Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

Can I just clarify, WhatNext, if you don't accept it's got to be the same protected characteristic, do you actually mean just any protected characteristic? As long as they each have one (or more).

Yes, I don't think that poster knows where it comes from.

Or, indeed, what order it's meant to be in.

I'm wondering if the cat is a bit lost

Covered this already. It’s not my opinion, it’s the Equality Act wording. And no, it depends on the aim.

I mean, if it's any protected characteristic, can I enter the female paraOlympics, because I share the characteristic of sex with the other female athletes?

“Share a protected characteristic.”

a = single, one protected characteristic

share = to have in common

How in earth do you define a group for the purposes of the Equality Act where its members have a disparate collection of any old protected characteristics? They can be in the group as long as they’ve got one, doesn’t matter which it is.

That’s no definition of a group at all. It includes everyone.

Okay. But SSE which will rely on a proportionate means to a legitimate aim is what makes the association female only in the first place.

That's the proportionate means to the legitimate aim. How do you maintain that aim, by admitting men?

And if you're going to change the aim, what is the aim where you could include some men, but not others?

I’m logging off now because I’m getting the same repeated questions I’ve been answering all evening and I’m tired. You can look back at my previous answers where I clarified a lot. Amongst people poking fun at me and calling me ridiculous (amongst other names) for sharing a common interpretation of the EA2010, I hope at least one person found my input interesting and insightful.

You’ve been listening to RMW and SW too much.

It is complete nonsense to claim that “share a protected characteristic” does not have to mean share the same characteristic.

I'm also wondering why trans people are going off alarming, left right and centre, when all they've got to do is point out that you can have changing rooms, toilets and sports with both women and transwomen, and just quote whatever WhatNext is saying.

I think Cats is assuming people deemed to be at disadvantage can join together to form organisations, even if they dont share the same PC.

“for sharing a common interpretation of the EA2010,”

yep you have definitely been listening to too much RMW and SW.

Common interpretation in some circles, but one that is completely wrong.

I think we had this conversation on another thread.

For instance, welders can join a welding association. It's not a protected characteristic. What they can't do, is say only women welders allowed.

'Deemed to be at a disadvantage' isn't a protected characteristic either. So they can have an association, but they can't discriminate on the basis of sex.

That's my interpretation anyway.

i think you are getting things back to front because you are focusing on the people you would include in your organisation, and not people who would be excluded.

The default position is that discrimination on the basis of a PC is unlawful. For it to be lawful, the exclusion must be applied equally, so all men or all women.

I would be willing to pop some corn to watch the Good Law Project try to run that argument in a court of law as a test case. If they want to spaff all the money they raised on such a proposition I say good luck to them.
Even better if they broadcast it on the BBC.

No need for even that. You could enter the men's paraOlympics, or the Inuit games, or the next competition for Pope. All of those are based on having some protected characteristics, and you also have some (totally different) chacteristics, so you're golden.

About the only thing you're barred from is Crufts.

All perfectly sensible.

i think you are getting things back to front because you are focusing on the people you would include in your organisation, and not people who would be excluded.

easy done. I've done it myself.

And of course Stonewall does it all the time. Not including certain people is discriminatory. Rather than you are allowed to exclude certain people

All dogs have a sex ...

I think I'm good to go at Crufts as well

I would love to see that.

Bumping this to re-emphasise it. EHRC actually gives a good example:

Associations may restrict membership to persons who share a protected characteristic

• The Act permits associations of any size or character, other than political parties, to restrict their membership to persons who share a protected characteristic. The only exception is that membership can never be restricted on the basis of colour.

Sch.16 Sch. 16, para 1(4) Example: The constitution of an association called the Black Jazz Players Club states that all members must have national origins in Africa or the Caribbean. Therefore, despite the use of ‘black’ in its name, since the restrictions on membership of the association are based on national origins and not colour these restrictions would not be unlawful.

Datun · Today 23:14
Can I just clarify, WhatNext, if you don't accept it's got to be the same protected characteristic, do you actually mean just any protected characteristic? As long as they each have one (or more).

WhatNextCatsAsDoctors · Today 23:17
Covered this already. It’s not my opinion, it’s the Equality Act wording. And no, it depends on the aim.

So it's not your opinion, it says so in the equality act, but no?

To me, the Supreme Court judgement was a master class in straightforwardness.

If it says it's for women, it's women only. Not women only and some men.

I was expecting the upcoming guidance to cover all the bases, but I think even the EHRC would have trouble with this one.

it depends on the aim

I think the cat doctor's right here, but is convoluting the 'aim' to make the law fit an agenda that is opposite to what the court actually said.

Example 1:

The Hairy Women Club focuses on the relative merits of depilation strategies, and whether it's better to remove hair or let it all flourish.

This is a topic of interest to both female people and gendery males. They form the bulk of the membership, it's all good.

Non-gendery males could also join, however, as the club is mixed-sex under the terms of the Equality Act. They can't exclude applicants because they're men.

This club can exclude people with full-body alopecia.

Example 2:

Celebrating Femininity is an association of people with a 'female' gender identity. It includes gendery males and women who, believing they have a gender identity, self-describe as cis.

Although these members share a characteristic of gender identity, I think they'd be obliged to accept other women and men as members. They can exclude people who think femininity is bullshit, due to their group's interest.

The group's common aim is clear, but 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic: it's gender reassignment, which obviously doesn't apply to the female members. So it's a mixed-sex group for people who celebrate femininity.

The Equality Act is very clear on what's meant by 'gender reassignment'. If I (female) suddenly decide I have a feminine gender identity after all, this is not a reassignment so I can't demand inclusion in a group of trans women.

... In my view, it's insane to build a legal framework on subjective feelings and socially-constructed concepts (gender, race, religion). But the laws we have do recognise those feelings & concepts, protecting our rights to them. I understand why they do.

In order to protect these rights, they have to be well-defined: and they are. You can't just decide the EA meant something else, really, and then expect to remain unchallenged. If you want your flamin' identities to be ratified in law, campaign for it. Don't just ride roughshod over the existing legislation.

(I didn't realise I was going to write a mini-essay! Thanks for getting to the end.)

I haven't read the full thread yet (still catching up) but for all those arguing and wanting groups for women AND TIM's that exclude other males, you can set up such a group if the membership is restricted to less than 25. That's my understanding. I can't remember the law around that but groups of 25 or less are exempt

You can lawfully run a group for women and include people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, as long as the inclusion isn’t discriminatory. The Act allows for context and proportionality. It’s not a checklist where everyone has to match every category to take part.

An organisation, say the WI, advertises itself as single sex (women / female) and ticks along nicely for a century, having only women as members. Then, without changing its articles, it decides that it's single "gender" and is now for women / female members and transw members.

As has been clarified in last month's SC ruling, transw are men. If a man not suffering from gender were to apply to be a member, they would reject him, on the spurious grounds that they don't accept men / male members.

But, as we see, they DO accept men / male members, as long as they claim that they are women. Of course, they are legally (as per SC ruling, 16/04/2025) and actually men; therefore, the WI would be committing sexual discrimination against men not called Sharon, by refusing to admit them.

Groups under 25 are considered friendship groups, iirc.