Bristol Uni SU forbids women discussing male violence without male guardians present

Racquel accepts people who have undergone formal gender reassignment and that is in line with the law.

She's not even required to do that, as far as I know - female-only meetings are permitted, and GRCs don't override that.

And did/would she actuallly permit anyone with a GRC? I hope not. The wording of the article is unclear:

The students refused entry to male-born transgender people who self-identify as women, classed as men under equality laws unless they have changed their legal sex.

I read the "unless" as correctly qualifying "classed as men under equality laws", not necessarily "refused entry".

Raquel has a crowd funding page. Presently it has about six hundred pounds but she needs about 20k to challenge Bristol uni

Bristol SU are breaking the law I’m sure and their argument wouldn’t stand up due to self ID not being a protected characteristic. Racquel accepts people who have undergone formal gender reassignment and that is in line with the law. I would support a legal challenge from Racquel to Bristol SU.

The students refused entry to male-born transgender people who self-identify as women, classed as men under equality laws unless they have changed their legal sex.

She said women aren't allowed to talk about male violence without males being present. The word "guardian" was a metaphor.

So, you made up the part about male guardians being present. Why lie?

Absolutely.

No doubt the people trying to silence these women consider themselves the last word in tolerance and free-thinking. All while behaving like a totalitarian mob.

I'd suggest these young women move their meetings to private premises....as private non-university meetings for the time being.

Remember the suffragette who hid in a cupboard in the Houses of Parliament, so she could speak ...

Plus ça change ....

NeedToKnow101

This is awful. Im so ashamed that so many of the ongoing attacks on women's rights have been by white males on black or brown women. Can't they see how fucking awful (racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic) they are being?

This cannot be stated enough.

However, these were all taken on the basis that a "belief" was being discriminated against. In the case here, the belief that male violence is something that needs talking about is not being challenged/shut down/discriminated against - it is the action of limiting discussion to women only (and the exclusion of trans women from that category) that is being challenged. I think the argument will have been that they shared the p/c of this particular belief & so were allowed to organise around it. This is a bit different because the question is over membership of the category - but I think it would be clear that a male person who is legally male doesn't share the p/c with the members who wanted to meet on the basis of that p/c for the legitimate purpose. The union will have to argue that it discriminates on gender reassignment not to allow the trans student. It all needs testing but I really don't think the union's argument would win. Not a lawyer tho!

This has actually really upset me. She & her fellow members are obviously really brave.

Raquel has a new page for her CJ fundraiser which will go live tomorrow evening. She has had to make a new one because her lawyer has moved firms and CJ requires a new page when that happens.

Anyone who donated previously should have the details in an update email.

It's not complicated either, as the cases of anti-abortion societies showed. Various student unions across the UK sought to deny such societies affiliations and lost legal challenges brought against them. IIRC, not one student union prevailed as these are such clear cut cases of discrimination against a group with a protected characteristic.

I didn't see any court cases that actually concluded from those anti-abortion group actions, though the capitulation of the various Unions suggests most lawyers thought a ruling would go against them.

However, these were all taken on the basis that a "belief" was being discriminated against. In the case here, the belief that male violence is something that needs talking about is not being challenged/shut down/discriminated against - it is the action of limiting discussion to women only (and the exclusion of trans women from that category) that is being challenged.

I don't think the law is as clear cut in this case, though I hope you are correct and it gets clarified quickly and we see an end to this intimidation.

Really like their letter to the minister.

This is awful. Im so ashamed that so many of the ongoing attacks on women's rights have been by white males on black or brown women. Can't they see how fucking awful (racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic) they are being?

On a positive note, I've been meaning to donate to her fundraiser, and this has reminded me to do it.

You can keep trying to silence us lads we’ll keep talking amongst ourselves

Hear hear!

Could it be this simple? - if the union doesn't let its members form a group specifically for black ppl, it is discriminating against them on the basis of race. If the union doesn't allow a group just for disabled ppl, its discriminating against disabled ppl. If it bans a group just for female ppl it is discriminating on the grounds of sex. Because it is failing to allow (actually obstructing) the kinds of provisions which are allowed in the EA which recognises that ppl need to form groups around the protected characteristics, in order to flourish in a world which does discriminate on those grounds.

The equality act allows organizations to use single sex exemptions that mean single sex, but it does not require them to allow them. Bristol Students Union does not breach the act by telling their own members that they may not use this extension within the union as there is no requirement to use the single sex exemption. Whereas there is a legal requirement not to serve 15 year olds beer.

Bristol Students Union may be breaching the equality act if, by not allowing the use of single sex exemptions and all the other actions they take or don’t take they create an environment that is discriminatory towards people who are legally female, but that’s a much more complex argument.

My analogy may be pants, but Bristol Students Union cannot tell affiliated societies that they are forbidden from using the sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. Because contrary to your view, that does indeed breach the rights of these women under the Equality Act. Just as they cannot forbid other groups to limit attendance to those sharing their protected characteristic.

It's not complicated either, as the cases of anti-abortion societies showed. Various student unions across the UK sought to deny such societies affiliations and lost legal challenges brought against them. IIRC, not one student union prevailed as these are such clear cut cases of discrimination against a group with a protected characteristic.

Fuck it, I’ll be making another contribution to Raquel’s CrowdJustice fundraiser once her page has moved

You can keep trying to silence us lads we’ll keep talking amongst ourselves

@PurpleHoodie

Brave young women

And committee members must complete an “equality, diversity and inclusion” course." So sinister.

Brave young women

And that's exactly what it is.

Looks very bad - as if they have a grudge against Raquel R-S for standing up to the transactivists.

That's exactly what it looks like.