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.

It's got fuck all to do with being a charity. It has everything to do with your other legal safeguarding responsibilities and prevention of getting your arse sued off.

The charity thing is a problem though because one group that says it's single sex mixing with another group which is not causes an immediate problem.

This is still going to be problematic for some though, especially when camping.

The problem is you putting a child on their own has safeguarding implications too.

When DH is doing a scout risk assessment he takes this into account and works on knowing the kids (and their families) really well. He sometimes has to put a single girl in with several boys - but it's always friends and never bf/gf and everyone has to be fine with this. Scouting allows this because it's a minimisation of risk rather than a total elimination and it's at the discretion of the leader who takes that responsibility. And they have to make arrangements to change separately etc etc

The second you start withholding information or there isn't a risk assessment to this or a leader doesn't do an adequate safeguarding assessment its problematic.

It's worth pointing out in this context, that the Guides have their residential centres - I'm not convinced they are set up for mixed sex.

I'm not convinced they are set up for mixed sex.

Of course. If an organization doesn't have the facilities to handle mixed sex groups then for practical reasons it can't become mixed sex. The right to associate under article 11 doesn't mean that other requirements are waived.

So even if the GG admits trans identifying boys (after changing all the various constitutional matters that need to be changed) they will have to act as the mixed-sex organization they will have become. That may or may not be satisfying to the TWAW crowd, I guess it will depend on the signage. If the "trans-girls sleep here, cis girls sleep there" signs are small enough, perhaps they can learn to unsee them while still obeying them.

The charity thing is a problem though because one group that says it's single sex mixing with another group which is not causes an immediate problem.

Well then the whole group becomes mixed sex.
And safeguarding applies.

Presumably if this were to happen the single sex groups would choose not to mix with the mixed sex group?
But I can see it would be a nightmare all round for Guides.

Are there moves from some groups to change their constitution?

You can see how Guides becomes immediately less attractive for 'trans girls' to join though.

They can't continue to pretend they are girls even if they change the constitution.

There is a vast difference between single-sex organisations being allowed to include trans-gender and being forced to.

If any all-women's group wants to welcome transwomen, that's fine. Why not? But if they don't, that is also fine and they should be protected by law, to enable them to restrict inclusion to biological women only.

“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.”

Transmen would still be allowed as they have the PC of being female. You can’t exclude some people with the PC. It raises the question of nb people. They presumably would be excluded, if male, as they don’t fall under the PC of gender reassignment.

You can see how Guides becomes immediately less attractive for 'trans girls' to join though.

Yes. That's what we call a "they" problem.

If any all-women's group wants to welcome transwomen, that's fine. Why not?

The ethical argument (previously) has been about the discrimination against the non-trans-identifying men who are excluded. The EA2010 generally is about preventing exclusion on the basis of protected characteristics, and the rules for associations are (exceptionally) permitting discrimination. Every act of selective inclusion is also an act of exclusion. We may not care very much about the "what about the men" argument that arises in this individual case, but to answer your question the "why not" is "because of the people who are now not allowed to join". I'm not saying that overrides the benefit of allowing groups to associate, but that's where the trade off is.

Yes I see my mistake.😳

There must be a way to use this new 'multiple separate characteristics' approach to let the transwomen in but exclude the transmen?

This is actually a maths problem, as @MyAmpleSheep said:

This is how to have a lesbian plus transwomen association:
It becomes a veritable boolean smorgasbörd of PC's:
"Our membership criterion is: (Women ∩ same-sex-attracted) ∪ (men ∩ gender-reassigned ∩ heterosexual)"

In theory, I agree, but it will be forced on women, we already know that and some find it difficult to say no, not surprisingly given the way we are treated when we do.

I don’t think there is a way. You can’t exclude some people within a PC

Thinking about it, the reason the guidance is talking about the inclusion of two different PC in associations is because of the phrases 'LGBT' and 'TWAW'.

It wasn't written so that pregnant women could form associations with disabled men.

TWAW has conned everyone into thinking T naturally belongs with women somehow.

We had the law on our side already though. The EA 2010 gave us the right to have single sex groups and I’m guessing as I have not read it, that the SDA gave us those rights. It didn’t stop others those from ignoring our rights. They couldn’t legally stop us before.

This basically! How free is the choice when the impact of saying no brings at best being ostracised or excluded and at worst a world of being threatened, doxxed, harassed, your employer contacted etc etc

I think the point that is being debated is not applicable to either WI or Guides as they currently stand ,related to their charitable status as single sex organisations .””” “Some organisations such as the Women’s Institute and Girl Guiding have already made the decision to restrict membership to biological women only” “””taken from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026/equality-impact-assessment#gender-reassignment. From my unqualified reading of the legal word salad, I’m considering situations such as my all girls schools that has a few self -identified “ trans boys “, so as (technically, I know you can’t legally change gender under age) a female single sex group could have those protected under both sex and gender, it would perhaps stop challenges from TRA’s who literally think trans people become the opposite sex and who think their “trans daughter” should be able to attend an all girls school.

Well it’s not true ,see my point above .

2.46 A person who dresses and presents in ways which are commonly associated with the opposite sex will be protected where they do so as part of a process of reassigning their sex. The Act does not define what is meant by reassigning sex. It does not have to be a medical process – though some people will take medical or surgical steps – but it is likely to at least involve more permanent changes, such as changing one’s pronouns and consistently dressing and presenting as the opposite sex. A person presenting in a gender non-conforming way for some other reason does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. However, they may be protected against harassment and discrimination by perception (read paragraph 4.51 to paragraph 4.53).

Please help: I'm confused - how are you supposed to know the reason why someone is/isn't "reassigning their sex" if the Act doesn't define what is meant by "reassigning sex".

So if a gentleman's club wanted to admit men from any background, but only women who had been to Oxbridge, does the new guidance suggest that this would be legal?

No; I don’t think there’s any way to conjure “graduate of Universities of Oxford or Cambridge” from the various protected characteristics as defined in the EA2010, and facially your criterion discriminates against women.

But you can use the old workaround, of two clubs, one for Oxbridge women, and one for men, that conduct joint meetings and share facilities.

No they wouldn't as it would not be a womens guild, it would be a womens and transwomens guild. Both the description of women in the equality act and laws around misrepresenting themselves (trade description act) will prevent them from calling themselves the womens guild whilst allowing transwimen ie men join

Well yes that was the point of the SCJ it didn't change the law it clarified it. and it needed clarifying because many organisations had been duped into Stonewalls interpretation of the law.

So I guess instead of 'we now have the law on our side' I should have said 'we now have it clarified that the law is on our side'.

Which is huge.

No the law doesn't stop TRAs hating us, calling us names or trying to take over our groups by changing the constitution of the group. Those things are legal. But we do now have the law clarified that we have a right to our own groups and beliefs.

I do feel some people seem to have expected this Code ,or even the SCJ, to have been able to solve all the issues women have with the TRA movement. As long as they are acting legally it can't. And when they are acting illegally we'll have to use the law.

So would women + trans women have to define 'trans women' tightly to ensure that all the trans women were clearly included under the PC of gender reassignment?

The problem is that they weren't as they were treating boys as if they were girls same with male leaders

It would need to have legal signage ie girls and boys no cis or trans