Volunteers at women only group

It's quite possible that the group wouldn't meet the needs of the transwoman anyway, given the different issues at play (re the question about them attending, not volunteering)

Would it make a difference if this person was seeking to attend the group themselves (rather than volunteer)

Nope.

Again, as far as I understand the 2010 Equalities Act, it would be lawful to exclude non-biological women - even those with a GRC - for an organisation to achieve its stated aims with a group protected under the EA (ie women).

Are there any volunteer roles within the organisation which do not involve direct contact with the clients? So this potential volunteer could still fulfil their wish to help the organisation without potentially alienating/upsetting/preventing the participation of the target clients?

Or if this TW has been abused herself, could she not set up her own charity for helping abused transwomen? Actually do something about al the literal violence?

this may be a sarcastic use of the word literal

I would advise against offering them an alternative volunteer position, because if they take it, they'll get to know the inner workings of the organisation, they'll apply again for the volunteer position they actually want, and it will be much harder to come up with a convincing reason to turn them down the next time.

If they're the type who wants this as a validation opportunity, the best thing to do is to not get involved with them in any way.

You are of course right, I was being somewhat sarcastic. But really, FFS. If you want to help abused women go and run a marathon and raise £££ in sponsorship or something. Anything more direct just smacks of weird voyeurism and using women's oppression for your own validation.

There are loads of opportunities for volunteers in all sorts of areas where one's gender or sex is not an issue. A male seeking one in a female-only environment should be a massive red flag to everyone. It's either narcissism or shit-stirring and both are best avoided.

Maybe your friend could suggest that as, sadly, there are currently no opportunities at her organisation, they offer their services to the local charity shop, who she understands are desperate for help .

I would advise against offering them an alternative volunteer position, because if they take it, they'll get to know the inner workings of the organisation, they'll apply again for the volunteer position they actually want, and it will be much harder to come up with a convincing reason to turn them down the next time.

If they're the type who wants this as a validation opportunity, the best thing to do is to not get involved with them in any way.

Tell them that you are thrilled they’ve applied because what you really need help with is an incredibly dull data entry task which can be done on a working from home basis. And here are two massive lever arch files of fundraising data that needs to be entered into excel for starters.

That should be a good test of this person's motivation...

Tell them that when the organisation wants to set up a group for transwomen, they will be at the top of your list

To avoid accusations of blanket discrimination, I'd suggest that your friend consider whether there is any role that the potential volunteer could perform that would not be a problem (social media manager? Fundraiser? Admin type stuff?). If not, they need to document why the volunteer role is not open to men or transwomen in their policy documents (it shouldn't be about this specific person, the consideration should be general) and respond accordingly.

People do get discriminated against all the time on the basis of protected characteristics

But in this case the relevant protected characteristic, for which E.A. exemptions may apply, is sex, not gender reassignment. It's the protected characteristic of the vulnerable group the charity is helping whose needs should take priority, surely.

If this would-be volunteer truly wishes to help then maybe there's some appropriate role.

I'd tell them that you don't need anyone at the moment without telling them why, because this person is so obviously fishing for either validation (which you're not required to provide them with) or a potential payout when you tell them no. As tempting as it is to tell them off grey rock may be the best path.

It’s validation, pure and simple.

I start to feel sorry for such people, so desperate to be accepted as that which they can really be.

Thank you CharlieParley

It would be interesting to ask what area they think their skills are best suited, and why.

But I'd just ignore the request for as long as possible, because I think we all know what is going on here.

But the Equality Act 2010 does permit males (inc with a GRC) to be excluded.

People do get discriminated against all the time on the basis of protected characteristics and there is little anyone can do unless the employer is stupid enough to say that that's the reason.

"We don't want any black/gay/old people here" –> get sued.

"We had a number of candidates who we feel are a better fit" –> don't get sued.

And general inertia

Could your friend not just let the request disappear into a black hole of bureaucracy and ‘from pillar to post’ and stonewalling (sorry for pun)?

That last paragraph is evident of the change in the guidance the EHRC puts out. Previously their position was to completely ignore the fact that a male without a GRC was legally male and to advise that they had a right to access female-only spaces and could be excluded only on a case by case basis and that GRC holders couldn't be excluded at all.

EHRC quietly also deleted relevant passages in their guidance to businesses. The reference to the legal sex of males without a GRC is obscure, but what it means is that you are not discriminating against a trans-identifying male without a GRC if you are excluding that male from female-only spaces if all others who are legally male are also excluded.

Currently a volunteer or prospective volunteer cannot bring a Discrimination claim as they are not a “worker” under the Equality Act. See the case of X v Mid Sussex CAB 2012 UKSC59

^^ That's the June 30th 2018 amendment by the way.