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?

Personally, I'd go for the WI because it explicitly defines itself as an 'Assocation of Women' in the governing documents it requires local WIs and its regional federations to adopt and I strongly suspect its use of that definition long predates the Gender Recognition Act and Equality Act.

The problem with Kenwood Ladies Pond is that its not 100% clear how its governed and on what terms, so there's not a clear paper trail to work with.

I'd love the WI to survey their female members on this policy. Its a huge change to their founding principles.

The WI "does not purport to establish single sex membership within the meaning of the EqA"

If it is not single sex, it is mixed sex.

It's a simple, binary choice. They have to be one or the other.

If it is mixed sex, what are their legal grounds for excluding the OP's DH, and approx 30 million other men in the UK?

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?

The legal problem they have to overcome here is that they have to come up with a definition of "living as a woman" that doesn't discriminate against men.

If it's "having F on your passport", or "being referred to as she" or "using a name normally associated with women", they are all discriminating against men, because men don't generally do those things, and they're clearly being used as a proxy for sex.

The fact that they happen to pick up some transwomen is immaterial - the primary purpose and effect of any of those criteria is clearly to try to exclude men. It's as clear as day, and won't stand up a second in court. Do they think the enforcers of the UK's equality legislation were born yesterday?

There are decades of history of discrimination legislation here that have hung up organisations that claim to be technically "non-discriminatory" by using some sort of proxy for a protected characteristic.

"Oh, we weren't discriminating on any race or religion - we were just looking at people's surnames.", etc...

My 3yo dd ran straight into me at full tilt last night deliberately - do you think she’s living as a boy? Should I be applying for a grc for her?

I guess the WI's argument is that male crossdressers are excluded on the basis of their crossdressing.

But female crossdressers, like yourself, and any woman who wears flat shoes and trousers (I assume? The WI would need to probably expand on their definition of which clothes are associated with which sex) would be included on the basis of sex.

They seem to be trying to exclude male crossdressers on the basis of sex, but include female crossdressers on the basis of sex. While excluding male non-crossdressers on the basis of gender, but including female non-crossdressers on the basis of gender.

They appear to be trying to use 'sex' in some instance and 'gender' in others, is my point. But they can't make it fit, because the two terms are immiscible.

It's a fucking guddle, isn't it.

Are they excluding 'transmen' on the basis of gender? How are they differentiating between a 'transman' who wears short hair, check shirts, jeans, and trainers, and a bog standard woman who wears short hair, check shirts, jeans, and trainers? Is it done on the basis of someone proving they are eligible by the fact they've applied to join?

If their argument is 'anyone who says they want to join is able to on the basis of asking', then OP's husband has clearly been discriminated against.

I read this yesterday but (and I'm blaming being under the weather and a lack of sleep) I didn't put it together with
"According to the WI, the organisation "does not purport to establish single sex membership within the meaning of the EqA" "
it's really quite the juxtaposition, isn't it.

Surely applying to join the WI is an example of living as a woman? Because only a woman would want to join a woman's group?

Who knows any more.

If women are people who are male or female, then without any further criteria being set out, anyone who is living as a [male or female person] is living as a woman anyway.

Exactly. And I can't wait for the concept of autogynephilia to be raised by enough people for the penny to drop.

"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...

... a space where they are welcomed as women just as their fellow members are

...with no need to justify their presence

God the WI are just digging that hole deeper with every letter aren't they.

How can people who are legally trained come out with such complete and utter shite?

And I'm another who really wants to know how they plan to define 'living as a woman'

So it's now the Transwomens Institute and the Other Women have what role as members?
Do the Other Women know they are serving this role? I assume the Other Women will no longer have to pay subs and will instead be paid expenses for their supporting roles!

Surely it's a 'womanly' thing to even want to join the WI in the first place. Ergo everyone who wants to join is 'living as a woman'.

I have no interest in the WI so I'm not living as a woman despite my womanly bits. See? Easy peasy.

It's hard to believe this could really go to court, but count me in for helping funding however much process is needed. I also second contacting Sex Matters. Naomi will be a bit busy for the next couple of weeks though!

The issue other people have raised - about to what extent members or prospective member are aware of the (to us, blatant) significance of the recurrent "all women" - is another key one for me.

By definition, women join this group because they want a women-only space. That's what it's offering, its USP! Reinforced by its long history of being unambiguously, definitively female-only.

Meanwhile, we know there's still considerable confusion nationally re: what transwoman/man means - and if people don't know that, they're even less likely to read between the lines of the qualifying "all".

So you'd certainly get a significant proportion of women turning up purely because they seek female-only company without knowing the group may not be.

That will include victims of abuse - of course it will, given the numbers affected.

It seems very wrong, ethically speaking, as well as the obvious legal transgression post-SC.

I don't know whether to be furious, or staggered, or depressed, by the WI being totally and completely upfront that the reason for transwomen to join is so that women can validate them.

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

It's unbelievable that the majority of members truly believe this. And yes, I'd like to see a vote too.

Being cynical, I don't want a vote to the membership as there's so many BeKind women out there it would seem risky.

I'm gobsmacked they're carrying on when it's clear they have no legal argument that stands up to scrutiny.

Indeed.

What, exactly, are they meaning by 'validation'? I've never needed validating as a woman, I just am one without any outside proof.

I have a horrible feeling that for at least some members this 'validation' is intended to create 'gender euphoria'. Which brings us back to the PP's earlier point about prostitution.

I am not . For one thing their Head of Legal has no legal training whatsoever. I have no idea how and why she got that role.

So there is no scrutiny of dubious solicitors with a trans agenda .

You can’t argue with stupid comes to mind.

The ponds and the WI legal argument completely conflicts with FWS1 where the court found that you can't conflate two pc's. It was outside the Scottish government's powers to pass a law that counted anyone living as a woman as a woman on public boards because the EA doesn't allow that. If the WI & corporation of london arguments were correct, then the Scottish government would have won FWS1 and 2 because it would have been allowable to discriminate based on a category similar to sex but not quite sex.

If their arguments are correct then this will basically do away with protection against sex discrimination. 'What do you mean we are unlawfully discriminating by having a policy not to promote women? It's not sex discrimination. We don't promote anyone who lives as a woman or who has a feminine gender identity. That's not a pc under the EA so it's perfectly lawful.' That can't be what the EA means so they can't win. I wouldn't put it past a lower court to make a stupid decision but if it goes up through the courts they won't win.

When the Sex Discrimination Act & Race Relations Act became law it took several years before employers etc really came to understand that they couldn't discriminate any more. It's going to take a few years to turn round the Trans juggernaut.

"But they can't make it fit, because the two terms are immiscible."

Ooo! What a lovely word: "immiscible".

Looked it up and was a bit disappointed at first that it didn't have the possible meaning that first popped into my head: "antagonistic to mice"

🐭⛔️😂

So the WI is for anyone who identifies as a woman, and by indicating an intention to join you are showing you identify as a woman.

But then they can’t exclude anyone who wants to join, regardless of sex.

Eddie Izzard sometimes calls himself Suzy, and sometimes Eddie. So would he be excluded on his Eddie days (men are not allowed to join), but included on his Suzy days (living as a woman)?

Exactly, that was my point! Wanting to join WI = proof you're a woman. So Mr TwoCats should obviously be allowed. And those of us who previously thought we were women will just have to come to terms with our new reality. 🤷‍♀️

(On a more serious note, they'll certainly have to define what 'living as a woman' means -- and I doubt that most of their current membership would measure up!)