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.

EHRC says:

The Equality Act only protects you from discrimination because you are married or in a civil partnership at work. It does not cover discrimination because of marriage and civil partnership outside of work, for example in relation to goods and services.

That's a stretch, and you'd have to get a ruling from Strasburg to change UK law to accomodate your objection.

I'm not sure what law change you have in mind. This was in response to my hypothetical where, by combining many groups with at least one shared PC each, one sneakily excludes another specific group, triggering HRA Article 11 para 2:

No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

(my emboldening).

Until today, we never even thought we could do this sort of 'mix and match' to earn a Schedule 16 exemption, so very much still feeling around in the dark here!

Are you sure? Being single is not protected in employment law, but that's not the same that the married/single PC doesn't apply for services or associations. I think it's still unlawful to discriminate against married people or single people in the provision of services and public functions. At least, I don't see an exception in Schedule 3 for it.

No this is correct, it's in the sections before the schedules, e.g. -

Part 3: Services and Public Functions
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/28

Part 4: Premises
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/32

I'm wondering where in the EA2010 it says that marriage discrimination doesn't count for goods and services. Or associations. I see that it's in the guidance, but that has to be based in the statute. Anyone know?

I'm not sure what law change you have in mind.

The best I can come up with is to imagine there are some people who want only more restrictive associations, they might argue that the new interpretation is too wide. They would say the rights to free association should be more limited to protect their rights, and that the new interpretation is incompatible with Article 11.

And there are some people who think the old interpretation is too narrow, and Article 11 needed it to be wider; their rights to free association were being infringed. They seem to be in the ascendancy at the moment.

I think we will lose on this, not least in the court of public opinion.

Natural justice, and HRA Article 11, favour free association as long as the rights and freedoms of others are respected.

Why shouldn't women's groups be free to join up with TWs if they want to?

If Schedule 16 doesn't technically permit it, it could be amended. (At present it reads as not permitted, because the combined group don't have even a single shared protected characteristic, and the terms of admission differ between the sexes.)

The key issues are (a) is "if they want to" sufficient that it's reasonable for say 20 members of an association who want it to become a mixed sex organisation to over-rile the wishes of say 10 members who wanted to join a singke-sex organisation and joined on that basis. Is a simple majority enough to deny a minority their rights ro have a single-sex association given that single-sex associations are legal and for some they are genuinely necessary (b) establishing more firmly that associations that aren't single-sex because they admit trans members of the opposite sex should not be allowed to brand or market or present themselves with language that pretends they are single sex or take up the metaphorical "space" of a single sex organisation in that their existence shouldn't reduce the potential for a single-sex association to be viable if there is a need for it. (c) domination of social media of a particular viewpoint is not the same as that viewpoint being thr majority view

they’re struggling with finances and I don’t think a few extra boys would make a difference nor allow enough kids to create separate groups.

I have a feeling that most transwomen will not want to join a club advertised as mixed sex. Where is the validation in that?

Yes I was just thinking that having to apply for and state that you are mixed rather draws a lot of attention to the fact that males can’t be females.

anyone left who is still a bit naive to the whole thing will also now have the basic facts that males want to be included with females highlighted

Another reason why they've got to go, was this political interference after the Baronesses left, is this what we can expect from her replacement, toady too the powers that be.🤔

Girl Guides have always had the option to become mixed sex. But they’ve maintained they’re a single sex organisation. If they continue to maintain that, then no, they can’t admit trans-identified boys.

And that’s setting aside the horrific parental neglect and ideological capture which enable trans-identified boys in the first place.

Wonderful news! Thanks for sharing.

I was going to say much the same thing. This makes it clear that TWANW.

The thing is., GG could totally have kept males in, they would have just had to change their articles and aims and name. The fact they didn’t do that…. Maybe they weren’t as committed to “trans inclusivity” as they claimed.

These clubs wont be advertised as mixed sex. A group advertising themselves as for women and TW will still validate these men as women not men. They'll still be predominantly womens groups, with one or two men in them.

The number of women and how welcoming they are will be the draw.

