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?

What would be interesting about it?

I'm probably banned (together with my mum) we joined a splinter group when it all went a bit pear shaped (in the 80s i think). The Yorkshire Countrywomen's Association.

(it may not be a splinter group, it was the early 80s and i was young and mostly drunk)

you have to raise your bum slightly to fart, and then say "better out than in". That will convince any and everyone.

IIRC wrt to the Freemasons, it wasn't that transwomen can join, because they can be rejected and will never be told why, but that if they are already a freemason and then "transition" they are allowed to stay. I'm not sure if/how/when a freemason would be kicked out and CBA to look it up. Not sure how they would handle a transman (presumably just not admit them, not give them the tap/nod or whatever it is)

But yes, that is a good point because this theoretical transwoman freemason could then join the WI.

Maybe that was OP's DH's big mistake: he wrote his email too well and was far too erudite.

If, instead, he'd written it in appalling doggerel form - with non-scanning lines, forced rhymes and liberal use of the phrase 'be it told!', he'd have hit the jackpot!!

In the interests of diversity and inclusiveness. I can't see why not. Might liven things up a bit.

What about the interests of women?

Indeed.

Our local WI described Petra's "egg breaking moment". They probably thought it was cute and amusing, as it was near to Easter.

More like ball breaking, surely?

Bravo re the letter - Bravo!!!

Interesting too the idea that it's all dull until a man's there.

And there's something wrong with a women only situation - not 'inclusive'. Not 'diverse'. No amount of inclusivity or diversity of the women within a women only group is enough to count apparently.

Women are never enough in themselves are they? No good until you add something to spritz the wretched, tedious things up a bit.

Mmn.

I remember the Jam and Jerusalem episodes about The Night Shift at the Co Op, with slides.

(Mine's a benedictine!)

“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.”

Can someone explain to me what “live as women” means please? Without referencing meaningless gender stereotypes like hair, make up, skirts, heels etc.

I read this thread and just felt really sad. Not angry, just sad. Because if we’re at the point where we have to stage a fake situation to try and prove some kind of threat, doesn’t that say something in itself?

If trans women joining the WI were genuinely causing harm, wouldn’t there be real examples to point to? The fact that someone had to get their husband to pretend to be interested, just to bait a response, kind of shows the opposite.

What makes it even more troubling is the tone. People seem to be taking real glee in this. But that doesn’t make it more convincing. If anything, it confirms what critics keep pointing out. For some, this has started to look like a hobby and fun.

We can absolutely talk about boundaries and policies. But surely we can do that without making things up. If we care about truth and fairness, we have to start from a place of honesty.

A small non update.

DH just got home and checked his emails. The WI email addresses have just sent an automated response saying that they will reply within ten working days (so that is two weeks).

Although one of the addresses does seem to have a sent a response that was later deleted before my DH could read it - not sure what was going on there.

All I will say is that the letter before action still stands and they have 28 days and counting until DH commences a discrimination claim under the EA2010.

If we hear anything then I will update this thread as much as I can, but it is certainly unlikely that there will be any updates in the next two weeks.

I'll keep this thread updated whenever we hear anything.

Thank you so much. This gif did make me smile so much. You will never know just how accurate that is when it comes to our cats.

Your dh is an absolute star ⭐

Oh, the irony.

A man trying to pass himself off as a woman is pretty much the definition of 'staged', 'fake' and 'made up'. The OP's husband is honestly stating he is a man.

And despite the jokes, we all know this this isn't a game. This is holding the WI to account.

I would disagree with you totally.

There are many women who are in different situations where they are very uncomfortable but either do not feel they have the ability to speak out or are concerned (for very genuine reasons) that if they do speak out then they will suffer real consequences at work or in other situations.

Are there women in the WI who are unhappy that there are men pretending to be women in their organisation? I'm sure there are.

Are there women unhappy about this who are too scared or intimidated to speak out in person? I'm sure that there are.

If my DH can step up and do a little bit to help even one woman who feels intimidated about speaking up for herself then I am all for that. Regardless of how "fake" a situation you may feel this is.

I listened to a podcast over the weekend which was an interview with Peter Daly, the solicitor involved with, amongst other cases, the Forstater case, the LGB Alliance charity case and the lesbian interveners in the FWS case at the Supreme Court.

One thing that struck me from that podcast was when he talked about the difference between ideology and strategy and how that affects how a case is run.

In my very basic idea of a strategy, I think it is entirely appropriate for my DH to bring a case against the WI rather than a woman who is afraid or concerned about repercussions such as being expelled from the organisation.

https://gcls.substack.com/p/the-island-where-feminists-can-sue

You also have to keep reminding yourself that it's bigger than just these few men and this one at least relatively harmless situation - although women have been driven out of the WI by men being admitted.

Once you remove the clear boundary of women having women-only groups, we are back to that group of rape survivors with men on the home driveway of one of them, trying to make the police force their entry to prevent those women being able to meet and support each other without them - meeting their needs in however being with those women was serving them. They would not permit escape.

Lesbian groups have been brigaded, taken over, shut down, driven underground. Women's health support groups about female only conditions were taken over and destroyed by men who insisted they had to use that group for them in the way they wanted, or stop women being allowed to talk about their biology.

We're not talking about a nice, reasonable political movement here. We are not talking about any good will towards women of any kind. Please stop with the well intentioned be kind sentimental niceness, you are just handing women straight back to that misery that drove women to fight through courts for years to get the right to say single sex MEANS no men. Not even the nice ones. Not even in harmless jam making. NO. If it's mixed sex then fine, it's mixed sex, but it cannot call itself women's and admit men.

Does anyone know if the WI could even become a mixed sex org under the latest clarification from SC?

They are called 'woman's institute.' Does that act as a single sex space in the same way as 'woman's toilets? Would be?

In which case their options would be either change their name or comply with the law? Or can they keep their name and simply allow anyone in?

the slang word for testicles in German is "Eier". Eggs. QED

I thought that was a spoof.

It's not though. Is it?

Is it?! I'm not sure any more.

That's me and my resting bitch face out then.

They have a constitution which states it is for women only.

They'd have to vote to change their constitution to admit men.