Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

That is press release blurb, not an explanation of the rational behind the programme.

I really hope it makes more sense than the press release blurb suggests.

Don’t ask me to provide that, ask Deloitte!

https://youtube.com/shorts/n93IbHnTa6g?si=_4-ybyYBO2-0xVf9

How do you know Deloitte aren't rethinking their scheme in light of the Supreme Court judgment?

Goad away, I’m not biting.

And yet here you still are, 27 pages later.

Likewise.

I never claimed not to be biting.

From the gov website;

9. General positive action
General positive action is action taken by an employer that is a proportionate way of:

• enabling or encouraging people who share the protected characteristic to overcome or minimise a disadvantage connected to that characteristic
• meeting that group’s needs that are different from the needs of people who do not share that characteristic
• enabling or encouraging people who share the protected characteristic to participate in an activity where they are disproportionately underrepresented

Still based on people sharing a PC I’m afraid (the same PC)

Whether it’s deciding who to exclude or who to positively aid.

I’m trying hard to ignore all the goading comments and focus on the ones which are actually saying something interesting or in good faith. That’s why I’m still here.

You do realize that clip you posted actually confirms things we are saying. The woman is talking about peer support groups so that would be group for women, groups for separate other underrepresented characteristics. It may come under one umbrella name but it's very clear from that clip that it's differentiated for different requirements

She is talking exclusively about women and the tag at the bottom of the video refers to women.

It just confirms @Another2Cats explanation - different programmes using the same resource.

And I'm still here because I (and many others) have realised that saying, "mmm OK, if you say so" when someone is talking absolute nonsense is exactly how we got into this mess in the first place.

If only people had stood up in parliament and said, "come on though, humans can't change sex, why are we giving people the right to do something which is scientifically impossible?" and, "of course male offenders shouldn't be in women's prisons, why is this even a debate?" instead of wringing their hands and saying, "it's complicated" (it's not) and "trans people are the most vulnerable people in society" (they're not), none of this nonsense would ever have got off the ground.

I get that you don't like the Supreme Court judgment and how inflexible and uncompromising it is.

Blame the trans activists who overplayed their hand.

They'd have got away with bending the law if their demands hadn't become so unreasonable.

But we gave an inch, they took a mile, and now we're taking the whole mile back including that first inch.

No it’s ONE programme for women and ethnic minority groups and she says that in the video. I know because my friend works at Deloitte and she’s been ON the programme.

And you know the programme is compliant with the law because...?

Very noble of you but nothing to do with what I’m actually saying here…

I guess that hasn’t been proven in court. I’d be very surprised if their legal team gave them poor advice and I believe what I’m saying yesterday backs up the justification/existence of programmes like this.

The point I'm making is that you're talking nonsense and we're not going to let it go.

Let’s do this for 13 more pages then. I’m sick with nothing better to do.

Have you been asleep for the last ten years as one major employer after another has repeatedly breached this specific part of the Equality Act??

I mean, it's odd that you want to keep making a fool of yourself.

Going back to the issue of name, legally charities like companies cannot have names that are significantly misleading about the nature of their business, so given that any ordinary person would be justified in assuming that the Women’s Institute is for women then if they want to be mixed sex then they ought to change the name for that reason also. It shouldn’t take someone having to read the articles/ terms to find out the truth is opposite to what they had expected.

Even if there wasn’t a legal case to be made, morally speaking there shouldn’t be any masking of the fact that men have pushed in. Trading on the goodwill of the existing name would be completely disingenuous.

Clarity and sunlight and not letting an inch turn into a mile as you say MissScarlet

“Women” “and” “ethnic minority groups”. So designed to accommodate both sets of people generally perceived to be disadvantaged, from its inception. You seem to think the Equality Act prevents anyone from doing this. It doesn’t.

You keep saying that, but you haven't offered any evidence.

In the video she is clearly talking about something that is for women. The label on the video clearly says women.

Again, it seems that you are confusing how Deloitte brand their training resources and the criteria that would make the programme legal.

It's not clear why you are so invested in this. The video talks about family policies - do you think this is particularly relevant to people from minority ethnic groups?

I have also lost track of how this relates to the WI.

Because @WhatNextCatsAsDoctors won't be told that it's not lawful to have an association for two groups of people with two completely different protected characteristics and exclude everyone else in a completely arbitrary manner.

So they are trying to come up with other examples of where this happens and claim that they are perfectly legal because...they are happening. Despite the fact that lots of things which are actually happening are not legal, which is why gender critical feminists keep winning in court.