Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

So you can't think of a justofication, but think it may be possible.for someone else to think of one?

On points 2 and 4, Akua Reindorff's explanation that this is wrong has been posted upthread. Can you explain why you disagree with that, and give another equally or more qualified legal source that agrees with your interpretation? (Edit - needs to be one published since the supreme court clarification.)

yeah

I mean @WhatNextCatsAsDoctors argument would last about 10 seconds in court due to the majority of people understanding the meaning of the word 'share'.

The WI are definitely leaving themselves at high risk of being on the receiving end of litigation from mischief making men, which is possibly something that whoever provides their pubic liability insurance might want to have a little think about

I mean, it's just wrong on both counts.

I can't remember the last time I saw someone being so stubbornly and relentlessly wrong on here.

The positive action clauses do not say anything about membership, because it's about actions, not groups. There is no wording saying members of a positive action group have to share a protected characteristic, because a 'positive action group' is not something it considers. Just positive action. So it's not directly comparable, despite the same phrase occurring. It does not say anything about restricting membership, unlike the association exemption.

Reading it it seems likely 'positive action groups' (US DEI style) could fall foul of general membership discrimination rules, like not permitting race-based membership, and be subject to the 'share a protected characteristic' get-out otherwise.

and whose definition of gaslighting is 'providing me with facts which contradict my world view'

it's actually strangely enjoyable to witness

The wording is “share the protected characteristic”, not “the same protected characteristic”.

The wording is “share the protected characteristic”, not “have any protected characteristic”

This is where is gets really difficult to know what to say, because I can think of lots of justifications but I know there are such strong biases against trans people on here that the conversation will then be diverted to focus on that and then we’re heading into derailing and sea-lioning territory. But my point I was here to prove is that the WI can choose to include trans women if they want to. Which, even though I’ve had to fight my corner, I feel I’ve done.

Off the top of my head an example of a justification could be improving access to healthcare for conditions affected by sex hormones. Also perhaps economic empowerment and financial equality. Both of those things are relevant to both groups in overlapping ways. Both are legitimate aims under the Equality Act if they meet the proportionality test.

As for Akua Reindorf’s view, legal opinions are not the same as binding law.

I can think of lots of justifications

but you wouldn't know them

they go to a different school

and the WI can definitely chose to include men with gender identities if they want to. They've done it, so we know that is true. However I suspect that as a result of this they will sooner or later find themselves losing a discrimination court case brought by a man without a gender identity, or in hot water with charities commission.

Oh please. I’ve already provided justifications. You might not like them, but that doesn’t make them invalid. This is exactly why the law includes the proportionality test rather than absolute rules. If you believe no legitimate aim exists, then the legal route is to challenge it in court rather than keep declaring it wrong on an internet forum.

"...organisations like Deloitte"

Interesting that you mention them. Deloitte speaks of multiple networks for different groups:

"Our Diversity Networks connect people who share characteristics such as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, neurodiversity and parenting/caring responsibilities, creating a welcoming, inclusive environment – one where creativity and diversity thrive."

It turns out that there are 13 different networks covering people with different shared charactersitics:

"Deloitte’s thirteen Diversity Networks connect people who share characteristics such as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, neurodiversity and parenting / caring responsibilities."

https://www.discoverdeloitte.co.uk/articles/Our-Diversity-Networks

For example, one of these 13 is the Women's Network, another is the black network, another is the LGBT network and so on.

Each network is for people that share the same protected characteristic.

A network is entirely different to a positive action programme.

Ah, I see we’re back to not understanding the meaning of the verb to share. This could go on all weekend. What fun.

Off the top of my head an example of a justification could be improving access to healthcare for conditions affected by sex hormones.

What?

It's hard to imagine two groups with more conflicting medical needs than women and trans women.

How on earth do women in need of female specific healthcare benefit from being grouped together with men who have chosen to fuck their endocrine systems with cross sex hormones?

Surely this is just diverting attention and resources from where they need to be - on actual women's health.

A network is entirely different to a positive action programme.

You're getting there. And a programme is entirely different to a membership organisation.

I very much look forward to your approach being heard in court. 🍿

But the legitimate aim is the second limb of the test.

It's not even worth discussing if you have already failed the first limb of the test - SHARING A PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC.

But I don't mind discussing it because it's quite clear that there is no legitimate aim.

That is exactly why the Equality Act includes a proportionality test. No one is suggesting identical treatments, just addressing shared barriers like underfunding and lack of research.

You are entitled to think these issues should be addressed separately, but that is your OPINION.

It will never get as far as the Supreme Court or even the Court of Appeal because anyone looking to make that argument would be told to fuck off and stop wasting everyone's time long before it got to that point.

Unfortunately that means that @WhatNextCatsAsDoctors will continue to cling to this argument indefinitely on the grounds that the Supreme Court has not felt the need to clarify the meaning of the word "share".

Women do suffer from underfunding and a lack of research.

Lumping them together with trans women will not help them combat this problem in any way.

It's just diverting attention away from female people and back to male people again.

say the gendery men join this group and succeed in their aim of getting funding to research the health issues they experience as a result of their choice to take cross sex hormones

given that funding is very much like pie, this is likely to mean less funding for research into the affects of natural hormone levels for women.

so what's in it for the women?

I obviously know that. I was just using that as an example in the conversation that was being had yesterday.

Why are you all so patronising and rude on here when someone disagrees with you?

I imagine your response to that question will shift the blame back onto me claiming I’m too stupid to be respected etc.

And don’t you see the irony in that?

it's actually fascinating when people can't see this. @WhatNextCatsAsDoctors is spending her days vehemently arguing for mens rights while thinking she's a feminist.

🤣

this is your first post on the thread:

Oh dear, another overexcited GC not reading the clarification properly. Incorrect that it’s ’not allowed’, this all depends whether the WI is offering a single-sex service under Schedule 3 and whether its membership policy serves a legitimate and proportionate aim.

if you want people to be nice to you may I suggest you work on your opening going forward.

It's just diverting attention away from female people and back to male people again.

Indeed. That's the whole reason for the 'share a protected characteristic' restriction. It is the ability to focus in a way a mixed group can't that justifies the existence of the group.