Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

It’s amusing to see you all patting yourselves on the back and calling me stupid. Walking away and saying ‘that was all nonsense, I’m so glad I’m right’ doesn’t make it so.

things being nonsense (such as an argument constructed on the inability to understand the word 'share') does make them nonsense though

and also quite funny

You seem to have totally misunderstood what I said. Or perhaps I'm not making myself clear.

Think of the Future Leaders Programme as a training course. The black action plan then says "We want you to deliver your course to some of our members". The Women's action plan then also says "We want you to deliver your course to some of our women"

So, the Future Leaders Programme delivers their course to the people from the black action plan and they also separately deliver their course to the women from the women's action plan.

Now, it may be that the Future Leaders Programme tries to save a bit of money by running those two courses at the same time, in the same room.

It may look like they are delivering their course to people with different PCs, but they are delivering two courses to two separate groups.

Along with the difference between 'a sound argument' and 'sounds like an argument'.

You are confusing a resource that js used for delivery (by both programmes) with the positive action programmes.

It's not clear why as this was clearly explained in the post.

If those drafting the legislation wanted "share a protected characteristic" and "share the protected chararacteristic" to refer to multiple characteristics rather than the same one why use the singular for characteristic and not the plural. Why did they use a and the instead of say " share protected characteristics"

https://www.deloitte.com/ie/en/careers/explore-your-fit/early-careers/graduate-recruitment-campaign.html

This link implies that future leaders is their graduate programme

I mean, firstly, there's fuck all information there about how the scheme actually works, it may be an umbrella term for what is in reality two separate schemes, and secondly they might just be one of the many organisations which has been applying the Equality Act incorrectly.

Do you not understand that the Supreme Court judgment has shone a bright light on many organisations who have been getting the law wrong?

Just like you insisting that it isn't nonsense doesn't mean it isn't.

The reason I knew what to type in to Google to find that programme was because my that’s the organisation I was talking about yesterday that I have a personal connection to via a friend. So I understand how it works, and I’m informing you that it’s a single initiative and single programme which is able to happen because of the wording in the Equality Act I’ve been outlining. That is clear in the link. If what you were all saying was true, that initiative would not be allowed to exist. Both those groups have clear needs which are being addressed by that SINGLE programme.

It's a red herring anyway because if someone really wanted to have a "people of either sex affected by female hormone issues" group they could just have it without any jiggery pokery because "being affected by female hormones" is not a protected characteristic.

It might be on shaky ground if a man wanted to claim that it indirectly discriminated against him because men are much less likely to be affected by female hormone issues, but the inclusion of trans women would presumably be a defense to that.

To the same point, prettty sure there's no issue at all with a "people who identify with a social feminine role" group either as long as it doesn't claim to be women-only, and as long as its existence does not indirectly disadvanatge female people vs male people. An "all girlie girlies welcome" WI is probably ok as long as it doesn't prevent a Women-only WI existing or claim to be Women-only in its legal articles when it is not. If the Girlie Girlie WI turned out to be somehow more advantageous for its male members than its female ones, that could lead to a discrimination charge under the EA but that's the same of any mixed sex org.

Single. Another problematic word.

If you are correct, cats, why didn't the WI release a statement saying words to the effect of they are pleased that they can continue to provide groups open to all women and some men?

If its as you claim, the statement they did give is odd, isnt it?

That’s just not the case, and I have no idea why you’re saying something so false with so much authority. I proved your initial point wrong by directing you towards the actual programme so now you’re contorting the programme to still fit your narrative.

This is a single programme designed for women and ethnic minority participants based on shared systemic barriers to progression. I’m assuming these include exclusion from influential networks, lack of sponsorship, and bias in promotion decisions. These issues affect both groups although experiences will differ.

If it were simply about efficiency, rather than addressing shared disadvantage, it would not meet the legal threshold for positive action under the Equality Act. And if these were unrelated groups with no common barriers, combining them into one programme would not be legally justifiable under the Act.

Oh bloody hell. Really?! Some of my other points are more legally complicated, but this programme is 100% VERY clearly a single programme (again, I’m aware of that through a personal connection) and denying that is being deliberately obtuse to prove me wrong.

If it were simply about efficiency, rather than addressing shared disadvantage, it would not meet the legal threshold for positive action under the Equality Act. And if these were unrelated groups with no common barriers, combining them into one programme would not be legally justifiable under the Act.

What common barriers do women share with ethnic minorities?

It appears be a programme incorporating different strands and objectives for different groups, so it’s your use of “single” that’s disingenuous.

An example. I might run “a fitness programme” for members of my sports club. It has a singular aim, to improve fitness for everyone. But the programme is adapted for different categories, men, women, juniors, disabled. In one sense, it’s a single programme. In another, it is differentiated for different subgroups within the larger group.

I said above but pasting here: exclusion from influential networks, lack of sponsorship, bias in promotion decisions, amongst many many more.

Can you link to something about the Future Leaders programme? The link you supplied doesn't provide any detail.

I'm a bit unclear about the 'shared disadvantage' of women and people from ethnic minorities. It seems a very broad group, and it would be very interesting to find out what is meant by this.

What other information do you need? It said:

Deloitte launched its ‘Future Leaders Programme’ in 2022. This programme aims to improve representation of women and underrepresented ethnic groups in leadership roles. The first cohort of 500 (76% women) ran in 2022 and consisted of training, networking and peer learning.

It doesn’t appear to have a standalone page.

Yes but the program itself does not discriminate against any protected characteristic. It includes white males, just because specific training is aimed at different sections is irrelevant, the program itself is open to all.

No, it doesn’t include white males. You are getting it confused with the Future Leaders Academy, which is an entirely different thing.

Please could you provide the link to the programme that explains this.

You are describing things that could be experienced by anyone, so it's not clear how an argument for positive action could be justified.

As explained before, it would make sense to share resources to address specific identified issues within different groups, particularly in the same company, but the rational for each programme and the resources are not the same thing.

Sow am I to understand that "share a protected characteristic" can be interpreted to mean "each have two completely different characteristics" because the Supreme Court has not said otherwise to your complete satisfaction, but the Deloitte programme is completely compliant with the law even though the Supreme Court has not confirmed this?

Heads the genderists win, tails women lose, is that it?

I agree it is very confusing when people use the same words to mean two completely different things, isn't it?

See also "woman", "female" and "share".