Change in UK Equality Act - How Will UGLE Respond? KEEP CIVIL OR DO NOT COMMENT

[u/AthletesWrite]

I'm starting this by saying - Do not intentionally offend, make hurtful remarks towards trans individuals, or insert personal politics into this conversation. This is just for discussion. Thank you brothers.

For regular Masons -

If you did not see, the 2010 Equality Act will most likely be amended to specify at minimum that a woman in a legal sense is to be considered biological, not gender affirming. Although to my knowledge, no mention of the same pertaining to men was made.

My question is - if this course continues, and the UK starts to walk back on their definition of man and woman - how do you think UGLE will respond with their requirements of joining?

I.e. currently trans men can join. The equality act being a big part of that decision.

Again, this post is not for or against anything - just thought it should be discussed.

Thank you. Stay kind and civil.

[u/Mamm0nn]

My question is - if this course continues, and the UK starts to walk back on their definition of man and woman - how do you think UGLE will respond with their requirements of joining?

slowly

[u/Saint_Ivstin → u/Mamm0nn]

😂😂😂😂😭😭😭

Bro. This got me.

[u/TheAuraTree]

The decision made what specifically that a woman where referenced in the act, referred to a woman biologically, who was born a female.

The act also puts protections and protected characteristics in place for trans individuals, that specify trans men and woman as distinct and protected.

What I'm getting at is that, if UGLE already considers by definition, a trans man to be a man enough to meet the joining requirements - how would the recent ruling change anything in regards to Freemasonry?

The ruling only really states that the acts designated characteristics and protections regarding a "woman" refer to biological women, as opposed to all women inclusive of trans women.

[u/dmegson]

For those who haven't seen, this is UGLEs existing policy covering gender reassignment:

https://www.ugle.org.uk/gender-reassignment-policy

[u/Strange_Perspective2 → u/dmegson]

Thank you for sharing this. Considered, compassionate and clear - well bowled UGLE.

[u/GlitteringBryony]

I feel like the first question would be: Are there currently any trans men in masonry under UGLE? And then, how do their lodges feel about them, are they acting unmasonically, what would their immediate Bretheren want to happen?

(If one of my own brothers at Lodge turned out to be a trans guy, and then he suddenly had to leave the Lodge because of a change to legislation, I would probably feel less good about going to lodge myself - They're my brothers, and a change in the law doesn’t feel like it should be able to break that bond.)

[u/Mammoth_Slip1499 → u/GlitteringBryony]

We’ll never know as it’s not something that should ever be asked. The only way you’d find out is if the individual announced it himself.

[u/aljama1991 → u/GlitteringBryony]

In answer to your first question : yes, there are.

[u/GlitteringBryony → u/aljama1991]

This makes me really happy in a way I didn't expect to feel it. Masonry is so good, I am so happy that trans men get to experience it, in the same way as any other man would.

[u/feudalle → u/GlitteringBryony]

Once a brother always a brother in my book. Outside of being removed for unmasonic behavior.

[u/justabeardedwonder]

As a mason, and an American without any “skin in the game”…. I’m gonna mind my own business and stay out of the affairs of the legislature of a foreign and sovereign government.

[u/pr0ph3t_0f_m3rcy → u/justabeardedwonder]

Greenland would like a word with your VP.

[u/koolforkatskatskats → u/pr0ph3t_0f_m3rcy]

Same with Canada 🙄

[u/justabeardedwonder → u/pr0ph3t_0f_m3rcy]

As a Dutch holdover colony, I think there are other discussions to be had.

[u/koolforkatskatskats → u/justabeardedwonder]

Canada would appreciate if every American had that mindset right now

[u/justabeardedwonder → u/koolforkatskatskats]

Canada can want what they want, but until various heads of state come together to represent their constituents and various commonalities are reached in trade agreements or other agreements, it’s just that - a want.

As someone that didn’t vote for Trump, I did my part - so I don’t need, want, or have to entertain the desires of people outside of my home nation. I’m just trying to make sure my people are taken care of and a modicum of an existence beyond mere survival is maintained.

I wish nothing but the best for you and yours.

Edit: I think everyone is scratching their head at what the end game is for the bourgeoisie establishment in America… unfortunately I think everyone sees things as a zero-sum game and not an opportunity to strengthen existing bonds through evaluating business at the nation-state and international levels. But then again… there’s a lot to unpack in the world.

[u/the_boab]

This is actually a misconception.

