Women’s institute announcement

[Itsthecatsfault]

Published earlier today.

i dunno what part of 'men with gender identities are men and it is unlawful to admit some men but not others if you're using the single sex exemption to justify discriminating against men' is so hard to grasp

quite aside from the fact that if the members felt comfortable enough to be honest, they don't want ANY fucking men at the meetings. It's why they joined the women's institute

They do need to, otherwise the association in question is just unlawfully discriminating against most men.

Yes, many men are very good at housekeeping, cooking, and gardening; and gay men especially can be excellent non-pressuring, platonic male companions for women. Why leave them out?

There is nothing special about transwomen over and above other men who would enjoy the WI.

Exactly this.

Even if the Equality Act permitted associations to restrict membership to people having either one or the other of two unrelated protected characteristics (i.e. being female OR being male with a transgender identity) - which, for the avoidance of doubt, it doesn't - they would still fail at the second hurdle of needing to prove that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

What is the interest of such a group for most women? Making trans women feel like real women isn't a worthwhile aim as far as the female members of the group are concerned. There's nothing in it for them.

@WhatNextCatsAsDoctors I think you need to look at Schedule 16 to the Equality Act. This is the provision that deals with the exception for associations. The effect of paragraph 1(1) is that it is lawful for an association to restrict membership to 'persons who share a protected characteristic'. That means that everyone who is a member needs to share the same protected characteristic and therefore, if two or more protected characteristics are involved, all members need to share all the relevant protected characteristics. Otherwise the association would be unlawfully discriminating - as others have said.

An association for disabled women would be entitled to restrict its membership on grounds of sex (all member would be women) and disability (all members would be disabled).

An association for disabled people AND women would not be possible without unlawful discrimination against non-disabled men, because non-disabled women were allowed to join so it is sex discrimination not to open membership to non-disabled men. Disabled people and women do not share the same protected characteristics.

An association for male trans people (i.e. transwomen) would be entitled to restrict its membership on ground of gender reassignment and sex.

An association for women and transmen would be entitled to restrict its membership on grounds of sex because transwomen are female.

But an association for women (adult human females) and transwomen (male trans people) could not exist because women and transwomen do not share the same protected characteristics.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have read the Supreme Court judgment in full; have read the relevant sections of the Equality Act; have several decades' experience working with statutory law; and do not get my legal knowledge or advice from lobby groups.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/16

Edited to tag the PP - my attempt at quoting PP failed.

many of our members are elderly. we did chair yoga recently at a meeting. there is zero chance that some of the members would have participated if there had been a man in the room. even one in a nice skirt and blouse.

lads, just stay the fuck out of clubs for women. we don't want you there

How familiar are you with Schedule 16?

I’ll say it again even though I feel like I’m repeating myself. The law lets associations limit membership to people who share a protected characteristic, but it doesn’t say everyone has to share the same one. A group can include biological women (protected under sex) and trans women (protected under gender reassignment), and still lawfully exclude those who don’t share either. There’s no requirement for the group to be single-characteristic only.

The 2025 ruling means that group would be mixed-sex, yes…but that doesn’t stop it being lawful. It just means you can’t rely on the single-sex exemptions. You don’t need to. Associations follow a different set of rules.

yeah

you don't get it lovey

cor, you REALLY want men tramping all over women's clubs don't you?

You're wrong

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, you will still be wrong.

Obviously it's discrimination.

It's the equivalent of allowing all men to join a club but only women over 30.

I think that makes it

'The Institute'?

Schedule 16 says that the members need to SHARE a protected characteristic, not be protected by separate protected characteristics.

If women and transwomen shared a protected characteristic, it would be fine for an association to restrict membership to women and transwomen. But they don't share a protected characteristic - they each are protected by different protected characteristics.

You all saying ‘you’re wrong’ doesn’t make it so.

No, indeed, it's not us saying you are wrong that makes you wrong. It's you actually being wrong.

What legitimate aim does having a group for "women plus men with transgender identities" serve? On what basis are you excluding men without transgender identities?

You are asserting a restriction that does not appear in the legislation, is not supported in case law, and is not required by Schedule 16.

yeah, I'll give you that sunshine

the fact that you're wrong does make you wrong tho

hth

Don’t call me sunshine, it’s patronising and sexist.

I am quoting direct from Schedule 16, paragraph 1(1): "An association does not contravene section 101(1) by restricting membership to persons who share a protected characteristic." my bold.

Mate...

I was trying to be patronising so it's good that you noticed. you going round in circles is just boring now

not sure where you're getting sexist from but on you go chicken

man you lot are so much more patient than me

kudos

Thanks, but quoting that line doesn’t prove your point.

Schedule 16 says an association may restrict membership to people who share a protected characteristic. It doesn’t say all members must share the same one, or that people protected under different characteristics can’t be part of the same group. That restriction isn’t in the wording and it’s not supported by case law.

The Act allows associations to limit access based on protected characteristics. It doesn’t require identical status across members, and it doesn’t prohibit combining characteristics where inclusion is consistent and lawful.

Tell that to my colleague who has a pixie cut and doesn't own a skirt but is very clear about the fact that she is a woman.

What do you think the word "share" means?