Women’s institute announcement

I mean, it's just wrong on both counts.

I can't remember the last time I saw someone being so stubbornly and relentlessly wrong on here.

yeah

I mean @WhatNextCatsAsDoctors argument would last about 10 seconds in court due to the majority of people understanding the meaning of the word 'share'.

The WI are definitely leaving themselves at high risk of being on the receiving end of litigation from mischief making men, which is possibly something that whoever provides their pubic liability insurance might want to have a little think about

So you can't think of a justofication, but think it may be possible.for someone else to think of one?

On points 2 and 4, Akua Reindorff's explanation that this is wrong has been posted upthread. Can you explain why you disagree with that, and give another equally or more qualified legal source that agrees with your interpretation? (Edit - needs to be one published since the supreme court clarification.)

WhatNextCats so you’re saying there may not be a legitimate justification to group women with men who have the PC of GR, and you can’t suggest one, but still, if there was then they could?

Of course they have to share the same bloody protected characteristic, because if it is not the same protected characteristic they are not sharing anything!

Name one characteristic that women and trans women actually share.

How on earth is "women without gender dysphoria plus men with gender dysphoria or AGP" a coherent grouping?

Fair enough. Although just as a warning this will cause us to circle back to what was covered to death yesterday.

For point 2 (Positive Action): This is covered under Section 158. It states that positive action is lawful where it is aimed at: “enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to overcome or minimise that disadvantage, or participate in that activity.” It also requires that the action taken is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

The wording is “share the protected characteristic”, not “the same protected characteristic”. This is why organisations can lawfully include different underrepresented groups in the same programme, provided each group faces disadvantage and the action is proportionate to addressing it.

For point 4 (Membership Associations):
This is covered under Section 107(1): “An association may restrict membership to persons who share a protected characteristic.”

Again, the law refers to “a protected characteristic”, allowing associations to choose which characteristics are relevant to their membership criteria.

The Supreme Court ruling clarified that “sex” means biological sex under the Equality Act, but it did not remove the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under Section 7. Associations can lawfully choose to include trans people based on that characteristic, as long as it is relevant to their purpose and can be justified as “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

This is how the law is written. Whether people personally agree with the concept of the legitimate aim, or there being one which exists in this instance, it is a separate and much more subjective issue.

yes, this is the key point for me. what is the proportionate aim that is achieved by discriminating against men without a gender identity by having a club that allows all women and men with a gender identity to join.

The fact that @WhatNextCatsAsDoctors is ignoring me is immaterial to this question as they will not answer it, because there is no reasonable answer.

this grouping achieves no logical aim and constitutes unlawful discrimination against men.

How do you know their programmes are lawful if they haven't been tested in court?

Surely the main lesson to be learned from the Supreme Court judgment is that the law has not been properly applied for the last 15 years. Otherwise the Scottish government would have won.

WhatNextCats can you tell us what justification could be used to group women with men who have the PC of Gender Reassignment?

Re point 2 -given that this whole thing is about organisations getting the law wrong, I won't rely on what companies are doing as evidence of legality. Please reference the EA.

Ditto for point 4.

Just to say that I am purposefully ignoring BernardBlackMolluscs because they used belittling language towards me yesterday. Happy to engage in further dialogue today but not with someone who has been disrespectful. They saw a woman had a boundary and went ‘no thanks!’ Which given the topic of a lot of discourse on this forum, is highly ironic.

This goes back to the misunderstanding about a supposed paradox. The Supreme Court ruling didn’t remove the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, and it didn’t force all associations to restrict membership to biological sex alone.

The WI could on sex, but it has also chosen to recognise gender reassignment as relevant to its membership policy. That remains a lawful policy choice unless or until it is successfully challenged in court. Just because someone has a protected characteristic like being gay, disabled, or elderly doesn’t mean they qualify for membership of an association focused on a different characteristic. The WI, as a voluntary association, can lawfully decide that its purpose is to support biological women and include trans women based on their lived experience and the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

There is no paradox. This is how the Equality Act works even after the ruling. It clarified the law, but it didn’t eliminate organisational discretion or remove the need for case law to settle specific disputes.

'perfectly lawful' - i thought nothing was lawful in your world until it had gone to court?

