Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

Sunshine is a word often used to patronise and belittle women. The misogyny is calling from inside the house with this one.

I just got my DH to send an email to them:

Hello,

My name is Xxxx (very obviously masculine name). I just read your transgender policy and understand that you accept men.

I am a man and would like to join the local WI group in [xxxx city] (the nearest branch for me is in yyyy [suburb of xxxx city]).

Should I just turn up next Wednesday evening and sign up?

I'm really waiting with bated breath to see what sort of response there is.

Are you being serious? The issue isn’t with the word share.

So you think that it would be fair to have a club for heterosexuals, and anyone over the age of 21.

A club for men and anyone over the age of 30?

You think that is equality?

Just requoting this post because you acknowledge here that women and trans women don't share a protected characteristic.

Do you understand that Schedule 16 is an exemption to the general rule against discrimination, for associations which restrict their membership to people who share a protected characteristic?

And that since, as you acknowledge, women and trans women do not share a protected characteristic, associations seeking to restrict their membership to women plus trans women cannot rely on anything in Schedule 16?

Because women and trans women do not share a protected characteristic?

If you believe there is a different exemption in the Act which would allow them to do so then by all means tell us where it is, @Itsthecatsfault.

Yes it is. Because women and trans women do not share a protected characteristic.

As you acknowledged yourself earlier in the thread.

So associations cannot rely on the exemption in Schedule 16 to restrict their membership to women and trans women, can they?

I’ll break it down for you like this:

Imagine you set up a support group for people who face discrimination, and you include Black people (protected under race) and Jewish people (protected under religion). They don’t all share the same protected characteristic, but they each have one that the group is built around. That’s allowed under Schedule 16.

Same principle applies here.

Jewish people are also protected under the protected characteristic of race, hence why this is possible.

Why do you think it is allowed under Schedule 16?

On what basis are you excluding all other people who face discrimination?

I’m going to wade in. I may regret this, but:

Women and transwomen do share something - they share that they both have a protected characteristic. In the case of women, that’s sex, and in the case of transwomen that’s gender reassignment.

But, they don’t share the same protected characteristic, and that is what the Act says is the basis upon which you can exclude other people.

You can’t have a group made up of people with random different protected characteristics. It’s not “they all share the identity of having a protected characteristic”. It’s “they all share the same protected characteristic.”

Because that’s how the Equality Act works? It doesn’t say you have to include every group that faces discrimination?

The Equality Act says that no association can discriminate on the grounds of any PC unless the exceptions in schedule 16 apply.

You are correct.

However, absolutely everyone has at least one protected characteristic. (Being male and female are both protected characteristics, and everyone is either one or the other.)

So as you suggest, simply having a protected characteristic is far too broad.

I was thinking that as I hit send - thanks for clarifying!

From what I can see, the law does not say ‘the same’ protected characteristic, ‘only one’ protected characteristic, or that everyone must be covered under an identical category.

I’m sorry but it’s just not there.

It says that you can't discriminate against any group unless you are relying on one of the exemptions.

Which exemption do you think you can rely on to set up an association which restricts its membership to (a) women or (b) men with transgender identities?

And you saying you are right doesn’t make it so either

It says SHARE. They have to SHARE a protected characteristic.

And you have acknowledged that women and trans women DO NOT SHARE A PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC.

This

OK, I'll try this one again. Disregarding the oddness of interpreting 'share' as 'share with some, but not all', let's suppose you're right and the Court didn't mean 'all members share'.

Drag your thoughts away from men who say they're women for a minute. Think about another, far more common protected characteristic: 'race'.

Some female people really, really like black men. This liking cuts across all colours of women. They start a club to which only black men are invited.

They claim an EA exemption on the grounds of sex (the club's designed for women who like black men) and race (only black men).

Two questions:

1] Is this racist?

2] How may the club legally discriminate against white men, who - despite being great dancers, loving reggae and wearing street fashion - have no appeal to the women and piss off the black men?

That’s a good point- everyone technically has some protected characteristics. What’s important there is that the group must have a clear membership criteria that are applied consistently and are based on protected characteristics.

If a group says it’s for biological women and trans women, and its purpose is focused on experiences linked to sex and gender reassignment, that can be lawful. What matters is that the criteria are coherent, consistently applied and support a legitimate aim. The law allows space for nuance and context, not just rigid matching.

Supreme Court: Goes to huge amounts of trouble and weeks of time interpreting the law and writing a very, very clear judgment in really simple terms as if they know it's going to have to be in See Spot Run, Run Spot Run kind of language.

Half the country: I don't get it.....

EHRC: FFs, here's some basics while we do the final advice

Half the country: Still don't get it..... and 2+2 definitely equals 5..... waiting for more explanations.

EHRC: <commissions Mr Tumble and an interpretive dance troop>

"people who share a protected characteristic"

"people who share a protected characteristic"

Share.

"Share" means they both have the same one. Not one or the other. The same one. Shared.

'Women' and 'men with gender reassignment' do not share a characteristic.

OK, let's walk it back a bit.

Do you think an association can rely on Schedule 16 to restrict its membership to women plus trans women?

Yes or no?

Jewish people are protected under the PCs of race and religion, so your point is clearer if you talk about christians.

You are apparently arguing that under the EA it would be legal to have a club whose members must be either white or christian.

Can you not see the discrimination?

Editing: Actually that isn't comparable because race discrimination is much more restricted.

So instead, christian or male, so excluding all non christian women.