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.

And they'd still lose.

Because trans rights activists will bully all providers into doing it.

Isn’t the key point that this change is a TRA Trojan horse?

To the lay person: If my women’s bridge club accepts trans women, why wouldn’t they be allowed in the women’s toilets at work?

Day to day enforcement of women’s single sex spaces relies on the social contract, this has muddied things.

If Akua et al knew there was this ambiguity between equality law and human rights law, why wasn’t it explicitly addressed in the draft guidance? It now looks like that was a mistake.

Yes I understand the anger at losing established single sex institutions. I feel that.

But surely the answer to this has to be that the members don't want it ti change and they have the right to continue as single sex not that the law forbids it?

We can't expect the law to be used to stop motivated activists changing an organisation through procedure. That has to be countered through resistance activism and winning.

Yes it's galling for women to have to argue for our own institutions but at least we now have the right to them.

We've won the right to have single sex groups and exclude men which is what we needed.

So we could have an app just for women (Giggle vs Tickle) but there could also be an app for women and trans women.

It gives women the choice of single sex groups or a group with some Trans identifying men.

Women can make their choices.

Because if a girl needs a single sex opportunity for any one of a dozen reasons, the existence of a weekly "girl guides" meeting that isn't single sex but pretends to be means that the girls who are excluded from that because they need single-sex can't create a single-sex version because the mixed-sex version is occupying that metaphorical "space" and therefore there's "insufficient demand" for the actually single sex version.

It's actually completely fine for the girls and their trans-identifying male friends who wish they were girls to have a mixed sex association where they can all have fun together. The problem is that pretending that such an association is single-sex is actively damaging for the girls who need a single-sex equivalent to exist.

I think you're right about a lot of these people there. The insistence on joining female only groups is for validation that they are female.

Hopefully that alone will resolve many of the remaining issues for single sex groups.,

Well Malaga, people have explained why they care and you are free to disagree, so maybe drop the disingenuous wondering why on earth they have a problem with it. A “trans woman” is a man. In law and in every other sense. This addition muddies the water, it’s obviously intended to pander to the TRAs, and it will be used to harass women only organisations to be “inclusive”. I don’t mind mixed niche groups in principle, but only if clearly badged as not women’s groups.

The law will not be on their side.

Women now have the right to single sex association and it's up to women who want it to use it.

We can't expect the law to ban activism, or prevent it being used, or the rights of women who do want to be in a group with TW because some people don't like and resist our group preference.

That's not what the law is for.

It does feel to me that this focus on lamenting that some women can now choose to be in groups with TW if they want to is misguided.

Let women choose what they want.

Don't lose sight of the crucial point: we now have the right to single sex spaces and groups now and women means sex.

Sally Grover and the women of Australia would give anything for this.

Bla bla bla “we”. No. You do you.

They are not allowed to 'pretend'.

If it's called Girls it has to be single sex.

Nobody is suggesting new mixed sex groups not be formed?

Men just can't have the existing ones that were set up specifically for women and girls.

Yes! Absolutely.

I'm not being disingenuous thanks.

I'm posing genuine questions and offering an alternative viewpoint on the general tone of the thread that this is a bad thing.

I think you are making the same point as me: ”. I don’t mind mixed niche groups in principle, but only if clearly badged as not women’s groups."

This is what the code is saying and you agree?

I don't know why you're being so rude?

Because you’re extremely patronising. I don’t need you to decide what I should think.

You speak for you. I speak for me. Don’t force team me please.

Do you think the charity commission will agree to charitable status for children’s organisations that are girls + trans girls? The Cass Report etc suggests that affirmation at a young age isn’t helpful so I wonder if there would be issues with the benefit test. (Not sure of the law here, anyone know?)

So it's not the principle of women and twaw groups that the Code now allows that is objectionable?

It's that this could be used to take over previously women only groups?

I agree that happening is enraging, but how could the law allow the principle but prevent established groups using this? (Genuine question btw)

My point is that this should therefore be the thrust of the fight.

Not trying to force them to stop admitting boys, but forcing them to be honest and to correctly describe themselves as a mixed sex organisation, in order to clear the way for single-sex organisations that might be needed to be created without people saying that such a thing isn't needed because it already "exists" (but doesn't)

Of FGS get lost.

I'm obviously trying to unpick this and taking a different approach, and asking genuine questions to understand.

I'm not sure why you're taking it so personally.

And I'm sorry we are on the same team on this even if that upsets you 😁

Exactly, I don’t believe they will. They would put it in the small print that so called “trans girls” are included, and merrily go on calling themselves the girl guides. There is no such thing as a “trans girl” they are boys who “identify as” girls. Sick of the gaslighting.

We've won that fight.
But agree we now need to ensure it's enforced.

More legal action will sadly be inevitable.

Grow up.

Girls refers to biological sex.

You can't describe an organisation as Girls and admit boys. They'd have to change the name and constitution.

Don’t bother, Malaga, I’m not engaging further with you.