Sheffield WI shuts down rather than accept they must be women only from April.

[Another2Cats]

This story is just as the title. The Seven Hills WI of Sheffield have announced yesterday that their officers (President, Secretary, Treasurer and one other) will be leaving the WI in April and that, since nobody has come forward to take up those roles, then that branch of the WI will be shut down.

So, why are all the officers leaving at the same time?

They spelt it out on a page of their WI website (I've left out some irrelevant bits):

https://www.shwi.co.uk/post/2026-membership

National Policy Changes
Following the UK Supreme Court ruling in 2025 ... The National Federation of Women's Institutes has announced that it must update its membership policy to comply with the law.

This means that from April 2026, the WI will restrict formal membership to those registered female at birth.

Changes to Seven Hills WI Leadership
In light of these policy changes, our current officers have made the difficult decision not to renew their membership.

As it currently stands, no committee members or general members have come forward to fill the officer roles that will become vacant in April 2026. Without officers in place to lead the group, Seven Hills WI will be suspended and will not be able to continue operating as a WI.

What This Means
Unless members step forward to take on committee roles (including President, Secretary, and Treasurer at minimum), our group will cease to operate from April 2026. We understand this is disappointing news for many who have valued being part of our community.
.

It really does seem so sad that women would rather close down a branch of the WI rather than accept that is should be single sex.

I understand that there are other WI branches in Sheffield that will remain open

Petulant children. Good
riddance to them.

Whereas my WI agreed (long before the Supreme Court ruling) that we would close if we were forced to accept trans women as members.
Thankfully it never became an issue because non tried to join.

Shame as that is for the other women who no doubt benefited from that WI group, those resigning can take their virtue signalling toddler tantrums and fuck off.

I hope the remaining members either decide to run it themselves, join other WIs or form a non-WI group.

Unless they have a large membership who would have been willing to step up and be officers under other circumstances but are all solidly TWAW, it may well have been a disaster waiting to happen anyway.

They are not closing it down though.

They are allowed to step down from their roles. I can't say I agree with their reasons for doing it, but regardless of what the SC ruling says, people are still allowed to disagree with how it might effect their organisations and say "thanks but no thanks" and step down if they don't like what it means.

I'd rather have leaders in place who will properly apply the law.

If no-one else has stepped up to take on the leadership roles, then that's a shame but not the fault of those stepping down.

I’ve just filled in a form from my county federation saying I’m unlikely to renew due to National and other’s stance in this - but for the opposite reason ie their determination to bend the laws by setting up sisterhood groups etc. The questionnaire was asking for views on how to set up sisterhood groups - I told them not to do and then gave them a lecture about who are women, and that they shouldn’t be supporting those who want to do away with basic safeguarding, women’s sport etc.

I was a coward though and sent it in anonymously- but added that it reflected badly on them that I didn’t feel able to give them my name.

NB the main reason WI’s close is due to a lack of committee and officers, so I wouldn’t take no-one else coming forward as meaning wider support for their stance.

Perhaps some still will step up. I’ve been in several organisations where when it came down to the wire people did eventually step up to keep it going.

Lots of comments on their FB page in support, and talk is of setting up an independent " inclusive" group.

Yes, hopefully they will. Some of the "irrelevant bits" OP left out are those encouraging others to come forward if they can help.

It's always a surprise to see how many women can't function without a man present. Did they not read the title of the organisation before they joined?

One does wonder why, if they think having a single-sex organisation is so terrible, these people joined up and became officers in a single-sex organisation, particularly if they joined before all this nonsense started - did it never occur to them THEN that that was clearly horribly "bigoted"? Unless they joined up later, and with the express intention from the outset of forcing a long-standing women's organisation to start accepting men?

An 'includive' group should be called PI (People's Institute) or HI (Humans' Institute). It can't be called WI.

It's totally their prerogative but on a personal level, women who prostrate themselves before men in this way give me the absolute boak.

Which they're absolutely free to do. What they can't do is call it "The Women's Institute" or say that it's only for women but include trans-identified men.

It's always a surprise to see how many women can't function without a man present. Did they not read the title of the organisation before they joined?

I'm always more surprised - and depressed - at the sheer number of women who feel the need to always put men first. Is it a "I'm not like the other girls" thing? A "pick me!" thing? A "don't hurt me, I'll do whatever you want" thing? All of the above?

And exclude therians? What kind of bigoted monster ARE you?!

"They are not closing it down though."

I note that the writer Jean Hatchet (who does live in Sheffield) expressed interest in joining and taking up one of the positions.

The current Secretary of the branch then wrote back to her and claimed that a large part of the branch membership were of the same opinion. Part of the reply was:

"We will be doing a special meeting soon before the end of the membership year to vote on suspension of the group."

Currently asking the same question of so called feminist Facebook friends who called us all Pearl clutching meanies for saying Imane Khelif is a man and shouldn't be punching women in the face.

Agree

Ok but still, what's the problem?

I might think it's daft, but if the membership votes to close the branch and decides to go and do their own thing elsewhere, then they are free to do so.

Those who want to keep a proper WI group going can step up and form their own new branch in place.

Everyone wins.

"We will be doing a special meeting soon before the end of the membership year to vote on suspension of the group."

Translation: we will take this away from you rather than let TERFs those who agree with the law run it.

But there's nothing stopping women setting up a new WI branch and running it correctly.

I don't know how the WI define quorum but say it's a majority vote. 51% vote to close, 49% vote to continue and offer to run it. The group closes.

Why should the 49% have their WI taken away from them?

The 49% don't need to have anything taken away from them though! They can set up their own WI branch in place and run it as it should be run.

I wonder if there is someone in their group who was born male, had gender reassignment surgery many years ago, and has been a member ever since. Whose sex is unknown to others in the branch of the WI. Who they do not want to remove membership from, or be the woman who does.

Unlikely but possible.

In any case, the group can make a democratic decision to close, and if they do, their choice. Preferable to refusing to comply with the Supreme Court decision.

That's good. There's room in the world for groups that offerfemale-only support and connection AND groups for people who like to perform the female coded cultural role.

I never understood what TRA's big obsessions was with having to turn women's groups mixed sex and sod the women already in them rather than just set up some new mixed sex groups exactly how TRAs wanted them to be from day one, and then just let people decide which one was best for them.

It's never had to be either/or, it was just that TRAs wanted to make it seem that way.

I think for a lot of TRAs, it very quickly stopped being about getting rights and support for trans people, and became all about taking rights and support away from women to punish us for saying no. Kind of nasty really.