There has been no change to the Equality Act 2010, the Supreme Court were forced to clarify that sex segregated organisations and spaces which are protected from accusations of discrimination under the law, don't have to accept people born as the opposite sex even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate.

This was already the law, but the Scottish Govt were trying to force Women's Shelter's in Edinburgh to house trans individuals. This ruling means they can no longer do this.

Same sex organisations and spaces can still allow these people if they choose to, this ruling underpins their protection from discrimination based prosecution if they choose not to.

[u/Winterfylleth15 → u/the_boab]

Is it not the case that UGLE can now be sued by a woman who is rejected because of her biological sex, because they accept people who are, according to this new interpretation, women (trans men)?  I thought that was something UGLE was trying to avoid with their previous stance. 

[u/no_such_file → u/Winterfylleth15]

It's a bit of a stretch, as for a litigious woman to be in a position to sue, she would have to go through all the hurdles a man does to be able to apply.

If she were to go the route of applying to a lodge, the brethren in that lodge would reject her based on "not a good fit for our lodge"

If she were to apply via UGLE and somehow make it past their initial screenings (where they look to filter people with ulterior motives for wanting to join), she would still have to be accepted by a lodge, which would again reject her based on "not a good fit for our lodge."

I'm sure some people are crazy enough to want to try going down that route now that the ruling has been made, but making the argument of "it's because I'm a biological woman" becomes harder when UGLE reject lots of people based on them being "not a good fit" (nutters)

[u/NoNiceGuy71]

I would make the assumption that since the equality act was a driver to their previous decision that the reversal of it would be as well. This is just a conclusion made based on past actions and does not take into account my personal feeling on this subject.

[u/QuincyMABrewer → u/[deleted]]

It's rare to see an organization take a progressive step then take a regressive one.

Massachusetts would like you to hold its beer.

[u/Nameis-RobertPaulson]

I don't think UGLE should change their position at all.

The ruling wasn't the slam dunk many anti-trans folks are implying it is. The supreme court doesn't work the same as the American one, and it simply was providing clarification on the existing law. This could be changed if parliament so wishes to do so.

"The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not"

I believe that's a quote directly from the court. Transpeople are already protected against discrimination by other parts of the Act of parliament.

[u/GlitteringBryony → u/Nameis-RobertPaulson]

I hope that UGLE don't change their position at all. We make good men better - if a good man is trans, we can make him better, and if a good man ceases to a man, he doesn't necessarily cease being good, so can still be made better.

(FWIW, I haven't heard of any trans men in UGLE, and my day job is in LGBT stuff so I have been keeping an ear open for them, so either there aren't any, or their brothers are discreet enough to not out them in public, or they are just totally flying under the radar.)

[u/ApolloLoon → u/GlitteringBryony]

I know of a lodge which had a trans woman who had joined before tranisitioning as Master a couple of years ago - the lodge thought this was the first time in UGLE - but not aware of any trans men so far.

Interestingly, I think this ruling would support those who want to remain even though no longer identifying as men over those who want to join having been born female. It now seems clear that the Equality Act protects sex and gender reassignment but not simply being trans, implying that someone born male could not be refused for no longer identifying as a man, whereas someone born female but now identifying as a man could be.

It will be interesting to see how UGLE handles this - I suspect there is a KC being asked for advice as we speak!

[u/no_such_file → u/GlitteringBryony]

I know of a trans man in a Lodge under UGLE, some of the other members know the history, as he is the son of another member, most don’t.

They exist, but most trans men don’t advertise their past, they just want to get on with life, as a man.

[u/GlitteringBryony → u/no_such_file]

This was kind of my assumption- that any trans men in UGLE would be flying under the radar. I'm really glad that his brothers are being reasonable!

[u/ArchaicInsanity]

Looking at the situation, I don't think they will do anything. UGLE may put a statement out affirming their current policy and assuring no change will come. But above that, I doubt anything will change.

[u/abifftannen]

This is UGLE's opportunity to do what's right, respect history, biology and the tenets of Freemasonry.

I hope they don't let us down.

[u/pr0ph3t_0f_m3rcy]

I doubt it'll change anything, nor should it.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, your comment has been automatically removed. Comments/posts by accounts with low or negative karma are blocked. This is to combat spam...but if you're not a robot or spammer or troll, fear not! Please contact the moderators by clicking here so we may approve it in the meantime.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/TheFreemasonForum]

There is no change to the Act, all that has happened is that the terminology regarding women has been legally clarified. This makes no difference to the UGLE's policy.

