Trick to sidestep equality law?

[Gerri1992]

Just saw this on x. This wouldn't work right? It would obviously just be an attempt to break equality law.

gender identity makes them, literally, a man or a woman, because it is that feeling that makes someone, male or female, a man/woman.

Are you stating your belief about what makes a person a "man" or a "woman" here, or simply describing what Genderists believe makes person a a "man" or a "woman"?

If the latter, then yes, do not disagree that is their belief.

If the former, I have questions. But don't want to get into them with you if this is not something you believe yourself.

Mate I've been on here for a decade, so take a guess

There certainly seems to be a mindset from some that the world should just adapt around their needs and no one else. If they honestly want something, put the legwork in and set up an organisation. I don’t think anyone would be against this. There is room for plenty of different ones to meet different needs it just means putting some effort in.

Frankly, I wish they bloody would get on with setting up their Gender-based clubs and spaces. That's what they should have been doing all along.

It's a bit bloody rich to complain about people not realising that gender isn't sex when they were the ones insisting all the single-sex stuff "really" meant gender in the first place.

And while we are at it sorting this out, they can stop using the same words for the sexes and the genders.

Because if we as a sociey truly do believe that a Gender Identity exists entirely independently sex and truly want to treat this as an organising quality, by far tge?fastest cleanest way to sort this mess out is for Man and Woman, Boy and Girl, Male and Female to all go back to being sex-based. And that means all the rights and language and provisions that were set up under those names can also go back to being sex-based.

And the Gender identities can give themselves new different names that make it clear that whatever they are, they are different to these things. And if there's a case to made that Guides, or anything else, should be single Gender than make that case explicitly and transparently under that Gender's new own name, not sneakily through the back door by pretending "Girl" never meant what we all know it always did.

Ha - I did recognise the name, just hadn't got it strongly connected to a position. Glad I checked before jumping in.

The reason Guiding can exclude boys is that it's a proportionate means to a legitimate aim, having a single sex group.

Sex is a protected characteristic, so that exclusion is perfectly legal. Gender is not a protected characteristic. Nor is Gender Identity. So you cannot exclude anyone on that basis as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim under the Equality Act.

That numpty on twitter is talking out of his arse.

So because gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, would it be fine to have a group for transboys and transgirls together? (Not suggesting anyone wants that group).

I would actually find that a fascinating group to observe the dynamics of.

I think you have that almost exactly backwards.

The reason Guiding can exclude boys is because single-PC associations are an exception to the ban on membership discrimination for associations. It can be for a legitimate aim, an illegitimate aim, or for no aim at all - it's still legal.

But it has to be all or nothing; you can't have a membership criterion that is closely tied to sex but isn't a complete match. That doesn't get the benefit of the exception in schedule 16, which is narrowly worded.

That's the reason GG can't include only a selection of boys.

The reason that GG must exclude all boys is because of charity law: their founding document says they are for the benefit of girls only.

Yes you can legally but whether such a group would be ‘fine’ is questionable

I wish they bloody would get on with setting up their Gender-based clubs and spaces. That's what they should have been doing all along.

Absolutely. Bring them on. The more the merrier. Just leave the very few women and girl only things alone.

Yes, and there are several of those local to me.

@MyAmpleSheep I agree I expressed it in a rather mangled way!

Section 15 of the Equality Act as I understand it says that for protected characteristics, you can exclude everyone without that characteristic - so women-only WI, girls-only Guiding.

But it does have to be a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. You can't say "no gays in this pub, straights only" or ban pregnant women from your gym, that's discrimination.

"Providing single sex spaces for safety and dignity" is a legitimate aim, as would be a menopause group for women only.

Everyone has protected characteristics. That's not free licence to exclude willy nilly as I read Section 15.

Yes that would be entirely legal.

It would also be entirely legal to have a prettypinkfluffythings club that was open equally to males and females and regardless of gender identity, just open to everyone who likes prettypinkfluffythings. (it would of course be sexist to say that such a club is a club for girls because of course there is no requirement for girls to like prettypinkfluffythings and no requirement for boys to dislike prettypinkfluffythings)

It's not OK to have a club that is open to everyone female regardless of whether they like prettypinkfluffythings and to males ONLY if they like prettypinkfluffythings because that is treating males and females differently without meeting the requirements of the legal exemption of being a reasonable means to achieve a legitimate aim.

