Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

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

The judgment itself is very clear on the separation. It highlights these parts of the EA2010.

"In relation to the protected characteristic of sex ... a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex".

And

"In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment ... a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.”

So "share a protected characteristic" explicitly does not span the two characteristics.

The judges then say "Accordingly, the EA 2010 recognises sex and gender reassignment as distinct and separate bases for discrimination and inequality, giving separate protection to each"

You clearly don't, because you think that two different people with two different things are sharing something on the basis that they each have a thing.

Batshit.

To take a tool out of your kit: Have you ever asked someone you disagree with a genuine well intended question, or are they all always as leading and biased as you’re demonstrating here?

The Supreme Court interprets the law, but it doesn’t directly enforce policies in every organisation. Until someone takes the WI to court and tests whether their membership policy is unlawful based on that ruling, this is still theoretical. That’s how case law develops.

So no, I’m not looking for a ‘more supreme’ court! I’m pointing out that even Supreme Court rulings need to be applied to specific cases before anything changes in practice.

Ok so now you’re calling me crazy? In the name of feminism? Come ON, people! Don’t you see the irony of this?

I read it as Miss Scarlet calling your interpretation batshit, not you personally.

Let me make it easy for you.

There isn't going to be a Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of the word "share", because anyone basing their legal argument on your interpretation would lose in the court of first instance and be denied leave to appeal on the grounds that the Supreme Court has already been very clear about this.

This.

Feminism is the belief that women should have equal rights and opportunities to men, not the belief that women are incapable of saying stupid things. I have no idea whether you even are a woman anyway.

Employment tribunals and Employment Appeal tribunals are bound by the Supreme Court judgement. They cannot reach a decision which contradicts the Supreme court ruling.

Appreciate the effort to make it easy (patronising) but that’s still just your prediction, not a legal ruling.

Thanks for proving that what you’re ‘sharing’ is an opinion.

That was a non-exhaustive list of examples of different racial/ethnic/national origin groups for whom it would be permissible to set up a positive action scheme - not a mega-group of marginalised people.

You’re beautiful when you express circular and irrational views

(for the avoidance of doubt, that could be construed as sexist. <helpful>)

"My friend works at a big org which has a programme for developing ethnic minority people and females. And it’s perfectly legal."

For it to be lawful it must, in effect, be two separate programmes. One programme for people of "ethnic minority" and a separate programme for women.

The wording of Section 158 is the same as that of Schedule 16 in that it talks about people "who share a protected characteristic":

158 Positive action: general
(1) This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—
(a) persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic,
(b) persons who share a protected characteristic have needs that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it, or
(c) participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.

(2) This Act does not prohibit P from taking any action which is a proportionate means of achieving the aim of—
(a) enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to overcome or minimise that disadvantage,
(b) meeting those needs, or
(c) enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to participate in that activity.

So, yes, you can separately do things to help support women and help support people of "ethnic minority". These are two separate things and are lawful based on the organisation believing that women suffer a disadvantage through being women. The organisation also separately believes that people of "ethnic minority" also suffer a separate disadvantage.

So you have two different groups that the organisation believes suffer a disadvantage.

The organisation takes actions to help women overcome their disadvantage. It also separately helps people of "ethnic minority" to overcome their disadvantage.

(Just a side note, if the organisation assumes that both those groups suffer from the same disadvantages and just need the same support then they haven't really thought about the separate issues).

Thanks for being open about that. How you get any support on here is beyond me.

Your levels of defensiveness at being called sexist tells me I clearly hit a nerve.

But you're sharing your own facts, presumably?

This really is reminiscent of the deconstruction that male people use when they state confidently that they are 'biologically female'. It all relies on just getting the right deconstruction method.

But Mother isn’t a protected characteristic. Neither is veteran

I can assure you that it’s one programme. And it’s a very large organisation so I’d be surprised if they weren’t given sound legal advice.

I meant the group for women and ethnic minorities

I’m sharing my knowledge of the law, and trying to shine a light on the ways it’s often misinterpreted.

Quite impressive, almost manly levels of confidently making assertions that are completely wrong.

The pc of Gender Reassignment effective protects against discrimination for being trans. For example if a man either the pc of GR (aka transwoman) wants to apply for a job, he can’t be rejected because he is trans. He can however be rejected because he is male as they are separate pcs.

The charitable objects of the WI states that it is for women only. Therefore they need to exclude all men or get in trouble with the Charities Commission and potentially many benefactors who intended to fund women’s interests. As the SC judgement confirmed, a transwoman is a man , therefore must be excluded.

There may be a question mark over the lawful exclusion of females with a trans identity aka transmen, depending on whether it is proportionate to do so for the organisation.

What legal qualifications do you have, out of interest?

Until someone takes the WI to court and tests whether their membership policy is unlawful based on that ruling, this is still theoretical. That’s how case law develops.

That's sophistry. By that argument, nothing is illegal until a corresponding court case.

So me murdering someone isn't illegal, because we've not gone to court to see whether my murdering someone is unlawful yet. Any claim that it is illegal is "theoretical".

What you're maybe reaching for is innocent until proven guilty, but that's a different thing. The WI may not have been convicted yet, but that's not the same thing as saying the law isn't clear.

There are cases where a law isn't clear, and we need a test case to clear it up. But's that what we just got - FWS versus the Scottish Government was the test case, and the Supreme Court did go through the act in enough detail, beyond just the narrow "females on corporate boards" aspect, to make the WI's position quite clear.

I see no scope for ambiguity here - and the fact that your main argument for WI's innocence rests on ignoring the way "share a protected characteristic" is explicitly defined in the EA2010 and called out by the SC judgment shows how much trouble they're in. Their defence lawyer would have to do far better than you're doing.

It’s interesting how confident you are about what the WI ‘must’ do, yet the WI itself, its legal advisors, and the Charity Commission don’t seem to share that certainty.

The last few pages have been fascinating, but much more from the point of view of considering how people think and come to their opinions, and less about exploring the issues to increase understanding.