I am always amazed at the attitude of people being joyful at the removal of opportunities for girls. You can be happy at the fact girl guides now has the opportunity to become mixed sex by combining two characteristics but at least acknowledge your inclusion will exclude others. It is so disrespectful.

Be interesting to see if GG takes this opportunity and risk its demise. Why have another mixed sex club for kids? We already have scouts

Can I just say a big thank you to all the lawyers/ legally knowledgeable women on here patiently explaining things to us.

I come to these threads after a legal judgement to get my head around what's happened and what it means.

I'm not a lawyer but in my role I will be expected to know the law in this area, and make challenges around it.

I think I'm usually quite good at absorbing and analysing information but the EA and the Code befuddle me still.

The errors posters make in interpretation are just the sort of errors I'm making in my thinking. So those who patiently persist in correcting and explaining are really doing wonderful work for many of us just reading for clarification.

So I just wanted to say thank you and let you know posting on these threads is really valuable work 💐

Surely they couldn't be called Women's groups. That would be single sex under the EA.

They'd have to be Women's and trans women's groups.

So Girl Guides could call itself Guides and admit boys who identify as trans.

The WI could drop the W and be the Institute or the W&TWI?

They may not advertise as mixed sex, but they can’t advertise as single-sex. Neither can any TW claim they are part of the group ‘because they are women’. Any group will have had to make special provision for them. That makes them ‘definitely not women’.

Therr is you need to be a girl between the ages of 4 and 19, that is the selection process and its part of their charitable charter. There's also specific guidance for single sex spaces and groups

I'm not sure why it bothers people that a club for women and trans women can be created?

Those women who think TWAW can join with the men who think they're women if they want. Why should I care?
I don't have to join.
Why does it bother people?
As long as it's not incorrectly describing itself as women only?

I get why the changing of historically single sex institutions is enraging. But that is a different issue from whether in law it should be allowable to have women and TW clubs?

As long as we have the right to exclude men if we want. Why would I care what clubs other women want to join?

I'm not sure that we are bothered – it was one of the odder unintended consequences of FWS that 'inclusive' associations went straight from mandatory to forbidden, without stopping at the happy medium of 'optional'.

We've been debating whether this is what Schedule 16 really means, or whether it's been tortured beyond all recognition, and maybe needs amendment.

Also, wondering whether single-sex associations will die out under social pressure, leaving women (and men, gays and lesbians) with less choice.

Because changing an organisation that was set up to be single sex to mixed sex means women will lose valuable.spaces.

If people want to set up mixed sex spaces have at it, brilliant. But it would be immensely unfair to girls and women to lose their existing single sex groups.

The options will be either mixed sex or single sex.

Thats it. No pretendy single.sex that includes.some.special members of the opposite sex.

Women and women with a gr would be acceptable or women and lesbians and/or bisexual women would be fine.
All women and only men with GR would not as it allows all of 1 class ie women (PC of sex) plus only transwomen ie 1 subsection of of 1 class ie men (PC of sex) who also have the PC of GR but excluding all other men would be direct sex and GR discrimination against men who dont have the PC of GR.
The guidance is a mess but it doesn't make it OK for men who identify as transwomen to join womens single sex groups.
Look I get it you read the good lie projects press release including the lies about their high crt "win" (which was actually a wholesale loss) and want desperately to believe that you can continue to force your way into womens single sex spaces, facilities and groups but the fact is that you can't. Single sex means single sex and sex means the biological reality of the body you were born with. Womens only means no men however they identify

This basically with a side order of crowing about how no one cares anyway about TW crashing into the WI and GG

as has been said multiple times, both GG & WI could have changed their constitution to become mixed sex but they didn't. They wanted all the kudos of banging about how supportive they were to women & girls whilst also admitting men & boys. To the best of my knowledge the WI never asked the membership to vote on admitting men & I strongly suspect that if they do what the OP suggests abd admit men, any voting will be done iN the open & framed in such a way that it would be "all those who are nasty horrid transphobic bigots who hate TW who are the most lovely women ever but for some reason nasty horrid bigots don't want that them here raise your hand to say they can't join"