Girls clubs can re-admit trans-identifying boys now (title edited my MNHQ at request of OP)

[MyAmpleSheep]

According to the new EHRC code, the Girl Guides can go back to being girls plus tran-identifying boys. See para. 12.74 and 12.75, and example 12.77.

12.74 Section 6(c) of the Interpretation Act 1978 states that, in any act, words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular, unless the contrary intention appears. Applying this provision, the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) permits associations to be based on more than one protected characteristic.

12.75 This interpretation of the Act is consistent with the right to freedom of association under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 11 includes the right (subject to proportionate restrictions) for people to be able to associate with one another to the exclusion of others in appropriate circumstances.

An association may therefore restrict membership to people who:

share one protected characteristic (for example women)
share more than one protected characteristic (for example Muslim women)
have any of more than one protected characteristic (for example lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans people)

Example
12.77 A lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) support group is set up to include gay, bisexual and trans people. Its membership is restricted to people with the protected characteristic of any of those sexual orientations, or gender reassignment. This is permitted under the Act.

Would they not have to change their charter & their charitable objectives to do so?

Yes, that's true. I figured that out after posting the thread. I'll ask MNHQ to amend the title.

The interpretation is significant though.

I do think that if clubs decide they want to be trans inclusive they should be able to be, as long as people are free to set up other organisations which are single sex.

I can see Girl Guides potentially having some groups that are trans inclusive and some that aren't, possibly with one of each in areas with a big population.

No I don’t think that’s what it means, I think in this example it’s saying you are allowed to include LGB and T people (any of more than one protected characteristic and/or gender reassignment) but are allowed to exclude straight people.
That’s not the same as excluding all boys but including trans girls

Wow. So the "singular includes the plural" transforms "single characteristic associations" into "multiple characteristic associations". I had not expected that. I wonder how that reading affects "only marry one man at a time" legislation, previously thought to be pretty strict on this point.

This has been discussed on other threads.

Its totally different to have someone with 2 or even 3 protected characteristics.

But if an organisation is saying they are single sex, then the Surpreme Court ruling made it clear that sex is biological and those with a trans identity are not included.

ie a trans woman could be excluded because their sex is male, and the purpose of the group / service is single sex.

I dont think this has changed.

It has definitely changed.

Previous interpretation did not permit an association to "have any of more than one protected characteristic (for example lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans people)"

Previously you had to have all relevant protected characteristics. Now, the EHRC says, you can have any of them: so a club for anyone who is either female or transgender is permitted.

Of course this is guidance, and the law hasn't changed. But nobody had thought to apply the singular/plural equivalence to this section of the law before.

If anyone wants to fight it they could argue the "contrary intention appears". But it is a significant change, no doubt.

Also - lesbian associations can (according to guidance) admit "men who have gender reassignment" if they want to. It becomes a veritable boolean smorgasbörd of PC's:

"Our membership criterion is: (Women ∩ same-sex-attracted) ∪ (men ∩ gender-reassigned ∩ heterosexual)"

Going to need to lie down now.

Well, I think it should be fine to set up a group for biological women and trans identifying men, if that’s what people want to join.

What is not acceptable is to try and take over a female only group by stealth and gaslighting.

The Girl Guides and WI were set up in their foundational charitable aims and statements to be single sex.

So those who want to set up a “women ‘n’ transwomen” organisation can do so, and be transparent about it. Women who are happy with this are free to join. Women who want a single sex space can remain the WI or Guides.

Easy.

On the face of it that means every store, school and workplace can have men+ transmen toilets and women+transwomen. It's the owner who chooses not the user.

We said if they let some men in they must make them unisex but this seems to get around that.

That's not consistent with what the minister said today so I think there must be more to that.

