompense.

Worse, it is arguable that the benefit to at least some of these males is provision of a free sexual service by the WI. The WI is therefore prostituting female members without their knowledge and consent. The WI benefits financially from every male who pays a membership fee, ie. the WI is operating as a pimp and is sexually exploiting female members.

Did it strike anyone else that way?

Yes, me. And we know that there’s a TW who seems to be pretty influential in the WI, to the extent of featuring on their magazine cover.
In terms of validation, co-opting a whole institution designed to promote and support actual women is quite the coup.