Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

WhatNextCatsAsDoctors - If I'm correct, you're saying that you're allowed to have a membership organisation that has 2 protected characteristics and that members are allowed to join if they have at least one of those protected characteristics.

Everyone else is arguing that you have to have both of the protected characteristics to join (particularly if one of those is sex - everyone is either male or female in law so if it's a women's organisation then you definitely don't have that characteristic if you're a man and vice versa).

If there was a disabled women's club (protected characteristics female sex and disability), would you therefore expect it to allow the following:

• women who are disabled
• women who aren't disabled
• men who are disabled

The people you'd be excluding is men who aren't disabled.

Because everyone else is saying this club should only allow disabled women otherwise you're setting a higher bar for men to join than for women, which is discrimination.

It's actually explained quite clearly that the more than 1 protected characteristic is about both PC being shared ie female same sex attracted allows a lesbian group to be set up.

It's also very clear that you can not have a single sex exemption if you include some males. Because sex is a PC you can only run a group for women by using the SSE, if you don't apply the SSE you have to allow all men.

You have delighted us long enough, @WhatNextCatsAsDoctors. Let the other TRAs have time to exhibit.

And they don’t have to explain why membership is only open to women.

Doesn’t have to be justified by feminism or women’s marginalisation.

No, I won’t go away because you’re bored of me. I have just as much of a right to be here as anyone else and share my thoughts and views. This is called ‘feminism: sex and gender’ not ‘feminism: sex and gender owned by GCs and everyone else is a passing visitor we will tell to leave eventually’.

Thanks, @NoBinturongsHereMate . I've always been convinced Jane was a Terf.

Can you explain on what basis you believe that you have a greater understanding on this than Akua Reindorf KC?

Can you explain why you think those who drafted the EA2010 included sex and sexual orientation as PCs, if they were not actually PCs because they could be acquired by others?

Can you explain how two people, who each have a different thing in their sole possession, somehow share both things? Can you explain how "a" as in "a protected characteristic" could be read to refer to the plural?

Thoughts and views are not relevant. We are talking about the law, and the law isn't changed by thoughts and feelings.

For those of you who are presenting including trans women under GR and women under sex as paradoxical, again that’s not really how it works.

We all know and agree (hopefully) that following the Supreme Court ruling, trans women are now legally recognised as male for the purposes of sex-based rights under the Equality Act. If we’re talking about positive action, this means protected characteristic of sex (female) can only include biological women. You’re saying that including trans women under the category of ‘women’ in this context would contradict the legal definition. HOWEVER, this doesn’t prevent organisations from running a programme that supports both biological women and trans women, as long as they are clear that the programme addresses two distinct groups: one based on the protected characteristic of sex (female) and the other based on gender reassignment. While it may feel paradoxical, the important bit is that the legal justifications are kept separate and clearly articulated to avoid breaching the law.

I regret bringing up positive action now as it’s getting confused with the WI which is an entirely different thing.

Seriously?! I’ve spent hours saying that. My point was CLEARLY meant to be a wider comment.

I think the association rules are perhaps more understandable if you start from

’Have you heard about that rum business going on in the house? - Bunter says we might have to allow the wives in? What can we do about that?’

And then remember the rule on peerages in the GRA.

Some groups look after their own.

But this also means that lesbian hiking clubs are legal, with no need to claim any altruistic purpose.

Oh dear. I now have a mental image of Mr Colins attempting to take part in a gender debate.

Although we'd probably be saved by Lady Catherine.

You've spent hours demonstrating that you don't understand the word "share".

In the workplace, the Positive Action exception is for
"proportionate action that aims to reduce disadvantage, meet different needs and increase participation"
or
"actions that reduce disadvantage and/or increase representation specifically when it comes to deciding between equally qualified candidates"

for people who share a PC and who the employer can show are currently disadvantaged or underrepresented in the company or in that line of work.

So the friend who runs a big company with schemes to help "ethnic minority people" and "women" would have to have separate positive action schemes for women generally and for ethnic minorities. The ethnic minority in each scheme would all have to be of the same ethnicity or race or national origin (or combo of national origin/race/ethnicity). Black African, Afro-caribbean, British Asian, Ukrainian, Jewish Scots, Welsh, Irish Travellers, Roma would all be fine. I don't think the friend would be able to cite BAME as a single group for positive action, from what I've read in the EHRC guidance, but I'm not sure.

This is all true.

But just to be clear, at the stage (and until we get more info in case law), although the Supreme Court ruling clarified that for the purposes of the Equality Act woman means biological female, but that doesn’t automatically override how private associations define their own membership categories unless their policies are found to be unlawful in court.

It can restrict its membership using one of the exemptions in the Equality Act.

Which exemption in the Equality Act allows it to restrict its membership to (a) women; or (b) men with transgender identities, but exclude other men?

Because Schedule 16 doesn't allow it to do that.

But their policy is unlawful because they are excluding most men, without being able to rely on the single sex exemption.

What part are you struggling with?

Unnecessary. I’m not going to explain again because I’ve done it countless times.

You are almost realising that the schemes for women and MCWs would have to be separate and separately justified because they do not share a PC. So that is progress.

ETA: Thinking about it, I'm not sure if you could have a positive action scheme only for MCWs, because the group has to share one PC. If that PC is GR, it would have to be for the benefit of Women with identities as well because they are included in GR.
Anyone else, any thoughts?

Saying and explaining are not the same thing.

I didn't ask you to do anything.

I'm just pointing out that you don't understand what the word "share" means.

I’m not struggling with anything, thanks. I’m just pointing out that saying something is unlawful and proving it in court are two very different things.

You’re free to think it’s wrong, but that’s an OPINION, and legally we’re not there yet.

Does sound pretty pointless as described - and also rather offensive - just shoving everyone into a box marked ‘marginalised’.

Which court do you think is more supreme than the Supreme Court, out of interest?

I clearly do. You’re being deliberately inflammatory now.