Women’s institute announcement

To take a tool out of your kit: Have you ever asked someone you disagree with a genuine well intended question, or are they all always as leading and biased as you’re demonstrating here?

The Supreme Court interprets the law, but it doesn’t directly enforce policies in every organisation. Until someone takes the WI to court and tests whether their membership policy is unlawful based on that ruling, this is still theoretical. That’s how case law develops.

So no, I’m not looking for a ‘more supreme’ court! I’m pointing out that even Supreme Court rulings need to be applied to specific cases before anything changes in practice.

You clearly don't, because you think that two different people with two different things are sharing something on the basis that they each have a thing.

Batshit.

You've spent hours demonstrating that you don't understand the word "share".

The judgment itself is very clear on the separation. It highlights these parts of the EA2010.

"In relation to the protected characteristic of sex ... a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex".

And

"In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment ... a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.”

So "share a protected characteristic" explicitly does not span the two characteristics.

The judges then say "Accordingly, the EA 2010 recognises sex and gender reassignment as distinct and separate bases for discrimination and inequality, giving separate protection to each"

I clearly do. You’re being deliberately inflammatory now.

Which court do you think is more supreme than the Supreme Court, out of interest?

Does sound pretty pointless as described - and also rather offensive - just shoving everyone into a box marked ‘marginalised’.

I’m not struggling with anything, thanks. I’m just pointing out that saying something is unlawful and proving it in court are two very different things.

You’re free to think it’s wrong, but that’s an OPINION, and legally we’re not there yet.

I didn't ask you to do anything.

I'm just pointing out that you don't understand what the word "share" means.

You are almost realising that the schemes for women and MCWs would have to be separate and separately justified because they do not share a PC. So that is progress.

ETA: Thinking about it, I'm not sure if you could have a positive action scheme only for MCWs, because the group has to share one PC. If that PC is GR, it would have to be for the benefit of Women with identities as well because they are included in GR.
Anyone else, any thoughts?

Saying and explaining are not the same thing.

Unnecessary. I’m not going to explain again because I’ve done it countless times.

But their policy is unlawful because they are excluding most men, without being able to rely on the single sex exemption.

What part are you struggling with?

It can restrict its membership using one of the exemptions in the Equality Act.

Which exemption in the Equality Act allows it to restrict its membership to (a) women; or (b) men with transgender identities, but exclude other men?

Because Schedule 16 doesn't allow it to do that.

This is all true.

But just to be clear, at the stage (and until we get more info in case law), although the Supreme Court ruling clarified that for the purposes of the Equality Act woman means biological female, but that doesn’t automatically override how private associations define their own membership categories unless their policies are found to be unlawful in court.

In the workplace, the Positive Action exception is for
"proportionate action that aims to reduce disadvantage, meet different needs and increase participation"
or
"actions that reduce disadvantage and/or increase representation specifically when it comes to deciding between equally qualified candidates"

for people who share a PC and who the employer can show are currently disadvantaged or underrepresented in the company or in that line of work.

So the friend who runs a big company with schemes to help "ethnic minority people" and "women" would have to have separate positive action schemes for women generally and for ethnic minorities. The ethnic minority in each scheme would all have to be of the same ethnicity or race or national origin (or combo of national origin/race/ethnicity). Black African, Afro-caribbean, British Asian, Ukrainian, Jewish Scots, Welsh, Irish Travellers, Roma would all be fine. I don't think the friend would be able to cite BAME as a single group for positive action, from what I've read in the EHRC guidance, but I'm not sure.

You've spent hours demonstrating that you don't understand the word "share".

Oh dear. I now have a mental image of Mr Colins attempting to take part in a gender debate.

Although we'd probably be saved by Lady Catherine.

I think the association rules are perhaps more understandable if you start from

’Have you heard about that rum business going on in the house? - Bunter says we might have to allow the wives in? What can we do about that?’

And then remember the rule on peerages in the GRA.

Some groups look after their own.

But this also means that lesbian hiking clubs are legal, with no need to claim any altruistic purpose.

Seriously?! I’ve spent hours saying that. My point was CLEARLY meant to be a wider comment.

For those of you who are presenting including trans women under GR and women under sex as paradoxical, again that’s not really how it works.

We all know and agree (hopefully) that following the Supreme Court ruling, trans women are now legally recognised as male for the purposes of sex-based rights under the Equality Act. If we’re talking about positive action, this means protected characteristic of sex (female) can only include biological women. You’re saying that including trans women under the category of ‘women’ in this context would contradict the legal definition. HOWEVER, this doesn’t prevent organisations from running a programme that supports both biological women and trans women, as long as they are clear that the programme addresses two distinct groups: one based on the protected characteristic of sex (female) and the other based on gender reassignment. While it may feel paradoxical, the important bit is that the legal justifications are kept separate and clearly articulated to avoid breaching the law.

I regret bringing up positive action now as it’s getting confused with the WI which is an entirely different thing.

Thoughts and views are not relevant. We are talking about the law, and the law isn't changed by thoughts and feelings.

Can you explain on what basis you believe that you have a greater understanding on this than Akua Reindorf KC?

Can you explain why you think those who drafted the EA2010 included sex and sexual orientation as PCs, if they were not actually PCs because they could be acquired by others?

Can you explain how two people, who each have a different thing in their sole possession, somehow share both things? Can you explain how "a" as in "a protected characteristic" could be read to refer to the plural?

Thanks, @NoBinturongsHereMate . I've always been convinced Jane was a Terf.

No, I won’t go away because you’re bored of me. I have just as much of a right to be here as anyone else and share my thoughts and views. This is called ‘feminism: sex and gender’ not ‘feminism: sex and gender owned by GCs and everyone else is a passing visitor we will tell to leave eventually’.

And they don’t have to explain why membership is only open to women.

Doesn’t have to be justified by feminism or women’s marginalisation.