EY, very well known for behaving lawfully and diligently of course

https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/news/2020-news/former-ey-partner-awarded-108m-in-damages-in-legal-case-against-the-global-accountancy-firm/

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-k-watson-v-ernst-and-young-services-ltd-3201437-slash-2023

www.ft.com/content/ddbc0282-6aec-4bb5-bdb6-167564d3d532

On 2, if it were clearly untrue, it’s strange that organisations like Deloitte, EY, and the Civil Service are all running perfectly lawful programmes that include people from different underrepresented groups under Positive Action. I knew it was true anyway, but for the sake of this and everyone gaslighting me on here yesterday I had a quick Google and found plenty of examples.
On 4, I’m not really sure what to say other than that it is true and that’s how the law works?

The moment people start referring to AGPs I check out. I’m here to talk about equality law not make sweeping generalisations about groups

ah yes. let's stay up here in the ivory tower and not talk about real things with real consequences

Which other men with protected characteristics do you think should be admitted to WI?

Elderly men?
Married men?
Gay men?
Jewish men?
Asian men?
Disabled men?

Why not?

Well 2 and 4 are clearly not true.

its just an example of that ultra sexist ‘once a man has demeaned himself so far by dressing as a woman he’s not a real man anymore’ view

I think at heart the guiding principle is intended to be fairness. So the default position is you must be fair to everyone but here are some circumstances where you may disadvantage or discriminate against some people to be fair to other people.

it is unfair to not allow men to join the WI. It’s a source of education, social interaction and support. Why should that be denied to men? But by preventing men from joining you increase its value to women and there are other sources of those things available to men, so overall it is proportionate discrimination.

The fact that people (including the WI leadership) seem to be struggling to get their heads around is that men with a gender identity are still men. So by admitting them but barring all other men you are

1. discriminating against men
2. failing in the aim which hasn’t been deemed desirable enough to allow you to discriminate against men (providing a single sex social gathering for women)

No, I left because people started calling me a moron and telling me I was wrong and it felt like I was talking to a wall.

I was trying to say that a joint aim could exist, and everyone was telling me I was wrong. To summarise my points:

1. The Equality Act allows associations to restrict membership based on a protected characteristic but doesn’t require them to do so. If the WI has chosen a policy of inclusion (we’ll see how that one goes), it would be lawful unless successfully challenged in court.
2. Under the Equality Act, “share a protected characteristic” doesn’t require all members to have the same characteristic, it means each member has a relevant characteristic. This is how positive action initiatives lawfully include diverse groups.
3. Words in legislation carry specific legal meanings that may differ from everyday usage. For example, “reasonable” in law refers to a defined standard (the reasonable person test), not simply what people casually think is fair.
4. Associations like the WI can lawfully include both biological women and trans women by explicitly framing their policy as inclusive of people with the protected characteristic of sex (female) and gender reassignment, provided they can justify this approach.

All of the above is true. You might struggle to think of examples, but places like this never could and that’s not for you all to decide.

The moment people start referring to AGPs I check out. I’m here to talk about equality law not make sweeping generalisations about groups.

Well, the law by nature can clearly be subject to wildly differing interpretations, often represented differently according to the different beliefs of various activists.

Legislation on issues like belief is always going to be fraught. How can we protect different beliefs that inherently require the denigration or dismissal of other beliefs?

One thing I think is a problem is that the EA does effectively force employers into social policy, or engineering, which can create some very difficult conflicts and situations.

The EA suggests that nobody should discriminate, but also sets out instances where we can/should/must discriminate. It purports to protect beliefs, but those need to be tested in court before being respected. It's built on certain accepted theories, and requires employers to operate based on those theories, but also expects employers to defend theories that are in conflict with those theories.

TBH I think the whole EA is riddled with difficulties, that in many instances risks creating as many problems as those it purports to solve. It asks employers to police staff, and each other. It creates hierarchies of oppression and conflicts of interest and competing rights. One could look at the suggestion that by creating new belief systems and orthodoxies it risks subverting democracy ... the balance between courts and parliament seems quite fundamental here, with one being elected and the other not.

But that's a digression.

Those who have seemingly always known about Goodwin, the GRA and how to understand the EqA, and critised others for not supporting court judgments and acts of parliament are now criticising court judgements and acts of parliament.

Indeed!

If public bodies like local authorities and the NHS always obeyed the law, there wouldn’t be the need for judicial reviews or court cases but there are because they don’t!

Worth a watch.

Did cat ever come back and describe what joint aim tranwomen and women could have in order to justify the exclusion of all other men? I wonder if cat would include AGP men in that cohort?

i'd love to see even the most creative of thinkers come up with a joint aim for those two groups.