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.

I agree. I think the guidance says that Guides for example could legitimately be girls + subset of boys (although as was noted they would need to change their charitable objectives)

I think what is important though is that it is also legitimate and not discriminatory for the guides to admit girls only. There is nothing that says they must admit any boys.

Your link no longer works as Akua has deleted and reposted her thread:

https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/2057542085104808389

But if this is correct, then the guidance flagrantly contradicts the Supreme Court ruling.

She shouldn’t have been allowed to go back to them with changes, surely? WTF is going on?
Same bullshit

I think the extension to "people all sharing a suite of protected characteristics" is reasonable but would question the claim that's what EA 2010 permits. The extension to "people each with one of a selection of protected characteristics" I think is different again, and an even greater stretch of what's written.

I know many are happy with "let people decide whatever membership they want for their association"; but I'm not. I think part of the EA is to address long experience in just how unpleasant "whatever grouping people want" can get.

I expect this may be challenged, particularly if Parkrun or the Hampstead Ponds decide to use it to support their current trans free-for-all policies.

I don't think this is a present danger. Hampstead ponds would have to reconstitute itself as an association with a membership list. At present it's a public service.

Once you are an association it's unlawful to discriminate between your members so perhaps they would have to have two (or three) different pond associations with different membership lists for each pond. That would be all rather contrived.

OK, that sounds good. I would fully expect them to try and argue this change in guidance alters the landscape for them as a service, too, but your point suggests this would (and should) get nowhere.

I wonder whether Sumption, Hale, or Harman had anything to do with this. They've basically said that you can create multiple Schedule 16 associations, each made up of people who share at least one protected characteristic, and then stitch them together to make a bigger association.

Whilst I don't think that's really what Schedule 16 says, where's the harm? Now we can have single-sex associations that are optionally inclusive of transgender opposite-sex members, but trans people can't sue if you don't take up the option.

I expect, though, that they will apply significant pressure against the existence of any single-sex associations, and institutions will play along by making life difficult for the latter, eg by refusing funding or the hire of venues. What will happen to the club for people who are female (a PC) and interested in dating women (not a PC), or to the club for people who are female and same-sex attracted (two shared PCs), when sponsors and venues say they want to concentrate on the setup where they've been joined to the group male+GR+heterosexual (3 PCs, only one of which even overlaps). Because consumer demand or whatever. What rights can they even rely on?

I think this interpretation could be abused in other ways. What if I set up a club for Christians/Hindus/Muslims/Sikhs? Did you see who was missed out? And I could keep expanding the categories (Rastas, Buddhists etc) whilst never admitting Those People. I'm sure this isn't what Schedule 16 was meant for.

I think this interpretation could be abused in other ways. What if I set up a club for Christians/Hindus/Muslims/Sikhs? Did you see who was missed out? And I could keep expanding the categories (Rastas, Buddhists etc) whilst never admitting Those People. I'm sure this isn't what Schedule 16 was meant for.

I agree. This is my concern too. Important to remember that this isn't a change in the law, and doesn't affect what the outcome of any legal challenge to an association membership rule would be.

I don't understand why this is seen as noteworthy.
All it means is that female people and TIM can set up groups together if they want to, provided they can show the exclusion of other males is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim of their group.
I mean, given there's nothing that springs to my mind that female people and TIMs have uniquely in common, which would make the inclusion of both and exclusion of others, a proportionate means to a legitimate aim...good luck to them with that if a non TIM wanted to argue discrimination.
However in theory, if the requirements are satisfied, they could.
I wonder what legitimate aim GG would use if they were to allow girls and trans identified boys to join while excluding all other boys? What special requirements could they argue that these two groups shared that were not shared by boys who were not TI I wonder?

Akua Reindorf's thread is interesting. She says that on its face the EA doesn't permit this mix and match but without it, it's incompatible with Article 11 - freedom of association. But she says this is not settled law and the code should not be making law like this. Also that Phillipson's meddling risks the independence of EHRC and therefore its National Human Rights Association 'A' rating.

She also says that if your association is described as women only then it must be women only.

No proportionate means or legitimate aims come into it. The right to association with people who share your protected characteristic(s) is unconditional (apart from skin colour).

Presumably one important thing has been established, namely that you may have single sex associations etc., and therefore nobody can pull a Giggle v. Tickle stunt to force their way in, or legitimately harass a venue into refusing your booking. (Lawyers please comment, IANAL.)

With regard to the venue thing, there was an example in the guidance of somebody objecting to the presence of a group of Christians and trying to get the venue to throw them out; this was flagged as a no no, and so the same would presumably apply to any protected belief, including GC?

Yes, if the mix and match has been inserted to comply with human rights law then any legal challenge would depend on that. I don't think article 11 would protect the 'right' to form an association of all religions except one. It's a qualified right which can be restricted if it's proportionate in order to (among other things) protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

There is no proportionality test in setting an association. You can have an association for a protected characteristic for a good reason, a bad reason or for no reason at all, just 'because'.

What's new is the idea that the EHRC claims this can be either-or of more than one PC.

The aim behind the original statute is that that people who share a PC have enough in common that they should be able to associate and override the otherwise-unlawful discrimination of excluding others from their club.

Once we start mixing PC's that's disposed of. While some would argue that women and trans-identifying males have some things in common and should be able to associate together to discus lipsticks and hair products, there's no sensible reason to allow a "Hindus plus disabled Polish people" club. And this new interpretation is wide open to abuse.

You couldn't. Because you wouldn't be able to demonstrate that the exclusion of Jewish people from a group set up for religious people was a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.
Its not enough just to lump together a bunch of characteristics and say we're excluding anyone who doesn't have one of them. You have to show the necessity of the exclusion to achieving the aim of the group.
In this case there wouldn't be a way to exclude Jewish people lawfully from this group. Because Judaism is a religion and its a group for people of religion.
You could exclude atheists. As per the example in the guidance.

Or otherwise LGBTQ+ doesn't work...

You keep - in error - writing about a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. That is not part of the requirements for an association's membership rule.

Its not enough just to lump together a bunch of characteristics and say we're excluding anyone who doesn't have one of them.

According to the EHRC guidance, yes it is.

You have to show the necessity of the exclusion to achieving the aim of the group.

Again, according to the EHRC, no you don't. Groups (associations) don't have aims. They just exist.

Akua Reindorf's explanation re Article 11 is useful. Schedule 16 attempts to balance the right to free association with the right not to be excluded because of a protected characteristic. Associations with shared PCs is the compromise. Extending it in the way proposed only works if its not a covert route to targeted discrimination. It's messy.

Its not the inclusion that matters, its the exclusion.
You can't have an association that excludes people on the basis of a PC (in the GG example, boys on the grounds of their sex) without demonstrating the legitimacy of doing so.
GG were fine when the legitimacy was based on sex based differences. But this falls apart when they admit some boys.
So then they'd need new justification for excluding non trans boys, ideally demonstrating there was a legitimate reason for girls and TI boys to need to group without other boys.

You can't have an association that excludes people on the basis of a PC (in the GG example, boys on the grounds of their sex) without demonstrating the legitimacy of doing so.

Yes, you absolutely can. It's prima-facie legitimate to exclude all boys from an association without any demonstration of anything at all. That's what a women-only association is. It excludes all boys, and that is lawful. Just because some women want to associate together without them.

It never worked, but it didn't matter because no-one minded. The non-trans heterosexuals didn't want to join.

Surely a club for women + transwomen would be relying on single sex exemption for the first group but invalidating it with the second?

The LGBT example above wouldn’t have this issue.

(Just seen your reply to another poster MyAmpleSheel - I get it now!)