It does all girls a disservice for male children with a feminine gender identity to be admitted into any stage of the girl guides movement. It is directly contrary to the principles of freeing girls from gendered expectations to uphold a definition of girlhood/womanhood which boils down to "performs femininity" (that a male person can do) - performining femininity may be something that SOME women and girls may CHOOSE to do, but it plays no part in the criteria for what makes you female. Femaleness is not a club to which membership can be sought by those not born into it. The girls in guides who are tearful about how unkind it is that their transgirl friends are being excluded have been influenced by years of social pressure to subsume their own best interests into supporting the best interests of male people. They do not have the maturity or capacity to understand the damage that has been done to them by this.

But how can a gender identity make someone literally a man or a woman when the definition of sex is legally biological?

And what feeling makes me a woman? Looking at an unscientific sample here, I'm guessing it's not fashion and frilly dresses for a lot of us? My own personal definition is human biology has worked nicely for generations and for the rest of it, people should be allowed to be what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. It's like the definition of a joke. The moment you're 'joking' about isn't laughing then it isn't one and no amount of 'haven't you got a sense of humour' changes that.

Akua Reindorf KC posted this the other day:

Associations are different. No-one wants to stop anyone associating with anyone. If women want to associate with transwomen they can (with a bit of legal wriggling – the Act is badly drafted here). Just don’t advertise an association as a women’s group when it includes men

Full thread, for those of you on X: https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/2044873605347983747

I would also imagine that most courts would take a very dim view of people inventing categories to avoid obeying the law (look I have a splot club exclusively for splot people. What do you mean they are all white/heterosexual etc and I’m excluding BAME and homosexuals? It’s splot only so surely I can do what I want? No?)

I see no reason why there can’t be a club for children who like long hair and pink things. What they can’t do is say that the club is limited to girls.

girl guides also have in their set up said that they are for girls only, so they would have to make some significant governance changes to become mixed sex for children who like feminine things.

Section 15 of the Equality Act as I understand it says ...

We might be looking at a different Act. The part of the EA2010 that's applicable to Associations (itself a defined term) is Part 7, beginning with section 100. Section 15 of the EA2010 is about discrimination arising from disability.

But it does have to be a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. You can't say "no gays in this pub, straights only" or ban pregnant women from your gym, that's discrimination.

You cannot compare pubs and gyms with associations: a pub is a public service and not an association. Likewise a gym. The exception allowing for single-PC associations doesn't apply to pubs or gyms. It has nothing to do with proportionality or legitimate aim in either case. You can have an association for straight people only.

Pregnancy: As an aside, there are lots of situations you are allowed to discriminate against a woman because of her pregnancy where safety is concerned. A gym might actually be one of them. I'd have to look.

Everyone has protected characteristics. That's not free licence to exclude willy nilly as I read Section 15.

Associations do have free licence to have membership that includes only certain PC's willy-nilly, except on the grounds of race. See schedule 16 section 1. Services and employers have different rules.

The "proportionate means to a legitimate aim" comes in to allow indirect discrimination in situations where direct discrimination isn't legal and in some other places. It's not relevant to the GG context.

Worthless as my opinion is, I think she's wrong. She frames her argument that people should be free to choose with whom they associate. That sounds great until you realize that same freedom means the freedom to exclude people with whom you don't want to associate, and the EA2010 is all about preventing exclusion for improper purposes.

When she says "with a bit of legal wriggling – the Act is badly drafted here" - it's not bad drafting. It's intentional and correct. If you exclude (eg) women - a narrow exception - you have to exclude all women and not just the "wrong sort" of women that you don't like. If you exclude men, mutatis mutandis.

@MyAmpleSheep I think she is saying that two (or more) separate PCs should be able to associate.

She goes on to say:

On the face of the Act it looks like you can't have a group of mixed PCs - eg women + TW. That's obvs unfair & contrary to the right to freedom of association, so you have to fiddle about with the Act to get it to fit. Once you do it's fine, as long as you're clear about it

In the replies: https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/2044875369849786516

IANAL, just interested in the arguments

I want to know what a willy-nilly exclusion association looks like 😉

Does she say anything about the charity status that is convade to girl guides in being a single sex organisation?
Which is something that is overlooked by the trans lobby with their drive to get boys in.

No, I think she is just making a general point. She may not be correct; I guess it would have to be tested in court. I would be interested to hear Michael Foran's thoughts.

I would be really interested in seeing their definition of gender that they used to decide who was eligible for membership and who wasn't.

I'd estimate 3 minutes and 40 seconds before someone was howling that they'd been excluded unfairly, or that people who were saying that they were woman gender weren't and were spoiling things.

Maybe they could get Layla Moran in to adjudicate using vibes.

I can't see them doing that. They'd get a 95% "Sod that!" response and they know it.