Looking for help keeping a women's group to women only....

Then again, read the SWI inclusion policy and weep.

Pages of waffle about transwomen and non binary people. A terse couple of sentences about the protected characteristic of sex.

They're working very hard to.convince themselves it's not bullshit.

And laying themselves open to a discrimination claim from a man who does not have a special ladyfeel identity, imo.

https://www.theswi.org.uk/about-us/

https://scottishmsa.org.uk/faq/#1579622679148-2d68545f-8eab

'At SMSA we believe that something special can happen when men work together in a mutually supportive way. This special experience exists in women-only groups too (www.theswi.org.uk ). Many people agree that a group’s dynamic changes when a member of the opposite gender joins the group. There is nothing wrong about that, but it does mean it has become something else from what it was intended for and wanted to be. Some Men’s Sheds have women members, some don’t. Some have fully mixed sessions and some have men’s days and women’s days. Some women have started women only Sheds often referred to as Shed Sheds as they see the value in single gender experiences.'

Yes, that may be worth asking. Perhaps men's sheds and feminists can join forces to look into single sex service provision.

Perhaps I didn’t explain myself well HGMAS.

I am part of a small management committee that had space for a community workshop. We let a local Men’s Shed use it. We thought it was a movement to help people learn tool and workshop skills. We thought women should be included in that. As a lifelong feminist I believe women should be encouraged to learn to use tools just as men should learn to cook.

The Men’s Shed rep never told us it was essentially about mental health not tools until recently.

When they explained that we understood their position. The compromise we have reached is that they open up for mixed sex tool sessions at a small number of designated times.

The point I was trying to make is that the Men’s Shed movements believe that they have a legal basis on which to hold single sex gatherings. It would be useful to know what it is and how sex is defined for their organisation.

This pisses me off. Of course men need and should have access to single sex groups. The men's shed movement was a brilliant initiative that helped address loneliness and mental health issues in men, especially older men. And then some women insisted on being included, which meant some of the men lost that resource.

We all need single sex stuff sometimes.

We have a local Men’s shed group. They are adamant that they can legally have mainly men-only sessions. Under pressure they agreed to open the workshop for occasional mixed sessions so women could have access to the workshop.

We eventually realised that they are men’s mental health groups not primarily about workshop stuff.

I don’t know what the legal basis is, but sauce for the gander…

I think that is their descripton on web site.

This is different to their legal constitution.

https://brightonsisters.wordpress.com/about/constitution/

The Salon is a sub group of Brighton Sisters so is covered by that constitution.

Also it says this, not sure if this applies to your group:

The Sisters Salon Organising Committee has fewer than 25 members and is therefore not covered by the Equality Act. This means there is no law preventing us from keeping our Salons female only.

Yes it does, page 11. It is very explicitly for anyone registered female at birth.

The Brighton Sisters constitution doesn't define what a woman is.

So although public statement about women being biological females, presumably someone could say, in that TW can on occassions be said to be "legal women" they could be challenged for holding meeting that breach their constitution.

I wonder if any group has a constitution that states it is by / for biological females.

Don't use passport/birth certificate as a criterion - they can be legally falsified.

Sex is a protected characteristic with a specific term in the equalities legislation that it is perfectly legitimate for an opportunity, resources, activity or facility to be single-sex where that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. So your first step is to clarify what your aims are and whether those can realistically be achieved if you become mixed sex. If you can't achieve your aims in a mixed sex environment then it is legitimate to remain single sex.

Gender is not a protected characteristic. Gender reassignment is. That means that a man who has undergone or is in the process of undergoing gender reassignment towards being perceived as a woman should not be treated any less favourably than any other man so if you are excluding other men it is ok to also exclude transwomen. however you must then make it clear that transmen (women who have undergone or are in the process of undergoing gender reassignment towards being perceived as men) can be included and welcomed. Excluding both transmen and transwomen would be transphobic.

There's no way to define a transwoman as a woman without accepting and embracing sexist stereotypes. There are very many women who reject such stereotypes who cannot possibly be in the same category as a transwoman and so being inclusive of transwomen is intrinsically excluding a very large number of other women. It's also legitimate to have a womens group for "people who embrace and want to emulate feminine stereotypes" and it's fine to include transwomen in those groups. You just can't be a group that is welcoming to all women and also transwomen.

@CurtainsToYou Brighton Sisters Salon has written a resource pack for exactly this purpose. They have successfully ran single sex, women only groups for 3 years.

You can download it for free here brightonsisters.wordpress.com/our-resource-pack-for-activists/

IMO the WI model is not the one to follow . It’s awful

In your shoes I would take a proactive stance and have a plan in place. Imagine a scenario where someone challenges your single sex, women only policy, and decide how you will react before it happens. Have some statements ready, and don't leave front facing staff unprepared.

Fantastsic - hope your private group is going from strength to strength.