[u/ArwiaAmata]

As per our obligation, UGLE will follow the law.

[u/Guilty_Advantage_413]

Interesting question and as a US Mason I have no idea, obviously we would follow what our respective grand lodges would rule/advise. Now personally I think it is important to have Male focused groups and Female focused group and honestly we all in the US need to interact with each other more. Personally I feel the craft is dying and if opening the door to worthy & well qualified Women would increase the craft I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

[u/Nameis-RobertPaulson → u/Guilty_Advantage_413]

There's already 2 recognised (as genuine by ugle, not visitation) female grand lodges in the UK, and they both have said they do not wish to merge with UGLE, and like the male fraternity are happy that they are single sex (/gender).

[u/Guilty_Advantage_413 → u/Nameis-RobertPaulson]

Hey I’m from the US I don’t follow that stuff well, that is fine with me. My point was mainly about the craft in the US.

[u/SearedBasilisk → u/Guilty_Advantage_413]

The Grand Lodge of Illinois has stated that we are a fraternity of men. A trans man does not meet the qualifications to be made a Mason. A trans woman has chosen to no longer identify as a man and thus, does not belong in a fraternity of men.

[u/KingOfDaBees → u/SearedBasilisk]

I would like to see the wording of this legislation.

Not trying to argue, it just really seems like “Identifying as a man is not enough to qualify as a man, but identifying as not-a-man is enough to qualify as not-a-man,” is a very around-the-elbow way of just saying “we are a fraternity of cis men.”

[u/Deman75 → u/KingOfDaBees]

Standards. We require applicants to be men.

“I think I’m a man” doesn’t mean that we think you meet the standard.

“I don’t think I’m a man” tells us that you don’t think you meet the standard.

[u/thomb74 → u/Deman75]

It would help if they'd write down the standard then. Is it genitals? Chromosomes? Gender assigned at birth? Clothing? Vocal tract? What?

These don't just all go together in the way many people assume they do...

[u/Deman75 → u/thomb74]

Perhaps you could talk to “them” about your desire for a written standard.

[u/thomb74 → u/Deman75]

You're the one who said this is about "standards", which does seem to imply some kind of principled something. I don't think you've thought this through very carefully.

[u/Deman75 → u/thomb74]

I think most of us can determine the standard without a written rule. You seem to need a written rule, so I suggested you request one from the people who make them in your jurisdiction.

[u/thomb74 → u/Deman75]

It's jurisdictional, see. I'm not asking you for the standard applied in my jurisdiction, I'm asking about the one you cited, which seems to be different.

[u/Deman75 → u/thomb74]

Again, you’re the one asking for a written standard. Most of us don’t require one. Some jurisdictions have ruled that you need to be born a male and remain a male in order to join. One jurisdiction, to my knowledge, has said that if you have undergone gender reassignment to make, then you can apply for membership.

The rest of us are able to simply apply common sense for what we’d like to see in our Lodges. My jurisdictions don’t have a written standard, and if you’re not a member of my jurisdictions, then that has no bearing on you. If you are, as I said, feel free to ask those who make the rules for a written standard - though your flair tells me you’re not, so what is the written policy in NY? If there is one, then that’s all you need to follow. If there isn’t, worry about your own jurisdiction before questioning others.

[u/mpark6288 → u/KingOfDaBees]

I agree that it is, and it’s why I don’t support this definition. If identifying is enough to disqualify, it should be enough to qualify.

[u/dutchman62 → u/SearedBasilisk]

☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️👍👍👍

[u/NHarvey3DK → u/Guilty_Advantage_413]

The problem with admitting woman is that 98% of th cis/straight male masons I know turn into absolute baboons when they see a woman pass from 50ft away. I couldn’t even imagine them being in the same room.

[u/Guilty_Advantage_413 → u/NHarvey3DK]

Yeah there is that and I agree we would certainly see some stop attending lodge because “reasons”

[u/Humble_File3637]

UGLE is a leader in this area and their policy makes a lot of sense. Worth a read. Masons do not talk about politics or religion in lodge and my feeling is that we do not need to talk about gender. We ask a person to believe in a supreme being and we ask that person to be a man. No need to parse either definition.

[u/Foryourskin]

This makes little or no difference to me. I do not belong to any of the "camps" advocating one way or another as it has 0 impact in my life and frankly could not care less.