Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

@WhatNextCatsAsDoctors

Schedule 16 doesn’t say we all need to share the same one, just that we share a protected characteristic

You keep repeating the above but it sounds like you are confusing 'share a protected characteristic' with' 'share the fact we HAVE a protected characteristic'

Everyone has at least one and you can't include separate unshared characteristics while excluding others. There would be no legitimate aim to. But you've already been told that multiple times.

It is settled beyond doubt because the Supreme Court has confirmed it.

Nobody is going to take a case to the Supreme Court based on the frankly batshit idea that sharing a protected characteristic doesn't have to mean sharing the same one. That's just a basic failure of logic and reading comprehension.

Interesting.

The lawyers for the WI and Girl guides are Bates Wells. They are also the lawyers for the Green Party against Emma Bateman on her case over being expelled for believing biology is real to be heard on May 27th.

Details:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5328986-greens-internal-drama-warms-up

If Emma wins her case it is likely to have an impact on the WIs legal advice.

You could have an association of women welders, I think, if you could show that being women-only was a legitimate aim - perhaps that in a male-dominated job they needed the solidarity, or they wanted to fight sexism or sex discrimination in welding. The welding bit obviously doesn't involve a PC, so I think Wanda the Welder and her blowtorch-wielding sisters would be acting lawfully by excluding men and non-welding co-workers on the basis that they are a single sex association.

I'm trying to follow this person's logic but I'm not getting anywhere. They have repeated it and seem convinced everyone else is wrong.

It reads to me as 'to qualify for a joint tenancy you must both share a home'

And interpreting that as, 'well it doesn't have to be the SAME home. One could live in a cottage in Cornwall and the other in an apartment in New York, as long as we both share (have?) A home.

Unless it's the SAME home, you're not sharing are you.
It seems pretty clear to me.

Unless people are now going to argue that now the SC have defined what a woman is for the purposes of the EA, they now have to define what is meant by SHARE. Oh, but not before they've defined 'biological'

It feels like arguing with children. But, but, but, what about...

I for one particularly liked the elasticity of ‘share a protected characteristic’ as exemplified by this exchange
”if I’m eating a pepperoni pizza and you’re eating a vegetarian pizza, are we sharing a pizza?”

’Yes, we are sharing pizza night’

i was half expecting an answer that our pizzas shared the characteristics of dough and tomato sauce but was surprised the definition of sharing food extended to the time of day.…..!

Yes, this is what I was getting at when I said that although male and female are protected characteristics, it is harder to justify having a male only association than a female one due to the legitimate aim test.

The example of welders is a good one. Welding is a very male dominated occupation. If you want to have an association for male welders and exclude female welders, it's difficult to see what the legitimate aim is. It just looks like you're excluding an already small minority based on their sex, and what is your legitimate aim? It's not difficult for male welders to find and associate with each other, and they don't need to exclude female welders in order to do that. Whereas female welders are a small minority in the profession and if they want to set up an association for female welders they can make the case that it's a support and networking group for people who are a small minority in the profession and want to discuss matters of common interest, such as, I don't know, the difficulty of getting others to take you seriously in the profession, or the lack of welding equipment designed to fit the female body.

The legislation is really very clear, and it is clearer than ever now we have the Supreme Court judgment and the EHRC guidance.

The basic starting point is that you cannot discriminate against groups of people.

The Equality Act includes exemptions which allow you to discriminate in favour of a group of people sharing one or more protected characteristics. It's important to note that this is discriminating in favour of one group rather than against another group, although in reality when there are only two groups and everyone is in either one or the other (as with men and women) it's not always easy to see the distinction.

But you don't have a blanket right to discriminate in favour of a group sharing a protected characteristic. You have to first identify the group sharing one or more characteristics (e.g. women, in the context of an association for welders), and then you have to demonstrate that having an association for that group of people is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

There are two criteria which must both be satisfied.

1. the shared characteristic(s)
2. the proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(The second of these is arguably further subdivided into two criteria because something may be a legitimate aim but the exclusion of people not sharing the protected characteristic may not be a proportionate means of achieving it.)

An association for women plus trans women (excluding men who do not identify as trans women) fails on all counts.

