What does the SC ruling mean for schools and youth organisations?

[JellySaurus]

What does the SC ruling mean for schools and youth organisations?

Both for the children and for the employees and volunteers.

Theres a problem with mixed sex provision though.

It's indirect discrimination to certain religious minorities.

If you do not have facilities allowing these groups to change you risk being taken to court under the equality act for that.

Where is that WTF face that MN needs!!!!

Surely they should be grabbing this to reaffirm themselves as Girl Guides for actual girls of all sexual orientation!

The ruling accepts that transgender people exist and have protections so that whole area of ideology remains within schools.

Still on the wrong side of history (and women's rights and safeguarding girls) 🙄

There's also the legal requirements for schools and workplaces to provide single sex facilities - which have been ignored under Stonewall law for years.

Wow, Guiding are practically begging to be the next in court with that stupid post!

Our local guide leaders are GC and had successfully kept things single sex locally, bless their fantastic Terfy souls.

Hopefully this ruling should have a huge impact on Allison Bailey's case against Stonewall.
I would like to see every individual and organisation that has broken the law named, shamed and sanctioned.

Yes, this is my understanding of where we must be today in law. You can say, for instance, that WI is mixed sex and we admit men if they want to join, but you can’t say it is women only but have to admit trans women too because they’re also women (using equality act). WI membership policy will now have to be single biological sex or mixed sax. And if, say, I want to say I want or need a space to remain single biological sex (like a changing room or ward) I have the right to argue / request that based on biological sex … I think that’s right?

Hopefully EHRC will include schools

Public bodies to get new guidance after ruling on definition of a woman https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce84054nqnyo

Are GG a public body? I thought they were….

That sounds about right yes.

This also begs a problem. If you don't use the single sex provision, then any man can apply to join because otherwise they may be able to claim they are being discriminated against!

I can see GG doubling down and going full mixed sex. Which will be the end of GG IMO.

I'm not sure they can be "single gender" though.

If you look at the judgment, when referring to single sex associations, it points to Schedule 16 of the Equality Act, which says that an association can restrict membership to persons who share a protected characteristic.

But gender isn't a protected characteristic.

Sex is, which means you can restrict membership of your association to members of one sex and exclude the other. (This goes both ways, but it is important to note that it will be much harder to justify the existence of a single sex association for men only, because it will be harder to meet the criteria in the Equality Act showing that it is reasonable for men to object to the presence of women.)

Gender reassignment is, which means you can restrict membership of your association to trans people and exclude everyone else. (This only goes one way, so you can't restrict membership of your organisation to people of either sex who are not trans, and exclude trans people, because being cisgender not being transgender is not a protected characteristic.)

Similarly, you can restrict membership of your association to LGB people and exclude heterosexuals. Technically you could restrict membership of your association to heterosexuals and exclude LGB people, because being heterosexual is a sexual orientation and therefore a protected characteristic as defined in the Equality Act, but again, I think you would struggle to justify why straight people have a legitimate need to associate without gay or bisexual people.

But the Equality Act does not appear to allow associations to restrict membership to people having a characteristic which is not a protected characteristic, which gender is not.

I am trying to think of an example of where membership of an association is genuinely restricted to people having non protected characteristics and I am struggling a bit. Lots of associations have rules about membership based on other characteristics such as ability to pay a membership fee (discriminates against poor people), ability to pass an audition (discriminates against people who can't sing in tune or play a musical instrument), ability to be safe in the water (discriminates against people who can't swim), to give a few examples, but none of these would directly and lawfully discriminate against gay/female/trans/black/old people. (There may be indirect discrimination.)

GG (I think) have been quietly retreating from their initial, ill advised stance on this.
I would imagine they will quietly rewrite some of their policies and breathe a sigh of relief and go back to their original charter as a single sex organisation.
They can and will continue to champion things like Pride as it does try to be an inclusive organisation and do attract a lot of lesbians and GNC women and girls.
I don't agree with them on a lot of issues and think they have had quite a few members willing to throw others under the bus over this - which I hope this ruling will make a lot of people reflect on.

This is great.

Girlguiding say that we are single gender but as a leader I am expected to accept (using their terminology) cis girls, trans girls, trans boys, non binary children. Even without yesterday's ruling they were clearly acting unlawfully by excluding only cis boys.

I have decided to continue until I am faced with a boy joining my unit. At that point I will leave my 20 odd year service, 2 unit roles, county roles and will withdraw my daughters as I will no longer be able to guarantee them girl only spaces. HQ couldn't care less if I leave, they have proved over and over that the opinions of those of us actually doing Guiding are irrelevant.

I know that some people have a significant investment in this being true, but in my experience it's just not.

The delusion is fuelled by people being polite (or perhaps just male, they can struggle to tell the difference apparently) but women are usually pretty spot on at identifying a person's sex, it's instinctual.

Even the people held up as examples in the trans community don't pass as soon as you see a video of them walking/talking.

I don't think it helps anyone to entertain the fantasy that no one knows.

It is one of the sad outcomes of all this - the proof that those serving this political lobby and ideology serve ONLY the ideology in their work without care or regard for the job or service users. It's only something to stand on to further the cause. It raises serious questions around the compatibility of this belief system and many jobs, particularly those in a public service role.

Yes. Although I suspect that once an organisation becomes mixed sex, it loses its appeal for people who were fighting very hard for it to be single sex plus people who really wanted to be included with the opposite sex.

I am wondering if it is worth compiling a list of children's/young people organisations that it will be interesting to see what happens in the light of FWS. Girl guiding comes top.

On a related note, I'll be interested to see what happens at the two Cambridge colleges supposedly for women.

Newnham "the iconic women's college at Cambridge University": https://newn.cam.ac.uk/study-here/undergraduates/advice-applications/faqs-applicants
"Can trans women apply to Newnham?
Trans women who hold a form of formal identification as female on a current passport, driving licence, birth certificate or gender recognition certificate are very welcome to apply directly to Newnham and will be treated in the same way as other women applicants."

Murray Edwards "where women shape the future": https://www.murrayedwards.cam.ac.uk/study-us/how-apply
"Murray Edwards provides a warm and welcoming environment for students who self-identify within the broad spectrum of LGBTQ+ identities. We are committed to fostering a diverse and inclusive community in which all of our students can thrive and succeed. At the admissions level, we will consider any student who, at the point of application, identifies as a woman. This information is communicated to the College through the UCAS application where a student has selected the gender category 'Woman'. Currently, we only consider students who identify themselves as a 'Woman' at the point of application and, where they have been identified as male at birth, has taken steps to live in the female gender (or has been legally recognised as female via the Gender Recognition Act 2004)."

Bets that Murray Edwards will be mixed sex by the end of the year?

See my post above on their Facebook post yesterday.

You are not wrong there.

I think it's indirect discrimination against multiple groups. Women from religious minorities are doubly impacted. But this issue is outside the scope of yesterday's judgment and so will need to be stress tested in court.

I’ve no idea how to find it, nor the time, but Buck Angel (whose name is often invoked as a trans man who completely passes) did a video with Blaire White a few years back. Both pretty convincing in photos, but when sitting together it was very clear which sex they are.
I’ve found the body language and communication of trans men to be a huge giveaway too - it’s very clear in the flesh when I’m talking to a biological (thanks SC) woman.

Bring it on.

I assume they're a charity as well. Could a complaint to the Charities Commission be a good way to get started? They should be pretty wary now, after the Mermaids and LGB Alliance fiasco.