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'm really not sure why I'm upsetting you so much.

Okeydoke probably for the best.
You do seem very upset by me.

Maybe we should get Sal Grover to run the app in the uk?

I’m not sure it’s a simple as that. No organisation covered by the EA has been able to just exclude men (or boys) because they feel like it. They have to have been able to show, in the event of a challenge, that any exclusion is proportionate. Organisations would need to explain their rationale for including transwomen, ie excluding male people who don’t have the PC gender reassignment. They would also presumably have to explain what they mean by ‘transwomen’.

Yes, that’s a fair point.

This is true but the problem is the way the fight has been conducted has been portayed as "waah they are trying to make us be unkind and mean to our sparkly special friends" and we need to be clear that this isn't it, they just need to change their name and constitution and branding messages to reflect the truth, and they can carry on doing what they are doing. And that paves the way for anyone who wants a single sex organisation to schism away and form one.

They have to have been able to show, in the event of a challenge, that any exclusion is proportionate.

I think this was explained earlier in the thread not to be the case for associations?

Why is it surprising or worrying that an association can be for more than one protected characteristic? This has always been the case, and is clearly a potentially valuable thing in loads of situations. The Equality Act doesn't seek to police people's associations. It just provides the framework within which people can take legal action if they are discriminated against unfairly.

It has zero to do with the girl guides, since this is an organisation explicitly set up for girls, which has been violating its charitable purposes.

It is important to avoid scaremongering and misinformation in relation to this guidance. Even with the edit, this thread title is severely misleading and scare-mongery.

I agree. But how could the law allow the principle but prevent activists using it to take over organisations?

Could the lawyers on here explain if this would be possible?

It seems to me that activism for single sex spaces using the law is really the only thing that can resist the trans activists using the law.

The problem for trans activists now is - do they go all in on this or not?

Because if they say "Great, now the Girl Guides can just change their charter and include trans people if they want to" you're conceding the point that it's also possible for an organisation NOT to include trans identifying males.

The chances of them being able to get a law through Parliament in the future explicitly preventing female people from being able to exclude won't be that high if the general public thinks the existing law gives organisations a choice.

Ah but if they want to be mixed sex then they must include all men and/or boys not just a subsect of men/boys and all women/girls.
Whilst you can have a mixed sex group that involves a subsect of another PC such as sexuality or religion but its not ok to have all women and some men.
What im trying to explain is that if you are admitting a subsect of men you must only be open to the same subsect of women if you are a mixed sex group

This!

It will be like The Sale of Goods Act (sort of):

• Clearly labelled - does what it says on the tin. Cant say girls or women’s group if males are included
• “Merchantable quality” - ie reasonable to put on sale - which for me translates into “legitimate means for a proportionate aim”

It’s not possible to simply say we want a women’s club to exclude males as the aim. That’s what old boys’ clubs used to do and have mostly had to stop so we don’t want to go back there! It would have to be justified on the basis of religious belief or educational purpose or to address inequity etc. Historically girls or Womens clubs were set up because otherwise females needs would not be met

Yes it's kind of their move now isn't it?

Girl Guides is for female children.

If they want to change this they have to reveal their hand that they are getting rid of a single sex organisation, which is what they tried to hide all along, by insisting trans girls were girls.

They can't use that play anymore. They have to fully reveal their intention to fight this.

If its practically easier to set up as single sex, associations will be single sex, otherwise theyll end up being 'women and TW'.

It’s not possible to simply say we want a women’s club to exclude males

It is. I think this was clarified by the lawyers earlier in the thread.

Clubs and associations under the EA do not need reasonable aims. You are free to associate with whoever you want as long as it doesn't infringe others rights.

Happy for the lawyers on here to correct this if wrong?

It seems this is a frequent area we are unclear on?

Ah Ok. But that wouldn’t impact toilets or other spaces presumably.

For GG then they would need to change their membership rules and that would have to be approved by the Charity Commission maybe?

Sadly I think it's going to take some women's activism to use the law to protect our single sex groups.

Which is shit. We shouldn't have to be doing this.

But at least we have the law on our side now.

We have the right to keep it single sex if we want.

Yes this is my understanding from reading the thread last night.

But I'm not a lawyer so could be misinterpreting. Look out for the posts from the legals on here they are really helpful when we get off track.

The other thing is, it necessitates a shift in the argument TRAs will need to make. It goes from “these people are women and so should be included in women’s things” to “let this special type of man be included in women’s things”. We see almost daily on here how incapable advocates of ‘inclusion’ are of explaining why some men should be included.

I'm not 100% sure this is right any more.
LGBTQ+ clubs contain everyone with the protected characteristic of having a non-heterosexual sexuality plus everyone with the protected characteristic of having a trans gender identity *even if they are heterosexual), and that is explicitly legal and given in the guidance, and fine for them to exclude heterosexual people who don'tclaim a trans gender identity. So perhaps that means that it is actually legal to have an association that contains people of two unrelated protected characteristics "all females regardless of their gender identity" plus "all people who consider themselves to be trans, regardless of their sex". I don't know, IANAL, but I do know that if this is true then they shouldn't be allowed or able to describe themselves or present themselves as if they were single-sex by using the word "girl" in the organisation title.

I thought it was a key part of the reasonableness of the gender critical position that people should have freedom of association. For example, it has never tried to insist that lesbian groups should always exclude trans-identified men; it has simply fought for the right for such groups to be women only if that is what they choose.

The Equality Act doesn't contain any bizarre overarching requirement that only one protected characteristic at a time can be catered to.

The odd misunderstanding of the Act (that it forbids any provision aimed at more than one characteristic) seems just to have been a wrongheaded generalisation from the combination of two things that are entailed by the Act: (1) Women are discriminated against if they are not provided with single-sex services in some situations; (2) A service is not, in fact, single-sex if it admits trans-identified men.

In other words, it is specifically the admission of men into services that need to be single-sex to avoid disadvantaging women that creates the legal problem.

Not the attempt to cater to two PCs at the same time. Why on earth would anyone want to prevent that?

It's as if the whole thing has been set up by lawyers to generate work for themselves.

I get freedom of association, but this is ignoring the pressure womens groups have been under for years now.

To get funding or access to premises women need to work with organisations that have been very TWAW. It could be that these groups just thought they were following the law and support single sex as much as these 'Gender' groups. But its a factor that doesn't seem to have bothered Phillipson at all.

I'm sure it doesn't bother her at all, and that she's very pleased to have achieved this little 'win', but I'm still not sure how they could have written the law to stop the trans activism womens groups face and allowed the principle of women and TW groups.

I'm not sure this is right. The exception for associations is not a single sex exception, it's a single characteristic exception. It doesn't treat sex any differently from any of the other PCs.

So you can have a group for people who share the PC of being female (sex)

You can have a group for people who share the PC of gender reassignment

If the pick and mix interpretation is lawful then you can have a group for people who share the PC of being female or who share the PC of gender reassignment. They wouldn't have to include all men but I don't think they could exclude women who say they they are men - they share both the PCs.

So you could have a 'women and trans' group but not a 'women and trans women' group. Even in TRA-speak that's mixed sex.

But if this all depends on article 11 then who knows, perhaps it will be judged lawful to have a group for:

a) people who share the PC of being female; or
b) people who share the PC of being male and the PC of gender reassignment

It's a giant mess which strays a long way from Schedule 16.

Im trying to think of why associations would be a mix of two separate protected characteristics other than LGBT or 'sex and gender reassignment'?