Women’s institute announcement

Hmm. I don't know much about the Pride hubs but I have heard that inappropriately wide age ranges for attendees is an ongoing safeguarding concern. I don't know if the EA is the vehicle to put a stop to that, though.

One would hope that any organisation for adults and children would have robust safeguarding procedures in place, and at risk of legal action if they failed in the safeguarding duties.

On the other hand it seems to me that "Pride Hubs" (drop in centres that run into the evening) are a thing, run by adults, open to young adults and children. Pride In Surrey ran and still run such a hub, and their co-founders Stephen Ireland and David Sutton are now convicted paedophiles. I would be astonished if they did not at least sometimes man the hubs in the evenings, potentially, at times, being the only adult there with only one child service user.

Actually, thinking about it, are those hubs illegal? They are mixed sex (fine) but only open to men and women who are LGB (fine) or (not fine) have the PC of GR? Surely they need to be for LGB people or those with the PC of GR - not both?

I would advise you to start your brain before engaging your keyboard.

Firstly, the WI is covered by the Schedule 16 exceptions and not Schedule 3 as it is an association .

Secondly, the WI is clearly claiming a Schedule 16 exception as its constitution states that men cannot be members.

Finally, the current WI rules on membership (women and transwomen) would still be in breach of the EqA2010 even if the WI specifically denied a Schedule 16 exception as the rules discriminate against men who don't have the PC of GR.

I would imagine there are other laws regulating the social mixing children with strange adults (of any ethnicity).

"You can only restrict your membership to groups which share PCs."

It has just occurred to me... if you could have a group for women and men who have the PC of GR, then you could also have a group for - say - children under 14 and men with the PC of GR, or girls under 13 plus men of a particular ethnic background.

There are EXCEPTIONALLY good reasons why the demands of TQ+ activists to create incoherent groups and bring them together need to be resisted at all costs.

Oh dear another fly by scolder who is completely wrong as demonstrated by m’learned colleagues above

In EA terms, women + anyone who identifies as a woman = women + men with the PC of GR. This is not a single sex organisation therefore men have to be admitted on the same terms as women or it is unlawful sex discrimination.

You can only restrict your membership to groups which share PCs.

ETA: cross posted.

No, I think you have misunderstood.

You can't offer a service for women (as defined by sex) and anyone who identifies as a woman, because then you are discriminating against men, who unlike women, don't have the option of membership if they don't identify as women.

'Idenitifying as a woman' is not a protected characteristic, so you could have an organisation for anyone who 'idenitifies as a woman', regardless of sex, as long as that were defined sufficiently widely to not indirectly discriminate against men.

However, at that point you might as well just have an institute for people who like crafting and meetings with invitied speakers.

If the WI is not offering a single sex service under schedule 3 then how does it exclude the men who don't identify as women

I'd love to join the WI but I haven't so far due to their ridiculous policy of including men.

Oh dear, another overexcited GC not reading the clarification properly. Incorrect that it’s ’not allowed’, this all depends whether the WI is offering a single-sex service under Schedule 3 and whether its membership policy serves a legitimate and proportionate aim.

Would mean that the Women's Institute would then be operating on the same legal basis as something like Hooters or a strip club.

Like I said, pretty honest, and even the name kind of still works.

To be honest, a women+ organisation doesn't sound like a womens organisation at all, but a TW focused organisation, where the women are there to support the mens gender identity. The organisation could still exist, but not pretend its for women.

I've been thinking that might be a route you could maybe manage. Say that it's a service, and that you've got a two distinct roles - the customers for the service are the transwomen (males with gender reassignment), and the service providers are women.

That might maybe get you there? There's a genuine occupation requirement in that men with gender reassignment want to be surrounded by women, and that's the service you're providing, therefore all your service providing volunteers have to be women, because that is the specialist service.

Sounds like legal chicanery, but not really - it's just being honest. And that honesty might maybe make it justifiable. You've stated a valid aim.

"some 'lesbian' events are clearly transinclusive"

Going forward, lesbian events will certainly still be able to include transmen (trans identifying women) who are attracted to other women.
.

"I always used to wonder how a certain lesbian bar got away with allowing certain men (not only trans) in if accompanied by a lesbian woman- but not if they were alone."

It all depends on the reason given. I think it unlikely that there would ever be evidence of the "real" reason; there will likely be some made up reason eg "We've got a dress code" to prevent entry.

Service providers are not allowed to discriminate in that way but unless you have actual proof that they are doing that (and not just eg a dress code) then your complaint won't go anywhere.

[EDIT]

FLINTA

I just had to google that term as I have not heard it before. Apparently it's a German acronym where a space says that straight men are excluded but everyone else is welcome.

There is no way that would fly any more.

They're setting themselves up to be sued to kingdom come here. All it will take is for a regular man to attempt to join and be rejected, then they're screwed. Straight up, open gender identity discrimination, for which they can't even try to claim single sex exemption for. They are currently a mixed sex space which is advertising their continuing discrimiation against men who identify as men. Men who identify as women are welcome, men who identify as men aren't. Blatant gender identity discrimination.

Proportionate to what though? What is the legitimate aim of allowing all women and some men? Or rather what is the rationale for excluding most men?

Quite.

So many organisations talking without speaking, about something that couldn't be more obvious and now clearly re-stated and spelled out by the SC.

It makes you wonder about the average leadership's intellectual abilities, doesn't it?

Easiest way to think about it is:

a transwoman is not some special category of woman (as clarified by the SC judgement)

equally a transwoman is not some special category of man - a transwoman is by definition a man and at a sex level the same as all other men...

so if an organisation decides to be open to women and transwomen - that is identical to saying women and men. If they then don't allow some men to join that is discrimination.

identifying as trans has no more to do with biological sex than liking star trek / motor racing or cooking - it is simply one expression of being your biological sex.

All the lesbian events in my area are TIM inclusive but won't let men in, gay straight or otherwise
I always used to wonder how a certain lesbian bar got away with allowing certain men (not only trans) in if accompanied by a lesbian woman- but not if they were alone. They even refused women if they didn't look lesbian enough
I know bars/pubs have that sign up 'we reserve the right to refuse admission' but on what basis can they do that (apart from age/dress code) without it being discriminatory

But they cannot illegally discriminate. Operating as a single sex organisation is permissible. Operating as mixed sex organisation would also be permitted as long as they change their constitution. But operating by allowing women and any man who identifies as a women is likely to be discriminating against men who do not have a special identity.

Sounds about right. They can't claim single sex exemption as some men allowed and can't claim same sex attraction as heterosexual men included.

I think I've pretty got my head around who can be excluded and when

But can I get some clarification on this please

'Much like now.... someone can read a 'woman's' magazine, shop in the 'women's' clothing section, dance or act in a 'woman's' role, some 'lesbian' events are clearly transinclusive / for anyone FLINTA but importantly we can now say 'biological women only' if and when we need to!'

If the lesbian ( pc of sex and sexuality) events are trans- identifying men inclusive, then they can't exclude gay or heterosexual men or heterosexual or bisexual women either right ?

Yeah, and it was only one goal as well. If England had really wanted to win the game they should have tried harder.

Perhaps they lost the keys to the cells down the back of the sofa.

I've had a look and can't see anything. Maybe they're busy.