@MyAmpleSheep what you have quoted does not say that males with a trans identity can join frmale single sex clubs.
You need to stop listening to the good lie project.
A single sex association or group which allows some members of the opposite sex in is no longer a single sex association and must include all men.
Having a group that allows all lgb people and trans people is not the same as allowing some men or boys to join GG of the WI because those men/boys identity as trans.
Nice try thought

I don't buy this interpretation rule thing - it isn't just a "word in the singular" - it explicitly says in the title "single characteristic". How more clearly could you state a contrary intention to having multiple characteristics than explicitly saying "single"? This isn't just an "s" being omitted from a word.

If the headline had been "Protected-characteristic-only associations" without explicitly stating single, then the interpretation rule would make sense - it could mean it also cover "Protected-characteristics-only associations".

I thought this had already been debunked. If you set up an association for Women and transwomen you are creating a mixed sex group and would discriminate against men unless you also allow them to join.

"12.2 The provisions (section 107, paragraph 2) in Part 7 of the Act apply to any association of people if:

• the association has at least 25 members
• admission to membership is regulated by the association’s rules and involves a selection process
• it is not a trade organisation, such as a business or professional organisation or a trade union"

"12.7 An organisation that merely requires members of the public to pay a fee to join it without any form of selection, such as a nightclub or a gym, is not an association under the Act. It does not matter whether it describes itself as a ‘club’ or refers to customers as ‘members’. Such bodies are involved in the provision of services to the public or a section of the public, and their duties are discussed in Chapter 11 of this Code."

Insofar as I am aware there is no selection process for joining Guides.

I'm completely unable to parse this. Applying the Interpretation Act surely just means that the Schedule 16 exemption applies if the members share at least one protected characteristic, irrespective of what other protected characteristics they have (which they may also share or not share). But if they don't share even one protected characteristic, how can the exemption apply at all?

I don't think that's right. Toilets / changing rooms / survivor groups etc have a greater need for privacy dignity etc.

I think that anyone doing as you suggest would be leaving themselves open to an indirect discrimination claim by not providing any single sex spaces which disadvantages women.

I agree. In fact, the whole business just demonstrates the insanity of gender ideology.

So you could have a group for women, and that would be fine, or a group for Muslim women, and that would also be fine. Similarly you could have a group for men, or a group for gay men. Surely the point of having a group based on two characteristics is that one is a subset of another.

I suspect that you couldn't have a group for women and Muslim men, because that wouldn't make sense, would it? It would no longer be a group for women because it had men in it.

Likewise you couldn't have a group for women and trans women, because it would no longer be a group for women, it would be a group for women and some men.

12.10 Associations under the Act can include, for example:

• young people’s organisations such as the Scouts, the Guides, the Woodcraft Folk or Young Farmers’ Clubs

Indeed. This interesting interpretation is only trying to deal with what associations could choose to do.

Even if accepted that "A or B" associations are permitted, an "A or B" provision is not an "A-only" provision, nor can it function as a substitute for one, where one is required.

That's very nice but it does not override the statutory definition of an association.

Just seen interview on Sky news. Trans rep pointed this out claiming this meant WI and GG could revert to previous rules.
It's a mess.

Akua has tweeted that this was a change made by Philipson.
x.com/i/status/2057538881222828053

And would be breaching employment regulations which do require single sex (or private single person) toilets, washing, and changing areas.

Only if (as I realized later and as a kind prior poster pointed out) the relevant charitable purposes are changed. That's an almighty hill to climb, but I suppose it could be done.

That is alarming - I thought ERHC was supposed to be independent of government. I suppose the whole guidance does read as if there was pressure from some quarters to add in some of the questionable bits eh that bizarre medical receptionist/ gender fluidity example

Your reasoning applies to services. There's no longer needs to be any such thing as a single-sex association, because under this new interpretation (which is most explicit in the guidance) you can have an association made up of people who hold either of two protected characteristics. Therefore, women + GR.

having a group that allows all lgb people and trans people is not the same as allowing some men or boys to join GG of the WI because those men/boys identity as trans.

Allowing that "identify as trans" is the same as hold the PC of GR, It actually is exactly the same:

• same-sex attracted or GR, on the one hand
• female or GR, on the other.

I don't claim this new arrangement is lawful; I do claim it's what the guidance says is lawful.