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.

This thread is an example of why I love Mumsnet. Really digging into the details, not skim reading headlines.

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

It kind of does. The exception is headed: Single characteristic associations

It says 'An association does not contravene section 101(1) by restricting membership to persons who share a protected characteristic.' It then goes on to refer to 'such persons as share the characteristic'

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/16/crossheading/single-characteristic-associations

This is legislative language so we can expect it to have been drafted as precisely as possible. If it meant 'one or more' or 'a combination of' then it would say so.

Well, I think we'll be stuck with 'trans inclusion' in Schedule 16 situations now.

WI and GG are already like that, so would surely prefer to amend their charitable aims (and name) than go single-sex.

People wanting single-sex associations will struggle to get support in the face of constant smearing for 'transphobia', but at least won't face legal challenges.

Of course someone could challenge this barking mad interpretation of Schedule 16, but what's the point, when the government could just amend it?

And I don't see a slippery slope threatening Schedule 3. It makes sense to the man in the street that trans ladies can join the WI, but not use the women's toilets.

Schedule 16 embodies a right of association that does not need to be justified, and is further limited only by HRA Article 11 para 2.

Schedule 3 single-sex spaces have to be justified, and, once justified, must remain single-sex. Furthermore, the nature of the justifications (safety, fairness, decency) make it likely that a failure to make single-sex provision, even when not regulated for, is always open to challenge as indirect sex-discrimination and we need to build on this.

PS apologies for saying 'we'. Obviously I only speak for myself.

Yes, none of the other combinations make any sense. But neither do these two, the TRA have just convinced people that T belongs with LGB and that tw belong with women. This is the end result of their forced teaming.

It's this reading of the law that the EHRC have just forcibly inverted.

It makes sense because there are people who actually believe in this stuff. So, even without the bizarre new framing of Schedule 16, one could describe this as associations for people who believe in transgenderism (in itself a PC that could justify the exemption even on the old-school reading of things).

Of course, lots of members will really be non-believers who've grudgingly joined because it's the only way to get something even halfway single-sex. But this is the way religious belief fucks things up even when it's non-compulsory. Hence Sunday Trading laws and the Lords Spiritual – unreasonable, but not worth the hassle of sorting out.

Not sure if this has been noted already, but the Impact Assessment published alongside the guidance says:

'The Code does explain where membership could be restricted based on sharing multiple characteristics and therefore provides an opportunity for trans inclusion, e.g. a women and trans women association.'

www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026/equality-impact-assessment

'The Code does explain where membership could be restricted based on sharing multiple characteristics and therefore provides an opportunity for trans inclusion, e.g. a women and trans women association.''

Thanks. That seems to go directly against the SC judgment?

I disagree that the name of an organization will mean anything or form any kind of barrier. That is, I disagree that an association with “women” in the title is prevented from having men as members just because of the name.

You can’t make an otherwise unlawful membership rule lawful by describing it inaccurately in the association’s title, nor vice-versa. Brownies doesn’t mean the members are all brown, and there’s not a single pony in the Pony Club.

A Women’s Guild that admits by rule women and trans indentifyinf men will still be allowed to be called “the Women’s Guild”.

Permitting organisations to "restrict membership to persons who share a protected characteristic" in no way entails forbidding them from restricting membership to persons who share two protected characteristics, or one of two. "A characteristic " does not mean "one and only one characteristic".

(If I said, for example, that "I am going to read a work of non-fiction this month", that wouldn't be falsified if I read two, or twenty.)

It is because there is no such entailment that there does not need to be any additional legislative wordage here.

I mean, it's crap that the Women's Institute leadership is trying to insist on the inclusion of transwomen, because in terms of its history and foundational documents it is for women,. But if the trans-inclusionists in the WI left and formed a new organisation for women and transwomen, that would be a good thing, wouldn't it? The woman's org could get on with being a woman's org and all those who wanted something different would be catered for. Why should that be an illegal thing to do?

You are correct; but courts do indulge in sleight of hand; many people feel that FWS used the same sort of technique to reduce the impact of the GRA.

There is a compulsion on the courts to bend over backwards to interpret laws compatibly with the ECHR (“convention rights”) and what the EHRC has done here is lay out a carpet and a signpost and invited the High Court in future to marry Article 11 and Schedule 16 together this way.

If Article 11 really means the “right” to have LGBT+ clubs is established (and the EHRC considered it is) then the only other alternative is to change the text of the equality act. This re-interpretation avoids that.

'Three days!? The sign outside says 59 minute cleaners!'

'That's just the name of the shop, love.'

The SC judgment said that if sex meant certified sex then you wouldn't be able to have associations for biological women only, which surely wasn't the intention of the legislation - you should be able to have these groups.

But I don't think they discussed whether you could or could not have women + trans women groups.

I am a guide leader writing a risk assessment and trying to do a camp to a single sex guiding venue.

