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.

Thanks. That's where I'd got to, but then I confused myself.

The EA silently annd implicitly accepts the exclusion of men as the pro quo for the quid for allowing women to associate (and equivalently for any other PC).

But because it’s a silent acknowledgment that there is legitimacy in exclusion for certain purposes there’s no lever inside the EA to forbid associations newly permitted that some would argue don’t have that same legitimacy.

There just isn’t a legal route inside the EA to argue “admitting a TW contradict that legitimacy.” It doesn’t breach any written rule.

There’s nothing inside the EA to distinguish LGBT (desireable, apparently) from any other collection of PCs.

I might be wrong, I’m arguing to convince myself more than anything.

If you are using a protected characteristic to define your membership ,of course it has to be legitimate …see the examples in the code.

Which examples in the code are you thinking of?

I’m quite certain that there’s no test for legitimacy or proportionality in the Act. If you want a club for Polish people only because people from every other country are obviously inferior beings who should have been destroyed at birth or sold into slavery for the benefit of Poland (sorry to pick on Poland here) - you can still have one.

You may want to read further down to sections 12 and 13.

Could you be less coy and say which parts of the guidance specifically?

I see this, under 12.75:

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)

There is no caveat or warning to consider whether you are doing so for a legitimate aim ("legitimate aim" appears 47 times in the guidance so the EHRC is not shy of using the phrase where it feels it is warranted.)

For clarity “Associations may restrict membership to persons who share a protected characteristic
12.66 The Act permits associations of any size or character, other than political parties, to restrict their membership to persons who share a protected characteristic (schedule 16). The only exception is that membership can never be restricted based on colour (schedule 16, paragraph 1(4)).
Example
12.67 The constitution of an association called the Black Jazz Players Club states that all members must have national origins in Africa or the Caribbean. Despite the use of ‘Black’ in its name, because the restrictions on membership of the association are based on national origins and not colour, these restrictions would not be unlawful.
Example
12.68 A trans woman applies to join a women-only association and her application is refused. This would be lawful because membership is based on sex and restricted to women and, under the Act, she does not share that protected characteristic (paragraphs 2.87 to 2.89).”
and read this with regards to :
“12.72 Associations that restrict membership to persons who share a particular protected characteristic must not discriminate in relation to any other protected characteristic.”…..
ps. I am on the Equality act https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026#associations-1 Can I check we on the same thing?

Yes, we are looking at the same document. None of that is controversial. And none of it references or depends on any legitimate aim. So I don't think it helps.

By the way, the example in 12.67 supports my contention that the "Women's Guild" orgranization can admit men, despite its name.

Wasn't this a large part of the FWS case?

That the lesbian women's hiking club is able to be a lesbian women's hiking club for no other reason than that it wants to be a lesbian women's hiking club, but that if the PC of 'woman' includes men with a GRC it must include those men.

well I’m still not sure how you think the code allows for a group to be restricted to only women and TW so I shall leave you to it. And the clause you quoted doesn’t support your point because it would discriminate against women on their protected characteristic by allowing (some) men in.

We might each have been arguing about a different point.

12.73 ("A Christian association must not refuse to accept Irish Travellers who are Christian as members.") is support for the proposition that a strict "women + TW" rule isn't lawful. But I think I've written several times in this thread already that a "women + TW" rule isn't necessary to achieve the objective. A "women + trans" rule will do just as well.

What I thought we were discussing was whether there was any requirement for single- or multiple-PC associations to be for a legitimate aim. I was fairly sure you were insisting it was, and is how I interpreted this:

"If you are using a protected characteristic to define your membership ,of course it has to be legitimate …see the examples in the code."

From my perspective a single- or multiple-PC is lawful for any aim, including nefarious ones.

With regards to discussing legitimacy I may well not be using the word correctly but I meant ,as per the Exceptions section 13 - eg. As regards this statement Meeting the test for restricting benefits
Proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim
13.54 The requirements for showing that a restriction is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim is discussed in general terms at paragraphs 5.52 to 5.57.
…ö.in my mind that means you can‘t restrict membership with the legitimate aim of saying women only , if you also admit TW.

I don't think Boodles have ever had to justify why they exclude women.

Don't think I have much to add but have really found the discussion useful.

I can actually see it's very difficult to come up with a construct of law that stops a club for women and trans people but allows a club for LGBT.

I think my position is I broadly agree with being able to set rules for your associations. I absolutely don't think TW should have to be included if your association is for women but I don't see the need to make it illegal to include them if that's what you want.

Surely 'women + TW' is of exactly the same scope as 'women + trans'. They both include transmen., but the first is expressed as contiguous, and the second as overlapping, groups.

Correct.

"Restricting benefits" is necesarily about charities. if who can benefit from a charity is decided by PC then yes it must be a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim (or for preventing or compensating for disadvantage.)

Rules as to who can benefit from a charity aren't the same as the rules for who can be a member of an association though.

I haven't delved into whether that would furither limit the membership of an association that's also a charity for the benefit of its members. But where an association isn't a charity - there's no legitimate aim needed to say "women only".

So lets advance your question: can a charitable benefit be "for women and trans people"? I don't know. That hasn't been affected by any changes in the guidance as far as I know.

I would say the code does include associations? 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 12.76 A Muslim women’s walking club is set up as an association to encourage Muslim women to enjoy exercise and company without men being present. It is lawful to allow membership only to those who share the same protected characteristics of religion and sex. 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. 12.78 There are other exceptions that apply to associations and their treatment of their members, associates and guests. 12.79 These include exceptions relating to national security, charities, single-sex services, services and membership of religious organisations. Further exceptions include different treatment due to pregnancy-related health and safety concerns and selection of people for participation in competitive sport (read Chapter 13).

I think it helps. We can say: Schedule 16 exemption applies if the rule for your association is: members must have at least one PC from the following list.

Trans-inclusive ladies – female sex; gender reassignment.

LGBT – homosexual; bisexual; gender reassignment.

Women and Christian men club – female sex; Christian religion.

Having a pick list has removed the problem of people with complementary PCs being subjected to different admission criteria.

But there is no requirement to demonstrate a legitimate aim.

Clubs such as White's are limited to men for no other reason than that they want to limit their membership to men.

“It is lawful to allow membership only to those who share the same protected characteristics of religion and sex” I think you are getting hung up on how I have used the word legitimate . I came on this thread because it says in the OP that guides can now re- admit trans boys so I will leave it at “no it doesn’t!”

I think I might be more hung up on the use of 'aim'.

There doesn't need to be any purpose.

I think I see what you mean, is it that an association does not have to explain why it is limiting it’s membership to certain groups? In terms of the “reasons “ why though ,is it not inferred? This is what I mean about the “ women’s plus TW” group not being possible …another example is if you allow TW you exclude Muslim women who may not be able to attend and hence be discriminated against on the basis of faith-“” “Associations that restrict membership to persons who share a particular protected characteristic must not discriminate in relation to any other protected characteristic” “”*

If it is like the example wouldn’t it need to be called a “Girls’ and Trans identified boys’ Club?