Someone who has the information in their official capacity can't share it. For instance, the Registrar cannot reveal that the original and replacement birth registration relate to the same person (though I guess a diligent genealogist could work it out). But it is otherwise ordinary information that one can ask for and share in the usual way. OP doesn't need to, though. The existence of a birth certificate with the wrong sex on it is indirect proof.

I was in a similar situation though it was not charity run.

About 30 of us signed a letter saying we would leave immediately if a biological/AMAB was permitted to join, on principle as it was a woman's group.

The organiser allowed the TW to join, we all left and reformed privately.

IANAL but I know you can’t ask to see a GRC.

I don't think this is true? But again IANAL.

My understanding is that you cannot share with others whether someone has a GRC or not.

Can anyone clarify?

ie if those who wrote the law hadn't always intended for TW to be treated as "legal" women they wouldn't have taken the time to write the SSE.

If they had never intended that TW should be "legal" women then there would be no need to have SSE.

The law as written personifies that women's needs, or in fact actual biological fact, was put second to accommodating the demands of TW.

Women can only have their rights if they can argue they are "proportionate".

ie why wasn't it written that TW had to justify that it was proportionate for them to included as though they were the same as biological females. Because for law makers women had not importance.

Obviously it is mad to have to have this discussion within the limits of the wording of those who wrote the law. Many of whom are really proud that they to all intents and purposes satisfied the demands of TW.

I thought it was to highlight that the law as written is open to different interpretations, and that the decision re Boards being allowed to include TW as though they were women in detrimental to women.

That's why there are concerns the court case should backfire.

If they lose the case then it would make it harder to get the EA reworded to clarify sex, as they would just be able to say but the Supreme Court says the law is okay as it is.

If "the law doesn't say that" the Supreme Court wouldn't be hearing the FWS case. There must be at least some doubt.

Obviously, whether a male with a GRC is considered a woman is a scenario that is being tested in court.

There is already existing guidance in law which is part of the SSE that are specifically about / when men with a GRC can be excluded.

Its in the recent EHRC guidelines and in fact in the act.

The problem we have now is people trying to say the law doesn't say that.

But even Lady Haldane in her ruling acknowledged that where "proportionate" TW can be excluded.

I think what is being tested in court is to get a legal ruling (which would change the EA) that TW should never be included as being female in terms of representation of Boards etc., as it fundamentally undermines women's rights. ie it is to try and achieve via courts what some have argued the EA should be ammended to say that the word sex means biology.

That's why currenlty women have to justify (typical male arrogance) that to be a group / service only for biological females is permissable (worthy of respect).

As well as the exceptions which apply to every service provider and positive action, there are additional exceptions for:
charities
religion or belief organisations.
Exceptions for charities
If you are a charity you are allowed to restrict your benefits (which include the services you offer) to people with a particular protected characteristic if:
that is included in your charitable instrument, and either
it is objectively justified, or
it is done to prevent or compensate for disadvantage linked to the protected characteristic.
A charitable instrument is the document establishing or governing a charity. The charitable instrument usually sets out the charity’s purposes, how its income can be spent and generally how the charity will operate.

i think it depends on what the objects say in your constitution, but charities can discriminate in the basis of sex. Obviously, whether a male with a GRC is considered a woman is a scenario that is being tested in court.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/business/guidance-businesses/equality-law-voluntary-and-community/exceptions-charities-and#:~:text=If%20you%20are%20a%20charity,it%20is%20objectively%20justified%2C%20or

I would stick with the actual wording of the act and guidelines from EHRC. These are the existing rules in terms of legality.

And that is can you / the group argue that it is "proportionate" that the group should only be for biological females.

The examples in the Act (wake up RCCs) is in fact given of women seeking support after rape will only want to talk with other women.

So if I have understood, you are a group for women working in a male dominated area of work who are supporting each other to feel more "empowered" or less dominated or ... .

I would have thought this was proportionate, ie that you need to be able to discuss, support each other exclusive of the dominant male workers.

So IMO your biggest hurdle is getting all those involved to agree that this is in fact a fundamental reason to have the group women only and if so would fall under the Single Sex Exemptions.

If you / the group feel this strongly and would be willing to argue this should someone try to challenge it, then go ahead.

Its great that you are registered as a charity, and in fact (if memory serves me well) if you are going to alter your existing aims and objectives already accepted by the Charity Commission, then this is fact will be the first hurdle. ie when you submit your updated aims and objectives to be explicitly.

(Ironically a recent challenge to a women only SU group revealed that associations can make this a rule more easily.)

Sorry if I seem to be rambling, but the first step is know you are all agreed, and agreed enough to go ahead and if challenged be able to explain why being women only is "proportionate"

I think most of the suggestions up thread relate to groups that are service providers which aren't the same.

Your group is a self supporting, mutual supporting women's group, so if you or others can give you examples of that, look at how they have worded it.