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?

In theory yes... but "living as a woman" is not a well defined concept even when it's women doing it 😀 I think the law allows women who have medicated for tranision to be excluded in some circumstances but I am not sure that WI would be one of those circumstances. Grey area.

Of course you are, because you are living, and you are a woman. It would be impossible not to live as a woman when you are one.

As a transman, you'd be trying to pass as a man by masculinising your appearance and dressing and acting in a way associated with men rather than women, but only women have to make this conscious effort to pass as men, just as only men have to make a conscious effort to pass as women. By definition, to pass as something you must not be that thing.

You'd only know the world as a woman trying to get the male experience. You'd never actually live as a man any more than I can live as a cat, no matter how much fur I wear, how much I miaow or how much wet food I demand.

I'm not sure the WI really means that, though. Because of the "living as a woman" bollocks. While they say "if you are a woman" i din't think they honestly mean transmen who have totally altered their appearance so that they do seem to be men.

I don't believe they would want someone who looks like Buck Angel in there with the Jam & Jerusalem brigade. Otherwise they shouldn't have issues with other manly appearing people, like OPs DH.

But it is an interesting thought experiment.

Forgive me...my head is spinning a bit here.

As quoted by @ArabellaScott
"A person who was assigned female at birth but who identifies as non-binary is able to join the SWI. This is because they fall within our women only exemption as they were assigned female at birth."

So a transwoman should therefore not be able to join the WI because they were (very likely to have been) registered male when born? So their application should be denied at the first hurdle surely? I fail to see how they can wiggle out of being a women's only group if this is their policy?🤔

(But their 'get out clause' is that they don't check someone's sex on joining...)

In FAQ, on the National Federation site, just found this.

They also have an Equality, Diversity & Inclusion Policy here:

https://www.thewi.org.uk/about-us/wi-key-messages/equality-diversity-inclusion-policy

The pdf attached on that page defines what they mean by "women" and says:

4 Membership of the WI
WI membership is open to all women who live as women, including transgender women.

"Transgender women are welcome to join the WI and to participate in any WI activities in the same way as any other woman. [My emphasis]"
Well that's just incoherent, illogical and wrong, isn't it? "Sheep are welcome to join in the same way as any othere wolves...."

Or <ahem> vice versa

So on one page they say men can’t join, but on another they say they can… !

On the other page they say that men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which is what transwomen are under the Equality Act) can join but not other men.

This is what makes it sex discrimination. A man is treated less favourably than a woman purely because of his sex (and the WI doesn't have the protection of the single sex exemption as they already allow some men to join).

So, all women are allowed to join but only those men with the PC of gender reassignment are allowed to join.

That would be no different to a club that allowed any women to join but only men of Afro-Caribbean heritage were allowed to join.

I read that article years ago, not sure if it was the USA or UK but the women-only group used to meet regularly in a pub. The trans-identified male turned up to a pub meeting and made them feel uncomfortable so they moved the following meeting to being held in the home of one of the women.

The male found out the location of the meeting and arrived at the house demanding to be allowed entry. The group of women said no and he called the police saying he was being discriminated against because he was a woman who was being prevented from attending a women’s-only meeting.

Police turned up at the address and told him that the women didn’t have to let him into the house because it was someone’s private home and that the police couldn’t force the women to let him enter the house.

I remember thinking it was bonkers at the time but it shows that certain men will stop at nothing to get what they want.

I did a search for the story but couldn’t find it and I’m fairly sure it was Ovarit that I read it on first but Ovarit has shut down.

I remember reading about that story too, @UtopiaPlanitia. The entitlement of that man was off the scale.

Have the WI always welcomed trans women or did it all start with Petra Wenham?

Surely this is all now moot after the SC judgement. Transwomen are men in law and so if the WI allow them into the organisation, they are either breaking the law or they have to remove "Women" from their name.

They can't be that stupid. Their policy, accessible to the public on their website, is illegal.

This is from their website today, 15th May 2025, several weeks on from the SC judgement. Has it changed? I'm not sure where the other poster shared this info.

A friend sent me this update she received in an email from the WI so I'm posting it here for info (sorry if already posted).

The WI works to connect, empower and support women, and we are committed to treating all our members with respect, dignity and understanding. In light of the Supreme Court ruling and interim update from the EHRC, we are taking time to consider carefully the implications for our organisation. While we consider and understand the impact of the judgement, our existing inclusion policies continue to apply. We encourage all members to continue supporting each other with respect and care at this time, as we have done throughout our 110 year history.

Further to the above, I don't know why it's taking so long to "consider the implications" of a woman's organisation being only for women, but I appreciate they've put themselves in a very difficult position by not previously sticking to their own rules (and to existing law) so they have to work out a way of digging themselves out of that.

More significantly they need to change their constitution with the Charity Commission as they are not operating within it.

I'll be honest, I started writing a complaint to the EHRC but I stopped. As with so many things touched by this madness, if they break up as an organisation by illegally centring men, women lose out. If they keep admitting men, women lose out. There never seems a way for women to win, even with the law on our side.

They are delaying as much as possible in the hope that they don’t have to tell the men they have to leave. They probably know how difficult these men can be especially when they are told “no”.

That should be in the EHRC guidance... what should you do if you've already illegally allowed some men (not others) to join your women's association? The options are, change your consitution to be mixed-sex or eject the men and prepare for a legal fightback? Would the EHRC offer any practical support if you do the latter?

I suspect there might be a few Hayley Cropper-type tw who are probably valued and even loved members of their WI. These men might be genuinely vulnerable and may lose a major part of their social lives. On a case-by-case basis it could be genuinely, emotionally difficult to tell these men they are no longer welcome. However, if the law says they have to go then go they must.

I'm sure there are many lovely men who would benefit and benefit from an organisation such as the WI. It seems discriminatory not to also let them join just because they're not prepared to put on a skirt and lippy and....soften their hand movements, whatever the fuck that means!

The WI should signpost these men to other organisations that could fill the void in the event that they are told to leave.

Yeah, when the police turn up at a burglar's house, confiscate the stolen TV and return it to it's rightful owner, I tend to feel a lot of sympathy for the poor bloke missing Corrie too.

Did they ever have a vote or consult about including transwomen? If not I feel it's been VERY sneaky and based on members in leadership roles permitting this on behalf of other members because they were happy that TWAW. It's going to be awkward but perhaps the membership can now be consulted. They may wish to go mixed sex or set up another separate group. I suspect that trans members will not be happy except perhaps transmen. If TMAM then has the WI been excluding this group and they could now join?

Don't get me wrong it's not sympathy. I'm not the one socialising with these men. If some women have created an ethical dilemma for themselves they should have considered that. It's where 'be kind' can lead you and, by far, not the worst result. My sympathy lies with the women who've been kicked out, self excluded or gritted their teeth and endured because of men being coddled. I don't care how personable or lonely these blokes might be.

I'm surprised you took that from my post.