Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

Sharing doesn’t have to mean identical. If we both bring a pizza to a party, we’re still sharing pizza night. Same with protected characteristics, Schedule 16 doesn’t say we all need to share the same one, just that we share a protected characteristic. That’s the legal wording, and it allows for groups made up of different PCs, as long as the purpose is clear and consistent and the ‘menu’ makes sense.

Why did WI release the statement in the OP if its business as usual?

No, we are both eating pizza, we are not sharing a pizza.

To take the analogy further, if I am eating pizza at Pizza Express in Newcastle and you are eating pizza at Zizzi's in Manchester, are we still sharing a pizza?

Because my own lived experience is so very far removed from that of trans women that I am pretty sure we are not eating at the same restaurant.

You still haven't explained why you think this menu makes sense. I have more in common with regular men than I do with men who have transgender identities.

Do you understand that everyone has protected chararacteristics? For example a white person has a protected chararacteristic of race

Do associations have to have a legitimate aim to be exempted from unlawful discrimination rules? I thought the rules were much looser, hence gentleman's clubs?

I thought this was a useful explanation:

thegolfbusiness.co.uk/2012/01/why-is-it-legal-for-some-golf-clubs-to-still-be-single-sex/#:~:text=However%2C%20before%20the%20change%2C%20',breach%20of%20the%20equality%20legislation.

"However, if you are a mixed-sex club, you may not discriminate against members on the basis of sex or any other prohibited categories, such as race or religion. Therefore, if the club mentioned above changed its rules and welcomed both male and female members, it could not prescribe that lady members could not play after 4pm. This is why the Caledonian Club had to change its policy because while it was not a single-sex club, by not allowing ladies into the bar it discriminated between male and female members on the basis of sex."

I feel bad saying this but you can't restrict membership based on skin colour. You can call yourself Children of Mother Africa or St George's Dragons or Rising Sun - a name which reflects who is included - and restrict membership by ethnic origin, but you can't restrict it on the basis of skin colour. So white Africans could join Children of Mother Africa and black English/Brits could join St George's Dragons.

<retreats into pedants' corner>

A group for women and trans women can be lawful if there’s a clear and legitimate aim that applies to both. The law focuses on whether the aim makes sense and whether the criteria are applied fairly.

The clear and consistent purpose of my imaginary club is for women of all colours to meet black men, and vice versa. None of them are interested in meeting white men.

The white men are interested in the other members, it just isn't reciprocal.

How does it differ from 'cis' men wanting to join a lesbians + transbians club?

WHAT IS THE LEGITIMATE AIM

Already covered this- context and legitimate aims.

Once again, you really are mistaken.

I really do not like to have to do an appeal to authority but, in this case, I think that it's needed.

I would point you in the direction of Akua Reindorf KC.

Who's she? You ask.

Well, Akua Reindorf is one of the Commissioners of the EHRC. This is the body that will be coming up with the statutory guidance that interprets the latest SC judgment.

She will be having a very large input into what that guidance says.

She tweeted on this about ten days ago and I posted about it at the time:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5324127-interim-guidance-from-ehrc-is-out-thread-2?reply=143886518

This is what I posted:

Coincidentally, Akua Reindorf KC (one of the Commissioners of the EHCR) tweeted on this just now to somebody who had a similar question.

Question: My understanding is that it says, for example, that lesbian groups must exclude trans women? Rather than can just legally exclude them if they choose?

