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?

Yes, the constitution of the Women’s Institute could theoretically be changed to admit men, but it would require formal approval and significant internal support.

Here’s how it would work and the challenges involved:

1. Who controls the constitution?

The WI constitution is a model document governed by the National Federation of Women’s Institutes (NFWI). Any change to the core constitution — including the clause that limits membership to women — would have to be proposed and approved at the national level.

2. Process to change it

The process would likely involve:
• A proposal raised by a local WI or members.
• Debate and voting at the NFWI Annual Meeting or via resolutions.
• Approval by the NFWI Board of Trustees.
• Notification to and potential approval from the Charity Commission, since it would alter a core condition of a registered charity.

3. Legal and structural considerations

&bull;	As a <strong>charity</strong>, the NFWI&rsquo;s constitution must align with its charitable objectives. Currently, those objectives are focused on &ldquo;advancing the education of women and girls.&rdquo;
&bull;	Admitting men would potentially require a <strong>redefinition of its charitable purpose</strong>, which could complicate its charitable status and fundraising framework.

4. Cultural and historical identity

•	The WI has existed for over a century as a women-only space, designed to empower and educate women.
&bull;	Any change to this identity would be <strong>culturally and politically significant</strong> and would likely be controversial within the membership.

Conclusion

So yes — it is technically possible, but it would require:
• Widespread member support,
• Structural and legal changes,
• And likely a redefinition of the WI’s charitable aims.

It's not a fake situation. An organisation that claims to be for women is actually mixed sex and basically lying about it. Not to mention that a man claiming to be a woman is as fake as it gets. OP's husband is being honest and not pretending he becomes or lives as a woman if he wears a skirt and a wig.

For some, this has started to look like a hobby and fun.

If you think we've been having FUN these last X years while men in dresses ran roughshod over our rights and got dissenters smeared, traduced and silenced, you've been in another plane of reality. Where is all this bloody compassion when women and girls are being shat on and why does it only make an appearance when we point out the absurdity and, indeed, the harm... and tacitly urge us to keep on taking it?

There doesn’t have to be harm in terms of someone getting physically hurt, it’s the harm to women who are looking for a woman-only space and either find themselves having to share those spaces with men who call themselves women - and not being allowed to speak up about it however unhappy and uncomfortable they are - but it’s also the women who either leave or who don’t join in the first place. They miss out on the community, the support, finding new friends etc, which is what the WI is supposed to be for.

Even for those who have a WI that is free of men who call themselves women, you know that one could rock up to the next group and there’s nothing you can do about it your complaints will be ignored and you’ll be told you were in the wrong.

It’s ruining a woman-only space and that’s the harm.

Interesting? What would be “interesting” about a TW? They aren’t a piece of entertainment or a museum specimen.

Why would allowing TW to join for but not other men be diverse or inclusive? It sounds exclusionary to me? Allowing ALL men to join would be inclusion

But the WI is meant to be exclusive to women only. If they rely on the single sex exemption in the EA2010 then they are currently leaving themselves wide open to a discrimination case.

Would Mr Cats like to become a girl guide leader?
I think you're doing a great job in rattling a few cages at the WI and hopefully rescuing it from its issues

Go team AnotherCats. What you’re doing is Purrfect. It’s simple action like this that illustrates the ludicrous-y of it all.

(Although I do get that they’re trying to be well-meaning to people ‘living as a woman’ (whatever this means), but to do this, you need a definition of ‘living like a woman’, and I can guarantee, that most actual women Won’t pass this test. Will they get evicted?)

This is what happens when you bypass debate and discussion and democracy. We have to use the Law to force the discussions that should have been had all along. What you are observing is a grassroots movement of women (aided by some concerned men) trying to restore the democratic process, which is broken because gutless politicians either deliberately thwarted it or tried to look the other way or just couldn't be bothered to understand the problems because they weren't happening to the important people - adult men

Did you know the Girl guides has a similar policy that allows trans-girls (ie boys) to go to guide meetings and also to share tents with girls?

Yes, maybe op and Mr Cats did send their email as a bit of fun, but the response shows how silly the situation has, that the organisation both allows men and excludes them at the same time, and the only difference is that the permitted ones do ‘pink’ jobs. I wonder if any of our female firefighters, train drivers, football players etc will be excluded from the WI as they do ‘male’ jobs?

Following for the post-LBA update. Your DH is bloody wonderful, @Another2Cats

Great post 👏👏👏

So a group consisting entirely of women can't be diverse, inclusive, lively or interesting? I must say you seem to have a low opinion of women as a sex...

Oh dear me, no. Women who live as women do not prop up their ankles on their opposite knee in a manly manner.

Leaning back in the chair is slovenly rather than manly. Leaning back in the chair is more of a teenage attribute, just laziness really, but on the other hand, putting your shoulders back is optional, as it isn't necessarily either manly or womanly to put your shoulders back.

But if you really want to live as a woman there will be no ankle propping.

But if you really want to live as a woman there will be no ankle propping.

I hope that the WI either comes down firmly on this and ejects members (male or female) who display this lack of correct** womenly behaviour or that it chooses to follow the law on the single sex exemption. They can't have it both ways.

They either need to expressly declare themselves to be a mixed-sex members group that is centred around the interests, looks and mannerisms that are considered to be stereotypically female or change their policy and become a single-sex group.

If they choose the latter, they will obviously need to eject any males from their membership, no matter how daintily they cross their ankles, how soft their hands and the gestures they perform with them, how pretty their dress or how much they love [insert any stereotypical hobby/interest traditionally associated with women].

**Edited to add that this is sarcasm, in case this post gets screenshot and cropped.

Sorry for slight derail, but do you have a link to the (shocking) rape survivors with men on the home driveway thing? I hadn't heard about it.

I remember the case, but I thought that one was a lesbian group rather than a victim support one.

Either way, it was a group of women who legitimately wanted a single-sex group, a man followed them to a private home and agressively demanded entrance.

There doesn’t have to be harm in terms of someone getting physically hurt

thank you, @SidewaysOtter - this cannot be said enough. it is not (always) about physical harms.

No, Sarah's case (court date coming up later this year, gardening still in progress) was a man in the 'female' counselling group despite there being both men's and trans groups available. The rape crisis centre refused to provide a truly women-only session alongside the existing mixed ones. There's no suggestion he followed her home.

Of course it's impossible to find on Google because 'man follows women home' turns up an endless list.

thanks for the clarification. I will ask MN to remove that post

Your argument would have more force if the WI did not also run campaigns and fundraisers on issues that affect women. But it does e.g. www.thewi.org.uk/campaigns

Transwomen (men) don't just follow the women's lead. If they can join they can influence the future direction of the WI. Once you allow men to influence campaigns and fundraisers the focus can shift towards further male intrusion into women's space and control of that space, outside the WI as well as inside.

And yes, legally transmen should be able to join the WI, and transwomen should not. The WI could even be a force for good supporting gender non-conforming women and women who have medicated especially regretters and detransitioners. But it can't help those women while it is following its current line, because that would mean admitting that saying you're a man and taking testosterone (etc) doesn't make you into a man, and neither does the other way round.

If it became the People's Institute I expect the men who say they are woman would leave because it's no longer affirming their desires.

I expect the men who say they are woman would leave because it's no longer affirming their desires ... and women who know that they are women will leave because it no longer fulfils their requirements.

Isn't it the first rule of running an enterprise?: don't alienate your core demographic.

And yes, legally transmen should be able to join the WI, and transwomen should not.

but not under the WI rules, and tbh that is ok for me. If you are a transman you are not "living as a woman".