No, I mean, I get that you can have a group limited to people who share two protected characteristics and that this is given as an example, rather than an exhaustive list of what you can do.
But my understanding is that the membership criteria need to be based on people sharing the same protected characteristics, whether that means "women" or "lesbians" or "disabled women" or "Black people" or "Black lesbians" etc. On a narrow reading of the legislation an LGB association would fall foul of this because you are not grouping together people who share the same protected characteristic. You are grouping people who share one sexual orientation (gay men and lesbians, who are same sex attracted) with people who share a different sexual orientation (bisexuals, who are attracted to both sexes).
I know this sounds like a really nit picky issue, but I'm concerned about it for two reasons.
Firstly, it could be used by vengeful trans activists as another attack on the LGB Alliance. They could say that their LGBTQ+ AND ALLIES associations are not discriminatory because they are technically open to everyone, whereas an LGB association is clearly discriminatory because it excludes anyone who does not have one of two protected characteristics, but because it is not for people who share the same protected characteristic it is not compliant with the Equality Act and so the discrimination is unlawful.
I am hoping that no LGBT+ groups will be stupid enough to attack the LGB Alliance again, after what happened last time.
But I am afraid that if they did, they could win on a technicality, or alternatively the court would have to find a legal justification for an association consisting of people who have either one of two different protected categories. And if they do that, then it opens up the possibilities for creating other associations or spaces for people who have one of two different protected categories....such as women plus trans women, for example.
You see where I'm going with this?
In reality I don't actually have a problem with associations for women plus trans women existing, as long as that doesn't become the default loophole to make everything for women plus trans women (and nothing for just women).
But perhaps I'm overthinking this.
Edited