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?

Molly wants to join the WI. I presume that would be OK?

If a woman is an Adult Human Female but Females can be Males then maybe Humans can be any species?

However, Molly is currently living as a Driving Instructor, a traditionally male job, and is a Jack Russell rather than a Jill Russell. So I suspect that the WI might consider her to be non-binary.

IIRC the WI does mention non-binary somewhere, doesn't it? If it does, how does that fit in?

When organisations say that they "welcome non-binary people" as well as women, without any further qualification, they must mean "anyone who thinks that they are not living as either a man or a woman". So, both males and females.

Oooops! Just fluffed an Emergency Stop!!

😳🫣

What utter weasel words from the WI. How can they state any of that with a straight face??

I did not think Operation Let Them Speak would extend to hearing such utter bullshit from the WI 😡

IIRC the WI does mention non-binary somewhere, doesn't it? If it does, how does that fit in?

Below from the WI EDI policy.
My bold at the end highlighting their reference to their "women only exemption":

12. Non-binary members Non-binary is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity doesn’t sit comfortably within the binary categories of “female” or “male”. Gender is often expressed in terms of masculinity or femininity but it is important to think of a gender as a spectrum. Gender identity is a person’s sense of their own gender, and there are many different gender identities on this spectrum. Non-binary people may feel both male and female, something in between, or not either. They may have a gender identity that changes over time or they may not relate to gender at all. Non-binary people often use gender neutral pronouns such as they/theirs and it is therefore important to find out how a non-binary member wishes to be addressed. 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. As mentioned above, the WI does not ask members to prove their sex when they join the WI.

The WI are basically declaring themselves to be nothing more than handmaidens of the patriarchy. They're in it for the cookies they get from perpetuating the patriarchy and nurturing and validating men - and they expect their members to commit to the same misogynistic aims. Can they not hear themselves? Utter 🍆🐼💍 tripe!

"IIRC the WI does mention non-binary somewhere, doesn't it? If it does, how does that fit in?"

Yeah, they say only the non binary women can join, but alas the non binary men can't.
😂

NB people may have a gender identity that changes over time or they may not relate to gender at all.

How do you "relate to gender"? Is that the same as rejecting gender identification, which another source defines as agender?

You can see the fun in court when all incoherent crap is challenged by one of the excellent lawyers can't you?

There's a surprise 🙄

"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."

But not that old rubbishy exemption in The Equality Act and we know we said female, but not that old fashioned female as in a sex category, because don't forget we do not purport to establish single sex membership within the meaning of the EqA.

🙄

What you say is bleak, but I just have to applaud and giggle at your turn of phrase.
'pointing at a fucking squirrel'

That’s even worse then.

The non binary policy makes it very clear that the WI knows that women are people that are female at birth.

But it’s definition of women when it comes to membership is anyone who identifies as a woman, deliberately allowing the inclusion of people that are male at birth..

Someone has really shoehorned TW into the WI membership rules.

ETA: And what ‘exemption’ is the WI relying on if it’s not the EA2010 exemption for membership of associations?

They need to be asked this. The EDI policy severely contradicts itself.
I would like to hear the response.

The non binary policy makes it very clear that the WI knows that women are people that are female at birth

i have been saying this for ages! It shows the WI do know what a woman is .

I read on X a couple of months ago that the TW policy came about because they wanted to increase membership, that was dropping ( still is hemorrhaging- wonder why? )

Thank you everyone for your replies. I'm sorry that I haven't replied to anyone.

There does appear to be a very strong argument against this (having to live as a woman impacts a man a lot more than it does a woman).

Unless something very unusual happens then I likely won't update this thread until early August which is the next stage.

I've read every single comment here (often more than once) and it really does make a big difference. Thank you

Well yes - but the definition quoted above doesn’t indicate the biological sex of the cross dressers. Of course the implied terms are that they mean males. But because they don’t include that in the definition they should be screening the members for “appropriate dress”. How do they decide if my cross dressing is ok? But a male in a frock is not? And how is that different to a TW? The whole cross dresser rule is a bit of a fuck up idnt it? Because logically any women would n trousers should be banned!? Why aren’t they policing that rule?

I’m losing my head over this is the WI a mixed sexed organisation?

So they are a mixed sex organisation.

All female people are allowed to join.

Male people are allowed to join if they meet an arbitrary additional criterion which is not defined, which is expected to be simply understood, despite there being no universal agreement on what it means.

Dr Charlie Smith and Dr Alex Smith are married to each other. Both have short hair and exclusively wear trousers and Tshirts. They both work in tech and enjoy cookery, knitting, choir and bookclubs in their spare time. Neither of them give a hoot what pronouns are used of them and they are glad to both have gender-neutral forenames. One is male and one is female. There is no discernable difference between them in their lifestyle. Which one is living "as a woman"? How will the WI know which application to accept?

Easy, the one with meat and two veg!

The WI is not allowed to ask or assume though

Also votes in changes to the constitution etc tend to be done by a show of hands in public at the monthly meetings. Which means you’ve got to be seen to go against National (and whatever biased advice they’d give to go along with the vote) and ‘be unkind’.

The issue has not come up at my WI, and I’ll admit I’ve shied away from raising it. Though I was responsible for producing an equality and diversity policy, as we were told to do, and making sure it gets discussed at committee meetings. I completely ignored the trans question and we’ve focused discussions on issues such as accessibility for those with hearing loss and mobility problems. And yes, as a pp mentioned, it is ironical that one of the questions to consider that came from National was about what to do re male carers for members.

I do have my own line in the sand, and will leave if we have a transwoman join. It would change the whole basis of the group.

what I don’t know is if a local WI wanted to disaffiliate, if we can do so without disbanding, and reforming as a new separate organisation. I know of at least one that did some years ago (fed up of how much of the annual fee went to county and national). This might be important because what would happen to our cash? Can a local WI take its reserves with them if they disaffiliate.

@ThatCyanCat

Sorry accident

My DM's local WI disbanded in recent years because all their funds were going on dues and they didn't see much benefit in return. As DM tells it, two scary women from the national organisation turned up to one of their meetings to tell them it was a mistake to leave and something they would regret. It only seemed to have the effect of steeling the views of those who were on the fence into definitely leaving! Couldn't tell you what happened to the fees, but they are now [village name] women's group, not WI.

Back in the sixties, a Welsh WI group rebelled over not being able to conduct business in Welsh rather than English. The upshot was a new Welsh-language women's organisation, Merched y Wawr, which grew rapidly, alongside the WI. So it's been done before.

And if their response to that would be that it's commonly understood that crossdresser = male (= fetish), isn't that an implicit, unintentional acknowledgment of the risk against which "no cross-dressers" is intended to safeguard - the kind of men they could potentially be inviting in? How, then, do they distinguish the cross-dresser from the TW? We're back to "living as a woman" again, which it increasingly feels necessary (not just a gotcha, as they may argue), to insist that they can define, for (as their own policy on "cross-dressers" would seem to acknowledge) their female members' dignity and potentially safety.