My WI group folded this week

[Mauvish1]

The vote in my WI group was 4:1 against signing the new WI declaration, which would have obliged us to sign that we agreed with the WI upholding the law on being single sex (well yes, obviously!) but also that we agreed that TWAW and should be allowed to join, if only the pesky lawmakers hadn't clarified biological sex for the hard of understanding.

The person from the NFWI who was there to oversee our suspension told us that it was obvious from our refusing to sign that we all had friends or loved ones who were trans! This produced a roar of dissent! She also told us that if we left the WI, we would each be a lone voice to whom no-one listened. The look on everyone's face as she patronised us was a sight to behold.

Comparisons were made with brownies, and some people felt that the WI and brownies should simply open doors to men and boys - but there are plenty of other mixed sex groups to join, and very few other female-only groups.

So, another WI group bites the dust, and it's not the only one in my area.

My WI group is also looking to fold. More concerning is that they seem to be looking to join a number of ex-WI groups setting up as independent, “inclusive” women’s group. So a women’s group that includes men who self identify as women. I can’t get my head around the thought process behind that. The WI realised their policy wasn’t consistent with the law/equality act/FWS but the law magically wouldn’t apply to these new groups?!?

I would think if you had a group name that did not include the word 'women' you could choose who you accept for membership. A local open air community sauna used to have an event where women and trans women only were accepted, with an event name without mention of women.

I reiterate the comment I have made on a number of threads since the Supreme Court judgment. It should never have come to this, the law should have been clarified by the then government at least five if not ten years ago.

So are they going to uphold the law or not? I’m confused 🫤

I think even without the word Women in the name, if your rules state membership is open only to women and trans women then the outcome is the same.

And I agree re clarification on the law. So many people seem to have absorbed the various Stonewall-law based policies rather than reality

But surely that then becomes discriminatory towards men who don't identify as women?
The group becomes open to women and SOME men but not others.
If a man who didn't identify as a woman wanted to join, surely they wouldn't legally be able to turn him away for being the wrong sort of man?

That's my understanding. If one sort of man can join (eg the sort who wears dresses), then you cannot discriminate on the grounds of sex against other men who might want to join.

There's another thread about this, I think, where the poster clarified what the statement meant, with WI HQ.

But the WI HQ have NOT made clarifications publicly available to ALL members. They shouldn't need to - their policies should be fully clear and the declaration that we are expected to sign should make it clear that we are ONLY saying we were born female. It doesn't say that though.
I feel they are deliberately muddying the waters and actually, that's not the actions of an organisation I want to be involved with.

Yes the declaration could literally be one line

“ I confirm I am a biological female”

all the rest is unnecessary.

They are. But very grudgingly.

And I have no doubt whatsoever they’ll announce at some point that X number of their members have said they want TW to be admitted.

I wouldn’t entirely be surprise if in the future they change their entire constitution to being for women and TW.

I wouldn’t entirely be surprise if in the future they change their entire constitution to being for women and TW.

i don’t think there’s a way to do this that is compatible with the EA2010, even if a majority wished to do so.

I did sign the form but hadn’t noticed the link below the signature re the policies. Have read that now (had to reset password as don’t usually go on the site) it reads as being very slippery - says membership is only for biological women but also lots of stuff about supporting transgender women in wider ways.

We had emails from the National Federation a couple of months ago upset about the fact they were going to have to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, one from the local Federation carefully stepping around the subject and saying they were waiting for clarification and one later saying there was to be a new form to sign. Our branch president (very TRA) sent links on our WhatsApp group to Guardian articles, a link to the Good Law project fundraiser and an offer to join in a zoom meeting with the CEO if we were upset or concerned about new ruling. Absolute crickets in response, thankfully - people just sat on their hands, a bit baffled why she was going so overboard on this and thinking it was an overstep of her responsibilities. We are a big branch and haven’t had any resignations since.

We also have a zoom meeting with the CEO soon.

I can't wait!

Well give them my regards!!

(Not!)

Well put. That’s precisely what they have been doing. The goal, as you say, was always to colonise womanhood and make sure that women are prevented from having anything for ourselves. And they have done very well.

There have been a number of threads about how a group or event could be advertised as being for women and TW. And am not going to try and remember all the points about this.

But the EA applies if someone wants it to.

ie if in a local area someone organises a yoga session for women and trans women and no one complains nothing happens.

And I suspect that very few would. I dont think women who wanted a genuine women only yoga group would complain, in the same way that they might about a rape crisis support group.

Equally I doubt many men would complain.

This is really the reality isn't it. All of this is happening because a few men are insisting on their right to be part of of a women only group because the motivation is them being validated as being a "woman".

And as came up in the earlier threads, clubs and associations (check!) are exempt from the EA.

So a local women's group that is a stand alone group, can have membership rules that suit their needs. equally women only (biological) or women and trans women. (I think this is only up to a group or association of maximum 25 members). Just as there are now "Men's Sheds" groups.

If anyone has bookmarked those threads (about a year ago) as they went into a lot of detail, they could be useful.

Also with have the actual details not my fuzzy memory.

Glad it's not just me that's confused.

The EDI policy says "Our inclusion of transgender women in activities outside of membership is based on our belief that being a woman is about biology and lived experience", there is a chunk about inclusive language as well and reporting members who don't use it, coupled with it's important to find out how non-binary want to be addressed.

The form states you are female and that you "acknowledge and agree to follow all NFWI policies and the Code of Conduct".

I believe it's very draconian.

@Mauvish1

i have sent you a DM - I am the one who posted the original post on here about this . Can you check your inbox?

All I’ve had to do is redo my form with my details and at the bottom it states that I was born a female. No big deal.

it’s a huge shame that WI’s are closing.

This is so very strange. The WI has decided that being a member involves believing that men can be women? What on earth are they thinking?

Both the WI groups I belonged to shut down,the first one was over 100years old.When it closed we went to the next village and joined theirs.The President was unhappy with things,so it closed and we now have a ladies group,same members.So neither my village nor the adjoining one has a WI now.

It is important if shutting that money held is spent,otherwise it goes back to the WI.We spent ours and when the women came to “officially “ close us,they were incandescent with rage because there was only a few pence left!much arguing about it,made us all delighted we were leaving.

I don't think folk should be forced to sign anything re their beliefs. I think it contavenes our human rights

A new Telegraph article

https://archive.ph/T6A6y

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/04/womens-institute-tearing-itself-apart-over-trans-policy-uk/

Apparently some of 'mister'hood groups are up and running.

This bit

The policy states that transgender women are welcome to attend the WI’s “range of local and national activities that are open to non-members”.

I wouldn't have a problem with. From the way it's worded these events would be open to anybody, any man, no matter how he's dressed. Perhaps underlining that trans identifying men would be included too in a necessary clarification. I'm sure that's why it was worded like that.

But this

The 12-page policy document, seen by The Telegraph, sets out the National Federation of Women’s Institutes’ (NFWI) “legal position on equality, diversity and inclusion” and warns that “contravention of this policy would affect the ability of WIs and federations to operate”.

But it has enraged some members who claim that the policy is discriminatory towards those who hold gender-critical views.

They are also unhappy about a new compulsory requirement to sign a membership form, which asks them to confirm that they are a biological woman and agree with all NFWI policies, including any future policies that may be published.

Is overreach, imo. This woman makes a good point

One said: “They’re basically asking us to sign a ‘blank cheque’ – agreeing to policies we may disagree with, including some that haven’t even been published – which seems pretty risky.”

One member mentions taking legal advice.