Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

I agree with you.

However, there are some women on these threads who are genuinely upset/outraged that you can't lawfully restrict an association to women+MCW. One even said there was a lot to gain from women+MCW but didn't answer when I asked for detail. It's baffling to me - it's not as if they are banned from associating with MCWs. And especially as any bloke could declare himself a MCW or a transbian and they would accept him! So why would they care if any males were present at their dos or in their clubs?

Not fly by, I’ve been here for a while and am happy to stay. And I’m not completely wrong, I’m pretty sure I have more unbiased knowledge on this than a group of people who get all their legal knowledge from biased sources like Sex Matters.

No, if you set up a group for people with more than one PC everyone in that group must share both PCs

If you wear a red coat with black spots you can buy Ladybird books. No one will be able to tell the difference between you and a real Ladybird ( unless they insist on inspecting genitals)

You are completely wrong.
I am getting my knowledge from the SC judgement and the EHRC interim guidance.

Also, MCWs are men for EA purposes. If you can grasp that, you will understand better.

Please kindly point me towards the blanket rule in the Act that says people must meet every criterion to take part.

The law is designed to allow flexibility and account for context, not to force rigid definitions where they’re not needed.

Have you read the judgment?

Some of the 'women' on these threads are likely to be men. Some are women committed to furthering their own oppression because they've fallen under the influence of men. In my personal circle, so anecdata rather than data, many of the most strident pro-trans women are on the spectrum. Some are diagnosed, but I suspect a number aren't. I'm beginning to see the whole trans thing as being very largely about neuro diversity with a lot of misogyny thrown in.

I think that'll be a no.

You set up an association for women plus transwomen. A man (who says he's a man) wants to join and you refuse as he's neither a woman or transwomen. He sues the association for sex discrimination.

What is your defence against his claim for sex discrimination?

Hint: you can't use the single sex exemptions as a defence because the association is mixed sex

Yes…have you?!

It clarified that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. That matters for things like single-sex services and exceptions. But the judgment doesn’t say that if a group or service is based on more than one protected characteristic, everyone has to meet all of them. That rule doesn’t exist in the Equality Act, and it wasn’t created by the Court.

You can lawfully run a group for women and include people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, as long as the inclusion isn’t discriminatory. The Act allows for context and proportionality. It’s not a checklist where everyone has to match every category to take part.

I temped to post that im glad that the WI is clear that its going to continue to allow TW and stay as single sex, just for a laugh.

Please give me at least two minutes to respond before replying for me!

And stop being so patronising. It’s rude.

I think you have misunderstood and forgotten that the default position is that sex discrimination is NOT lawful.

If the WI has different rules for men and women, i.e. it allows all women but only some men to apply for membership, that is unlawful discrimination.

You can lawfully run a group for women and include people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, as long as the inclusion isn’t discriminatory.

Its discrimination against men without the PC of GR, you banana.

Under Schedule 16 of the Equality Act, an association can restrict membership to people who share a protected characteristic. Tht can be sex or gender reassignment, and members don’t all have to meet both. The law doesn’t say everyone in the group must share every characteristic, just that the association must be set up for people who share a relevant one and apply its rules consistently.

If the group is for biological women and trans women, who are protected under gender reassignment, you can lawfully exclude a man who doesn’t share either. That isn’t unlawful discrimination…

So let men challenge it.

It has a whole section on associations.

You can restrict membership of an association to people who share a protected characteristic and exclude people who don't share that protected characteristics if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

What protected characteristic do women and trans women share?

me! me! <hand held aloft eagerly>

is it swishy hair??

If WI were confident that the current set up is legal, they wouldnt have issued that statement.

They know something has to change.

we did have a man with a gender identity come to one of our meetings. everyone was very polite and also very relieved when he didn't return the following month.

really it's very hard to know what to do when men are rude enough to insist on being where they must know darn well they're not wanted

Spinny skirt, obvs.

<giving side eye to Hermione over there>

Is it liking pink, Miss?

None and they don’t need to.

It's unlawful to discriminate against any PC unless there is an exemption in the act. Using an exemption must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

To use the single sex exemption you have to say what is the legitimate aim of excluding the other sex. You can't claim this if the group is mixed sex

To use the association exemptions on the basis of GR you have to state what is the legitimate aim for excluding people without the PC of GR. You can't claim this if the group is mixed GR and non GR

Women plus transwomen is mixed sex and mixed GR/non GR