To call for this charity to be sued under UK equality act ?!

My sister was pretty high up in CRUK marketing until 6/7 years ago and I don’t recall any legal challenge. They had constant complaints about their women’s only events and shut them down with a party line they stuck to (they set up men’s events…hardly any men came 🙄)

I think it’s most likely that they are hugely less popular post Covid and we’ve all just moved on from R4L really

And what a strange way you have of looking at things. You don't care about discriminatory, misogynistic unlawful behaviour - odd, but your prerogative. Fortunately we have laws which agree with me. They're there for a reason.

Do you have a reference for that*? Everything else aside, I'd be hugely cautious of pushing for questioning the legality of allowing some opposite sex children access to single sex spaces or services. This would hugely impact the mothers of boys (particularly lone parents) who rely on their sons being allowed in some female only places up to a certain age. I think some refuges for example allow young sons, but no other males.

• 'interestingly ' I believe fragrant Labour Women's Officer Lily Madigan started their campaigning career questioning why males couldn't take part in the Race for Life, back when he was plain old Liam.

I do see what you are saying.

I think to zoom out a little bit, this case is being discussed in detail because it is a clear cut case of exclusion of Muslim women at a particular moment in time, in writing so it can’t easily be denied by those desperate to hide this misogyny.

The wider picture here is that the UK Muslim population has increased by 1 million to 4 million since 2011, we’ve got a lack of control of our borders with many would be immigrants from Muslim countries, some of whom are known terrorists and some Muslim leaders have stated that they want more power and control over all of us and are working with the government to gain that.

Combine that with the predictions that the UK will be majority Muslim in 75 years and ongoing attempts from certain parts of the left to silence and prevent any discussion about the issue and we have a situation where people are bursting to get this out in the open and start dealing with it.

I can see situations where that might work for positive action.

As you say, the test can't be run together but you could identify two different groups which are disadvantaged or underrepresented and for each group the proposed activity is a proportionate means of overcoming the disadvantage or increasing participation, and running a single activity for both groups does not undermine that aim for either group.

So for example (completely hypothetical), a cycling charity carries out a survey and finds that over 50s and women cycle less because they don't feel confident. I think it would be lawful to run extra cycling activities for those groups aimed at increasing confidence and participation, and I don't think it would be unlawful to combine the groups for the same activity.

But I am also not a lawyer and from what I understand there is not a huge amount of case law around positive action.

I haven't forgotten that.

My point is that focusing objections on the exact language they used to specify the restrictions (ex. 'men and boys plus girls under 12' vs 'men of all ages and all children under the age of 12') and trying to argue that's where the problem lies is not actually addressing the very important issue of women and girls' representation and opportunities in Muslim communities.

If you structure your attack in a way where the most obvious solution is to either exclude all girls (which is where the 'it would be fine if they had actually made it single sex and hadn't included girls under a certain age' claims in this thread lead) or to keep the same restrictions on teen girls and women participating but change the syntax of the marketing to make it less open to legal critique then what do you think that's accomplishing?

I grew up in an extremely conservative Christian community in the US that taught 'traditional' gender roles and actively restricted opportunities for girls and women, and I left for a reason. I care deeply about this issue. But I don't agree that trying to use the EA and language parsing to attack this event is a productive way to address that very genuine problem.

I think that is also my understanding but I’m not a legal expert.

I’m agreeing that it’s not necessarily obvious on the surface.

I think that would become apparent when you look at specific scenarios, the reasons behind them and how that justifies excluding the certain groups. It’s very hard to generalise here.

I’m not a lawyer so don’t want to push this too far, but my understanding of EA2010 is that you can’t run that test together and it must be done separately. Then the need for females to exclude males is disproven by the fact that some males are included, and the need to exclude non-disabled people is disproven by the inclusion of some able-bodied people.

I guess you would have to be clear what the legitimate aim of that grouping was and whether the exclusions (non disabled men) were a proportionate way of achieving that aim.

I can’t think of a reason where such a grouping would be justified but maybe you can? It may be one of those points that is arguable.

Sure — but my question is not about the law. My question is about the logical/ethical principle.

If two groups defined by their PCs (women, and same-sex attracted people, say) share a common goal, or are prejudiced by the same social ill (TRA ideology, for example), is it really obvious that it should be illegal for them to form a group or offer a service without admitting all others?

Race for Life entrance criteria was changed specifically because it was challenged legally…

when they could be supporting actual efforts to increase opportunities and representation for women in Muslim communities.

In what way is this discussion not attempting to support actual efforts to increase opportunities for Muslim women?

Have you forgotten that the upshot is that women and girls aged 12-17 were excluded from a ‘family’ fun run because some men in the mosque didn’t want them there?

😂

From the fight against trans activism, many women have learnt a lot about how the Equality Act works. I can see how it might not be ‘so obvious it doesn’t need saying’.

There have been so many lies propagated by trans activist organisations like Stonewall and activist lawyers, I’m not surprised there is some room for confusion.

But they were advertised as women's events.

This wasn't advertised as a men's event.

Yanbu. Unbelievable people are thinking this is OK

There are lots of different exceptions in the EA which apply in different circumstances. It's confusing to work out which one(s) people have in mind.

The examples you give fall under services. Single sex services are lawful if they're a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. As long as admitting young opposite sex children does not undermine the legitimate aim and is proportionate, that would likely be lawful.

If adult men are admitted it fatally undermines any legitimate aim justification for the women's service in the first place.

OP was asking for advice on the best way forward. You have responded with derision and insults. I’m not sure you’re the right person to help here.

It’s a conversation, I think she’s aware you feel that way. Other women will pick it up, discuss and help effect change.

Race for Life races are open to anyone now, but when they were single sex they were for women and girls of any age, plus boys under 12. It wasn't illegal.

I don’t understand why a woman is trying to get other woman to do the work rather than take some on herself, tbh.

We’ll see. Many women are not so blasé at seeing teen girls excluded from sports.

You do seem more concerned re what others are doing rather than the issue of exclusion.

I’ll bet you £10 this won’t effect any change. It’s bonkers. They can’t even be arsed to send a formal complaint.