Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

So they are trying to come up with other examples of where this happens

But not doing so, because all they have is a positive action example, where the 'restricting membership to those who share a protected charactistic' exemption doesn't apply, because positive action is covered by a totally different part of the Equality Act to associations.

I've pointed this out a few times to a studious lack of response.

There's a desperation in the air from men being told "no" for the first time. Some of it's threats and abuse, some of it's wailing and whining and some of it's endless obfuscation to try to blur the clarity of the SC's ruling.

I suspect the WI are pretty pissed off that this thread is repeatedly bumped as it keeps their previous stupidity dilemma repeatedly being aired. And there's quite a lot of women on here who are in the WI, having paid their subs and don't expect to be sitting next to George now Georgina at the next discussion on women's health.

Let's take a moment to remind ourselves of how the 'Greatest Authority on the Equality Act in the World' introduced themselves to this 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.

A quick dose of abuse followed by an erroneous reference to the wrong part of the Act. When their error was pointed out, they swivelled to the correct part of the Act but without apparently reading it as they assumed that it was the same as Schedule 3 but for organisations.

When this error was pointed out, they then read the relevant part of the Act and, realising that it really doesn't support their position, invented an interpretation of "share a protected characteristic" outwith the rest of the English-speaking world's understanding of the phrase.

The response to the reasonable pushback against this interpretation led to the deployment of Section 158 where similar wording is used. Combining this with Deloitte's alleged single programme for multiple PCs was presented as proof that "share a protected characteristic" does mean "have a protected characteristic" while ignoring the incoherence of this argument. (This being that positive action cannot be exactly the same for all PCs even the goals are the same and that we all have at least 6 PCs.)

And still they keep digging their hole. When will they stop? When they come out in Australia?

It’s possible that the poster is passing the time while she’s not well playing charades. I think she’s acting out the Dunning Kruger effect.

did I guess right @WhatNextCatsAsDoctors ?

I've completely lost track of what the whole thing with the WI is about now it's wandered so far off course. I wonder how many average men, not trans, are actually queueing up to join if it did become open to both sexes? Not that many I imagine. Not that many trans women either come to think of it. Is anyone in the WI and has actual experience of trans women joining?

Edit to add: I know that's not the point and it's the principle, just interested

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-57678491

No personal experience of the WI but this man was the cover star of their magazine

Australia would welcome people this wedded to gender ideology with open arms.

To be fair it's not that hard to imagine an organisation that would say "We can't be antisemitic, we have a menopause policy!".

ah Petra, peeking out from behind his tree just like a real lady.

we did have a man with a gender identity turn up to a meeting. thank heavens he didn't come back the following month.

I have wondered how organisations like Fife NHS trust find themselves in court, blinking as Naomi Cunningham or Ben Cooper explains equality legislation and they start to think 'Oh shit'.

I wonder if they've consulted the legal firm of 'nice people who think like us' who say things like 'it's totally fine not to provide single sex changing rooms because my friend is on the Deloitte graduate scheme and she says it's OK'.

Gender ideology rots your brain kids - just say no.

The women's institute is a charity that takes money on the basis of providing certain services to women.

They are offering a single-sex service but saying "some men but not those ones" and that isn't legal.

They can open it to all men or none.

Those 'overexcited GCs' are in line with the law in the UK.

Eventually people who don't like the law or women having rights will realise they have no choice, but to accept it.

Luckily for us, Akua Reindorf KC has clarified a point that has been repeatedly doubled down on within this thread.

Starts between 34-35 minutes in, but the entire session is good with Naomi Cunningham, Akua Reindorf, Ben Cooper and Sarah Vine.

Either way this is the transcript that I tidied up, although there could be typos. This is the bit about associations and whether there can be an association with women and males who identify as female.

"But everybody has to have ALL the protected characteristics in question."

And then

"What you can’t have is a group for people with two separate [protected characteristics] …where some people have one protected characteristic and others have a different one".

"Because then let's say you have a group for lesbians or women and men who identify as women, trans women, it's not a… it doesn't satisfy the condition of being a single sex association. A single protected characteristic association for women because not everybody is a woman. It doesn't satisfy the condition for being um a single characteristic association for people who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment because not everybody has that protected characteristic ."

"So you can't have that kind of an association. So you can't have a so-called trans-inclusive association. I mean as Maya says, you can always have two associations that join up and do things together. There are ways around it. But fundamentally, what we have started to call sumptions law is wrong both for services and for associations. um "

"Of course, if it was possible to have a self ID service or association, For Women Scotland simply would not have won the case. Because this is what the Scottish government wanted to do. They wanted to have transidentified males in a quota for women."

In my mind, this puts that pizza sharing moment firmly back in the box. I think I will listen to Akua Reindorf KC on this. She kind of has specific experience and relevance in getting the interpretation of the law clear.

But maybe Akua Reindorf KC is just another overexcited GC not reading the clarification properly, eh. FFS.

Just in case it is not clear:

Akua Reindorf KC has stated that no association (ie. with membership over 25 people) can have a membership policy that is only for female people and some male people. They have to include all male people .

Our local WI has deleted any comments which relate this this. The message is #bekind 🤔

So biological women, presumably paying the same membership, have now morphed into handmaidens for biological men dressing up as women? Wow, oh wow!

So biological women, presumably paying the same membership, would morph into handmaidens providing a service for biological men dressing up as women? Wow, oh wow! This is not the win you think it is.

The Women’s Institute constitution states that membership is open to “women over the age of majority.” They really can’t have it both ways.

By definition “share a protected characteristic” means SHARE the SAME PC. Trans-identifying men are men so they don’t share the PC of sex with women. If you admit ANY males you have to admit ALL males. Not admitting “ordinary” men is unlawful discrimination.

Also, not admitting trans-identifying females just because they don’t “live as a woman,” when (being actual women) they DO live “as women, just not living as the stereotype of how women are supposed to live” is unlawful discrimination but unlikely to result in a claim by a TIF.

The NFWI is acting outside its authority as the Constitution and Articles relate to “women over the age of majority.” This has been defined as referring to “females of any age” in the EA and clarified by the Supreme Court as meaning our “biological” sex, in the customary definition understood by laws and case law back to 1970.

I don't know if anyone's said this yet because I've only read halfway, but -

The Schedule 16 exceptions for associations do not require proportionate means / legitimate aim.

The law permits us to have women only associations just because we want them.

Oh God not the meaning of the verb to share again 😵‍💫

Share nicely, girls 🥰

#BeKind 🤐

Sure. Why not?

Let's share a Mars Bar. Here's yours ... and here's my Twix.

😂

Why can't you men allow women to have anything for ourselves which excludes the Mighty Penis?
You need to muscle your way into everything!
The Women's Institute is for WOMEN!

Surely the NFWI have resolved this? As a member I’ve heard nothing and whenever I ask there is stoney silence!