I'm going to have some fun because even if this guidance allows boys to join, I'm going to be hung out to dry.

I will still hold liability for whatever happens on that camp. I will still have to adhere to all the clarifications with the law that are going through bit by bit.

Good luck.

If guides decide to continue to admit boys and they don't check birth certificates, and parents decide to withhold sex there's potential for a massive problem somewhere down the line re safeguarding and other parents. Guides would be wise to cover their arses.

We also still have not had the conversation about such groups would be unlawfully indirectly discriminating against people with certain faith either if they decided to be female and trans-indentifying.

Guides would also need to get reapproved by Charity Commission if they want to admit 'trans girls' and I'm not sure that would satisfy the benefit requirements.

I can't think of any.
It seems like the whole law is being mangled out of shape to specifically allow for the forced teaming of LGB with T. Just so you can have LGBT associations.

However, as @PencilsInSpace explains:
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.

If you are going to have women plus transwomen, you also have to let in the transmen. Unless you go 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.

As I said, this pick-and-mix approach to PC, just to allow the 'LGBT' to stand, mangles the whole thing into near incomprehensibility.

The documents refer to womens group being allowed to exclude TW. This is because single sex is legal, not because of the name of the organisation.

As long as the association doesn't advertise themselves as single sex, the group could call themselves anything and be for women and TW, but exclude other men.

Practically, its how its advertised. If im a normie women, would i assume a women group is single sex, single 'gender' or just a brand name?

I'm concerned because the guidance seems to focus on safety and dignity for women, and freedom for trans women to associate with LGB and women groups. I can't see any focus on women being allowed to associated with just women to organise or for female friendship?

Its as if as long as toilets and changing rooms are covered, why shouldn't these men join thf group.

They would have to have a change of constitution within guiding to do that.

For those who don't know the way Guiding is set up in the UK makes this interesting.

So in terms of the charity commission, in practice girl guiding ISN'T a single charity.

The governing body is a charity. But every single district is also a unique charity.

This would require a constitutional change to EVERY girl guide district to their charity commission description. This is a MASSIVE undertaking. Each charity has an individual constitution which would need changing by it's local members and trustees. And if you have groups that don't do this and then take on a trans identifying child unwittingly they also potentially have a problem - GRCs are not applicable too.

I know of at least one girl guiding unit in the NW which is run by and for Muslim girls primarily. That'll be interesting.

If GG UK decide that to stay a member of GG you have to sign up to being trans inclusive it will tear them apart because local groups have more power here than many may actually realise due to it's essentially set up in a federal manner with a main hq and then individual umbrella groups.

This is already what is happening with the WI.

Now I suspect that the feeling will be particularly strong amongst parents of young girls and leaders especially if the guides start trying to dodge the issue of safeguarding. (See my previous post re throwing leaders under the bus).

The EHRC code wording isn't the magic bullet for guides that some here might fear. It only opens up more admin and interesting discussions and legal obligations.

Also note the fundamental problem for camps which includes multiple groups / districts if some had a constitution that include boys who identify as trans and some that didn't.

You would have a problem.

As I say, good luck.

Are there moves in Guides and the WI to get their constitutions and charitable status changed?

TRAs seemed to want to go the forcing everyone they are women route instead. Are they now going to pivot to change the constitutions?
I'm not sure that's what TW want, because it admits they are men.

Although the fuckers also want to just destroy women's stuff too i know.

Even if they were successful at decimating what the WI was, at least women could now start a new group which could legally exclude men.
Cold Comfort, when some men have destroyed what you already created, but still very important to now have.

Ultimately it's now going to be down to women to vote with their feet. What do the women of the WI want it to be?

Do women want women only associations? Because we can have them, but we'll have to defend them from the fuckers who don't want us to have them.

The safeguarding point is crucial and why things like the KCSIE policy alongside this code and the EA is so crucial.

The misreading of the EA was used to disregard safeguarding.

If groups are mixed sex how do you keep children safe? Safeguarding can't go out the window just because they're trans.

I'm not sure what safeguarding policy covers charities though RedToothBrush?

But this will not be good enough for TRAs. They will still bully and harass any female only group and label them as ‘hateful’ just for being single sex. They will try (and be lauded for their efforts) to prevent any women’s groups from forming and meeting by using all the tactics we are all to familiar with.

They will. But we now have the law on our side to make venues/ employers/ organisers more scared of the law than the bullies.

Women are going to have to use the law I'm afraid. It's shit we have to and that these narcissistic men aren't just told where to go.

We can't stop people calling us hateful and trying to stop us. But at least now they legally can't.

It's not a show stopper.

A "girls + trans identifying boys" association is still obliged to treat the trans-identifying boys as boys. They don't "become" girls, instead the organization becomes mixed sex, like the Scouting Association. Just one that is not open to all boys. So, seperate sleeping and toilet accomodation would be required for the boys just as in any other mixed sex organization.