Reply from AR:

It’s an inevitable consequence of the judgment. In general an association mustn’t discriminate against a person by depriving them of membership because of a protected characteristic: s.101(1). So eg a reading group can’t say “no disabled people” /1

But there’s an exception which says that an association can be limited to people who share a protected characteristic: Sch 16 para 1. Thus an association can be limited to women, disabled people, older people, black people etc /2

An association can combine protected characteristics as long as it’s for people who all have the same two (or more) PCs: lesbian women, black men, young Asian disabled people etc. This way, everybody in the club falls within both/all the PCs /3

But you can’t have an either/or association: disabled people + older people; black women + white men; young people + disabled people. This is because the association can’t satisfy the single protected characteristic condition for any one of its PCs /4

So you can’t have an association for lesbian women and heterosexual men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which is what trans women who are attracted to women are for the purposes of the Act) /5

This wouldn’t be an association for lesbians because it would have straight members; it wouldn’t be an assc for women because some members are men & it wouldn’t be an assc for trans people because some members aren’t trans. Hence it’s discriminatory and unlawful /end

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/1916748422658359573

If you think that you know better than one of the Commissioners of the EHRC then go for it.

ps I really hate that I had to resort to an appeal to authority but I just don't see what else to do

I mean, you're getting ahead of yourself here because you don't even get to the second hurdle (legitimate aim) if you haven't met the first hurdle (sharing a protected characteristic).

The legitimate aim part comes in once you have already established that the people in question share a protected characteristic.

Yes, OK, you're all heterosexual men. What is the legitimate aim for excluding people who aren't heterosexual men?

"Women plus trans women" fails both parts of the test because there is no shared protected characteristic and no legitimate aim.

I think you are misunderstanding the entire principle of equality law and also the different rules that relate to associations.

Bertie Wooster's Drones club would not have to explain why it excludes women.

However, if it did include women, it would not be able to treat them less favourably than men.

It would still have to demonstrate that excluding women was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

This is harder to justify for a men only group than for a women only group.

For example, testicular cancer support group, fine. Men only golf club, what is your legitimate aim?

I get the pizza joke, but the law isn’t about everyone being identical. Schedule 16 doesn’t say members have to share the same protected characteristic, just a protected characteristic. What matters is whether the group’s purpose is clear, consistent and meets a legitimate aim. I’m not going to fall into the trap of explaining ‘why the menu makes sense’. I think we both know what those reasons could be, although they are highly debated, and I don’t want to distract from the fact I’m clarifying the misinformation on this thread about the law.

And yes, that IS how it’s written in the Equality Act. If you disagree, take it up with Parliament or the Equality and Human Rights Commission, not me.

Men only golf clubs and gentleman's clubs are still legal.

What they can't do is admit women and then treat them less favourably.

I don't object to trans people joining the WI. It's not the same as changing facilities and the like

That's so clear and helpful from AR.

WI might feel the same way, but if they admit men, they cant advertise themselves as a womens only organisation.

I get the pizza joke, but the law isn’t about everyone being identical. Schedule 16 doesn’t say members have to share the same protected characteristic, just a protected characteristic.

Just to clarify are you arguing that you could have a club that excluded people who didn't have any protected characteristic?

I am in awe of your patience, people

Did you read the post by Another2cats with the tweet from Akua Reindorf KC (one of the Commissioners of the EHRC)

You mean you don't object to men joining the WI.

Fine, but let's leave that decision to the WI and its membership.

You're the one who needs to take it up with the EHRC because they share my understanding of the meaning of the word "share", not yours.

It is implicit in the word "share" that they have to share the same protected characteristic; otherwise they are not sharing anything at all.

The exemption in Schedule 16 doesn't make any sense at all unless the people concerned share the same protected characteristic.

You're just reeking of desperation at this point.

Surely, when you find yourself in a situation where the Supreme Court, the EHRC and everyone else in the conversation disagrees with you, you just accept that you are wrong?

I can't wait to see all these organisations flouting their intention to ignore the law being hit where it hurts.

The law is not optional..

Trans women are men. If you allow trans women into your association you have to allow other men in too.

The Supreme Court judgment is very clear about this, not only in regards to sharing a protected characteristic, but also in terms of the legitimate aim part. It says that the presence of trans women in a women only group means it is no longer a single sex group, no longer meeting a legitimate aim, and the exemption has been incorrectly applied.

are you arguing that you could have a club that excluded people who didn't have any protected characteristic?

That would be a club with no members at all, then 😂