Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

Sssh!!!

Does anyone know if the WI branches are autonomous?

I'm wondering if we could end up in a situation where some branches decide to go mixed sex while others stay single sex

The primary aims of the Women's Institute (WI) are to advance the education of women and girls, to improve the conditions of rural life, and to encourage women's involvement in community and public life. The WI also aims to provide women with opportunities for lifelong learning, skill development, and to be a force for good in their communities

excluding men is deemed to be a proportionate means of meeting this aim. If you include some men how does it help achieve this aim?

I do feel that our tail chasing friend knows fuck all about the WI and cares even less. All that’s important is to be sure women can’t have anything just for ourselves

Just to say I’m stepping away because I have some other things to do, but I’ll be back later and read everything properly. Just in case anyone thinks I’m leaving for any other reason 😂

Try reading the judgment and the EHRC guidance first.

Then you can come back and admit that you got the wrong end of the stick.

We won't hold it against you.

I wish the Supreme Court judges were here to review this argument. They could start saying things like "incoherent" and "unprincipled" again.

That would make my protected characteristics quiver.

They're all separately registered as charities and the national confederation of WIs is a coordinating body and also a registered charity. So maybe they could have different membership policies but I have a feeling that the individual WIs have to abide by national leadership decisions.

Why does MN not have a pigeon chess GIF?

I'm on it.

Please don’t be so passive aggressive.

I appreciate that some lawyers, including the EHRC, are now interpreting Schedule 16 quite narrowly. But that’s just one interpretation, and it hasn’t been tested in court or formally adopted as statutory guidance. The Equality Act still says an association can restrict membership to people who share a protected characteristic, it doesn’t say they all have to share the same one.

Until that’s clarified by legislation or case law, this remains a live legal question. People can disagree on what they think it should mean, but let’s not pretend it’s settled beyond doubt.

That's sweet.

It's really not the point though. If single sex does not mean single sex in law, in all situations, how do you plan to use that law to keep those men out of changing facilities and prisons and hospital wards and HCP roles and refuges if they're sad about those too and other women say they don't mind?

You've just recreated a wobbly permeable line that gives power to men to destroy women's boundaries, spaces and rights in law, and it's been destruction tested for the past ten years that men will. Vigorously. Without the faintest conscience.

The only way to protect women in those vulnerable spaces is for single sex to mean single sex in ALL contexts, ALWAYS, rigidly. And sentiment has to go. That some women don't mind THIS bit is irrelevant. That the man is sad and he's a nice man is irrelevant. The minute you start aww blessing you've returned Sandie Peggie to having to take her clothes off with a spectating bloke and all the rest of it - including the women raped and assaulted. You can't have it both ways.

The judgment's very simple. If it's been made single sex, it was single sex for a reason. Therefore none of the opposite sex, at all, regardless of situation or certificates or feelings or anything else.

The WI does not HAVE to be single sex. It has the choice not to be. It's entirely welcome to announce it's welcoming men and changing it's name and brief, that's entirely it's decision. What it can no longer do is say it's single sex and seek to admit some men. And that's not because anybody fancies being mean to men for a bit of a giggle. Everybody needs to tear their eyes off these men for a minute and see the much bigger picture and all the women behind them.

This is after all a lobby that believes in personal realities created by feelings not facts.

But I think the legal meaning is bleeding obvious.

Even more wrong than before.

Impressive, in its way.

In what way is it possible for “people who share a protected characteristic” to not share the same one.

If they don’t share the same one, then in what possible way can they be said to be “people who share a protected characteristic”.

What are they sharing if they don’t have the same one?

This is 100% nonsense.

I’ve only heard it used towards (mostly) young men. Never to a woman.

But how do you know the young men's gender identities?😜

I've been pondering this and I think, and I could be wrong, but I think that poster means the person has a protected characteristic, and so does the other person. But not necessarily the same one.

But given everyone has the protected characteristic of sex, race, and sexual orientation, I'm not really sure where they're going with it.

You are quite right, and too clever for your own good, Sunshine.

It’s either a wilful misunderstanding of the meaning of what it means to share a characteristic, or a singular lack of comprehension.

I was quoting Eric Morecambe talking to Andre Previn (I'm playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order). So the sexism thing was a bit surprising - I'll give you that sunshine.

entirely in line with that poster's utterly bizarre output though

I'm guessing cognitive dissonance born of an utter inability to accept that women can have their own stuff

The Men’s Women’s Institute

Yes, I wondered if that was what was going on in their pretzel thinking universe.

But, the wording is not that people can “share the attribute of possessing a protected characteristic” (ie they must possess one, but it doesn’t matter which it is) and, as you say, we all have at least one, so this is essentially meaningless as a means of defining a group.

It says they must “share a protected characteristic”, and the only reasonable interpretation of that is that is must be the same one.

If we said they must “share a religion” or “share an eye colour” we would have no doubt that it meant they all had to have the same one.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the weird twisting of language until it breaks and doesn’t mean anything any more!

You can all say ‘you’re wrong! It’s nonsense!’ but the fact is I’m right. Even me saying ‘people can disagree on what they think it should mean’ is frankly extremely generous.

The EHRC has offered ONE interpretation of Schedule 16, but it hasn’t been tested in court and it’s not binding. The Act still says ‘a protected characteristic’…not ‘the same protected characteristic.’ And there is NO case law yet saying ‘share a protected characteristic’ has to mean ‘share the same one.’

None of you seem to actually understand the law or what it means. You’re all so confused about proportionate aims, context and the way the law actually works.

Amonst the ‘you’re wrong!’ and ‘get away from us you ignorant liar!’ and ‘nice try, sweetheart!’ I hope I have opened some eyes and shown that organisations like the WI still have more of a choice than people on this board think they do. If I were the WI I’d be terrified because of people (like certain folks who have replied to me on here, and including some people who are more in favour of trans rights) who think they know the law spouting nonsense, but I hope they don’t feel pressured to listen to people who don’t have a clue.

Oh dear lord can everyone PLEASE try and understand that the law must always be read in context. This includes the wider structure of the Act, which balances protection from discrimination with the ability to restrict access where there is a legitimate aim and where doing so is proportionate. Please see my previous posts.

This isn’t just me having a random one off thought on a Wednesday night. It’s a common interpretation of the act! This is why it’s important to read multiple sources and not keep going back to the same biased ones.