@WhatNextCatsAsDoctors is really floundering here. It doesn't even really matter whether there is a legitimate aim or not because the legislation quite clearly requires the people concerned to share the same protected characteristic. But even if the rather bizarre interpretation to the contrary were correct - which it isn't - we are still none the wiser as to what this legitimate aim might be.

What is the purpose of an association for two distinct groups of people with nothing in common (women and trans women) which excludes a third group of people who actually have more in common with both women and trans women than either have with each other (men)?

Women have more in common with men than we do with trans women.

I was replying to a post by Datun - the post I was quoting got detached. I must have refreshed the page or something...

Could make for some interesting conversations.

’We should share a car when we go to the meeting tomorrow’

’Great, who should drive?’

’No, I mean we take different cars, but we both share the fact that we are in a car’

’

"Can I come to the meeting too?"

"No, you don't have a car."

"That's OK, I can take the bus."

"But you won't be sharing the journey with us because we are both driving."

"So? Is it a meeting to discuss the driving conditions on the way to the meeting from the point of view of the driver?"

"No."

"So why does it matter if I take the bus?"

"It just does. You can't come."

I kept wanting to ask, if I have two children and they share a bedroom, how many bedrooms are we talking about?

But I felt the carousel had gone on too long and I was starting to feel a bit tired of seeing the same scenery over and over again.

Women have more in common with men than we do with trans women.

I do think this is a fundamental truth. Men who role play as women have highly disordered and sexist views about women. I know this thread has been talking about the law, but on a more personal level I joined the WI to spend time with other women in the absence of men. I and my fellow members are not some kind of tourist attraction for men with peculiar views about women.

It is so disappointing that National continue to choose the cowards way out and fail to stand up for members.

You can all say ‘you’re wrong! It’s nonsense!’ but the fact is I’m right.

Desperate stuff.

Not just 1 - we all have (not share 🙄) a minimum of.6.

Absolutely.

Men who role play as women have highly disordered and sexist views about women.

This is the thing.

For the sake of argument, let's use the kindest definition of trans, i.e. someone with gender dysphoria.

There are four different possible permutations.

1. female without gender dysphoria
2. male without gender dysphoria
3. female with gender dysphoria
4. male with gender dysphoria

I have two things in common with group 1, one thing in common with groups 2 and 3, and nothing in common with group 4.

How is group 1 plus group 4 a coherent combination?

Even if "female without gender dysphoria" were an identity (which I dispute), how on earth would it be the same identity as "male with gender dysphoria"?

And that's before we even get on to the fact that for many, it is not about gender dysphoria at all, but a fetish.

I can accept that someone like my former university course mate (who now calls himself Claire) and I may both be eating pizza together, even if we are not actually sharing a pizza. But when it comes to someone like Karen White, not only are we not sharing a pizza, we are not even eating in the same restaurant. Do they ever get pizza in prison?

The word "share" (more than one both having the same thing) and "a" (singular, not plural) are 100% explicitly clear individually. When combined they become clearer still.

As previously said, in addition, it is perfectly clear that the entire point of the act is to ensure everyone is treated the same, apart from the times when we have good reason to separate by PC. The idea that someone could set up a group for elderly men plus teen girls with south east asian heritage - or women and MCWs - when the groups have nothing in common is ludicrous. A group who share one or more PCs, plus a group of men who want access to them, is simply not a coherent grouping under the law or under common sense.

Which spectacularly misses the point that a white person's protection from racism is equal to a black person's.

Which is to say, any RMW or SW.

It rots your brain, kids.

I would have thought an association that specifically represents the interest of women in a male-dominated industry would be acceptable under the EA 2010.

Maybe they'll just change the name to the womxn's institute...

And further to my point, if National can legally exclude men with a feminine gender identity, then they should.

It is clearly in the interests of members and the organisation as a whole because

1. it remains aligned with the organisation aims
2. members do not want men to be members, that’s why they joined the Women’s Institute and not The Rambler’s Association or U3A
3. it is not respectful to members to serve them up as some sort of affirmation service to men who enjoy role playing as women

I really can’t overstate how much I despise National for their cowardice on this issue. It is not in line with the tradition of the WI

It's not a case of "they can exclude men with transgender identities so they should".

They are breaking the law by including men with transgender identities but excluding other men.

Not worth a derail, but the rules around race discrimination are different and not directly comparable to pc of sex.

Yes, that was probably a poor example. But they would be using the SSE.