Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

I would advise you to start your brain before engaging your keyboard.

Firstly, the WI is covered by the Schedule 16 exceptions and not Schedule 3 as it is an association .

Secondly, the WI is clearly claiming a Schedule 16 exception as its constitution states that men cannot be members.

Finally, the current WI rules on membership (women and transwomen) would still be in breach of the EqA2010 even if the WI specifically denied a Schedule 16 exception as the rules discriminate against men who don't have the PC of GR.

One would hope that any organisation for adults and children would have robust safeguarding procedures in place, and at risk of legal action if they failed in the safeguarding duties.

On the other hand it seems to me that "Pride Hubs" (drop in centres that run into the evening) are a thing, run by adults, open to young adults and children. Pride In Surrey ran and still run such a hub, and their co-founders Stephen Ireland and David Sutton are now convicted paedophiles. I would be astonished if they did not at least sometimes man the hubs in the evenings, potentially, at times, being the only adult there with only one child service user.

Actually, thinking about it, are those hubs illegal? They are mixed sex (fine) but only open to men and women who are LGB (fine) or (not fine) have the PC of GR? Surely they need to be for LGB people or those with the PC of GR - not both?

Hmm. I don't know much about the Pride hubs but I have heard that inappropriately wide age ranges for attendees is an ongoing safeguarding concern. I don't know if the EA is the vehicle to put a stop to that, though.

I always had the impression that LGBTQ+ groups weren't that fussy about membership, the Q covers anybody who dare step through the door.

Re children. Anyone can see that a child believing that they are T is nothing like an adult, and certainly nothing like an adult deciding at 45. Does PC of GR apply to children?

I suspect that the reality is that there will be many clubs and organisations that are effectively illegal, but if nobody cares or objects, then they will simply carry on.

Women are objecting to men in any and all women’s spaces, so the chances of a legal challenge are high and now have increased drastically as the law has been clarified. If insurers decide the risks are too high, they will withdraw cover and I suspect that will drive many organisations to reconsider.

And awful lot of LGBTQ youth groups seem to choose a range of about 12 to 25. Really not appropriate, but not an Equality Act issue.

@PriOn1 I'm working on the basis that my part-time voluntary job for the new few years will be joining 'women's' organisations and then threatening to sue them when they turn out not to be women-only.

It’s like Mumsnet admitting members who aren’t Mums 🤷‍♀️.

Surely they can have whoever they want in their membership.

Surely they can have whoever they want in their membership.

If they admit everyone, as Mumsnet does, that's fine. What they can't do is partial restrictions that cut across protected characteristics.

They can have whoever they want in their membership so long as they're not discriminating against a protected characteristic.

They can, but they can't say at the same time that they are a charity for women only.

Of course but then they have to be clear about that ie not say that they are an organisation for women when they’re an organisation for everyone

They can say they are an organisation for women and transwomen.

Exactly. They can’t play both ends too the middle which is what they’re trying to do

they know their USP is being an organisation for women. If they have to be abundantly clear they include men then they lose that USP

No because TW are men. If they include TW then they have to allow any man

you can’t say women and only some men

It is like de ja vu!

Of course they can say that they are an organisation for women and transwomen - as long as they don't exclude men who are not transwomen. Otherwise they would be in breach of the EqA.

Please can we stop with this stupid attempt at a gotcha?

Well, they can. But they will be breaking the law.

'Mums' is not a protected characteristic and Mumsnet doesn't work on a membership model.

What is the big attraction of women + men who say they're women associations? What is the commonality?

The key point with Mumsnet is that membership is not restricted to mums. It may be in the name, just like the (now defunct?) chain of shops called Mothercare - but they have nothing in the Ts&Cs saying only mums. Nor do Ladybird books say they can be sold only to ladies.

The WI, in contrast, states it is only for women. And therefore it must be only for women.

I have to pull you up on a point of your argument here: I believe Ladybird books can only be sold to Ladybirds.

Including trans women doesn’t mean you suddenly have to let men in too. That’s just not how it works.

Sex and gender reassignment are separate protected characteristics. A group can be set up for people who share either one. Trans women are protected under gender reassignment, and including them doesn’t make it unlawful to exclude men. Men don’t share the relevant characteristic here, so there’s no legal requirement to admit them.

You’re right that identifying as a woman isn’t protected on its own, but someone who is transitioning, even socially, is protected. That’s been clear for years.

The law gives organisations the right to set boundaries around who their services are for. It doesn’t say you have to include everyone or treat different characteristics as interchangeable.

OK! For all the posters searching for that elusive gotcha, here it is:

The WI changes its name to The Institute for the Advancement of Posh Frocks and Heels. Membership is open to any adult. However, members must wear a posh frock and high heels when they attend any meeting.

It would probably discourage most non-trans men but it's likely to discourage a lot of women as well.