Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

Even simpler: how do you think single sex protections in law will work if a group can mix in men and still call it a single sex group?

It's no big deal: they can be mixed sex. They just can't call themselves single sex and not be.

That doesn’t really work… you can’t just cobble together multiple characteristics because you find them personally appealing, like women who like Black men. That wouldn’t meet the threshold of a legitimate aim under the Act.

To misquote Joey Tribiani “women don’t share their right to be women”. The SC says so, we say so.

And they can't be mixed sex and exclude men who don't believe they identify as women.

This is why context and aims are important.

This is why women plus trans women would fall at the second hurdle (the legitimate aim part) even if it didn't fall at the first hurdle (the sharing a protected characteristic part).

This is bit frustrating because I feel I’ve made all the information and the context and nuance quite clear.

That would depend entirely on how well the group defines and justifies its purpose. That’s up to the WI to define.

Not really.

Do you think they can rely on Schedule 16 or not?

I took a break to do some yoga. I'm going to form a yoga club open to women of any age and men under the age of 30. I feel it's a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of giving me something fun to look at while I do yoga.

luckily under your interpretation of the law it would be completely legit and not discriminatory at all.

you starting to get it yet lovey?

You are totally mistaken.

Please reread the appropriate Schedule:

SCHEDULE 16

Associations: exceptions

Single characteristic associations

1(1) An association does not contravene section 101(1) by restricting membership to persons who share a protected characteristic.

The relevant point is that all members of an association must share a protected characteristic (PC).

If there is more than one PC then all members must share all of the PCs. So, in your example, if you were taking Jewish to mean a religion rather than an ethnic or racial group then you could certainly have a club solely for black people of the Jewish faith. That would be fine.

You could not though have a club for people who were either black or of the Jewish faith as some of the members would not necessarily be black and some would not necessarily be of the Jewish faith.

If you are talking solely about race or ethnicity then that would not work either. A club for black and Jewish people would be fine if all the members were both black and Jewish (just in the same way that you might have black Britons or British Jews or Irish Travellers).

In contrast, a club where you had black people and/or Jewish people would not be lawful as there would be people in the club who did not have both of the PCs.

It would be no different from having a club for white women and black men.

If it meets the legal test.

It would give me great pleasure to see someone attempt to explain why "women plus trans women" is a coherent grouping which benefits women in any way.

Quite frankly, no you haven't. There really isn't any "nuance" at all in this situation.

There is either a shared PC (or multiple PCs) amongst all members or there isn't.

I really don't get where "nuance" comes into it?

So you think that they potentially CAN rely on Schedule 16 to restrict their membership to two groups of people who do not share a protected characteristic?

Despite the fact that Schedule 16 only refers to associations wishing to restrict their membership to people who do share a protected characteristic?

Why?

Thats not what I’m saying at all. I’m going to stop replying to you now because you’re being deliberately obtuse and keep on calling me nicknames I’ve expressed I don’t like. I don’t know why other people here aren’t sticking up for me on that. We might disagree on a few key things, but I thought this forum had strong opinions on women being called things they don’t want to be called. Apparently not when it’s someone with an opinion you disagree with.

Just to say, there's a big burly bloke who turns up to WI meetings in our village. Whenever there are photos of their activities in the village news letter, you can see the obvious discomfort on the faces of the women members, most of whom are in their 70s and 80s and have dedicated a good chunk of their lives to WI charitable endeavours - I'm told no one dare say anything to him. He, of course, regularly posts on his social media regarding his WI activities, an example being how he loved learning to hem a skirt 🙄

Their purpose clearly isn't to exclude men, so why aren't they allowing men to join on the same terms as women?

One more time, from the top!

The law would say yes, because Schedule 16 doesn’t say all members must share the same protected characteristic, just that they must share a protected characteristic.

but I thought this forum had strong opinions on women being called things they don’t want to be called.

For all I know I am talking to a load of men.

you can’t just cobble together multiple characteristics because you find them personally appealing

That's exactly what you're proposing!

Lesbians + transbians = cobbled together because they find each other appealing.

Women + trans women discussing gender reassignment = cobbled together because they find each other interesting.

They can do these things, they just can't exclude similarly interested people who are male but not trans.

So, if I eat one pizza and my friend eats a different pizza, are we sharing a pizza?

LOL, I missed this gem.

So why are you cobbling together women and men with transgender identities?

How does that meet the threshold of a legitimate aim? It has to be legitimate for the whole group, not just for the men with transgender identities. What are the women getting out of this?

From WI website.

Today, we are the largest women’s organisation in the UK and we pride ourselves on being a trusted place for all women of all generations, to share experiences and learn from each other.

They obviously interpreted the law as 'a man with GR = a woman'.

It's clear from the SC that this isn’t the case, and its clear from WI statement in the OP that they know there's a problem with their membership rules.

If they were within the law to have a membership of exclusively women and men with GR, they wouldn't have released the statement.

I dont know why people arent seeing this.

Share a characteristic means share the same characteristic. How would it work otherwise, all people have multiple characteristics under the EA