Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

LGBT Groups and the EHRC Guidance

60 replies

gayhistorynerd · 23/05/2025 15:20

I've been following the SC ruling and subsequent EHRC guidance with a close eye, as this subject is particularly close to my heart as a lesbian. However, there is one thing I've been struggling to reconcile, and I know the brilliant women here are most likely to have the understanding to clarify.

Are LGBT groups now considered unlawful?

I have the feeling I'm more in denial than anything, but I'm hoping against hope that somebody will be able to tell me that these vital community spaces will be preserved. As it stands, I don't see how the guidance for associations will permit them; if everyone in a space must share the same protected characteristic, then a group for gay, bisexual and trans people surely can't be lawful unless it's exclusively for people who are gay and trans? These groups have been life-saving for me, and many others I'm sure, as I sought out community as a young adult and now, years down the line, they're an important part of my social life. I absolutely appreciate the right and need to have gay-only and lesbian-only spaces- I am part of some lesbian-only groups myself- but I didn't expect the right for those groups to exist to come at the expense of the other, broader community spaces that have been a hub for LGBT people for so long.

It casts a bittersweet light over the SC ruling if this is indeed the case, which is a sentiment I never thought I'd have. I want to be as happy as everyone else about it, and I am in 99% of contexts, but I would be lying to say that this one aspect didn't really worry me.

OP posts:
SternJoyousBee · 23/05/2025 15:54

IANAL but I think the issue would be that an LGBT group of 25 or more members couldn’t rely on using the EA 2010 to justify excluding a heterosexual non trans identifying person from their group.

They could have an LGBT group just like there could be a chess club or cycling group but it could not justify excluding anyone based on shared PCs.

IllustratedDictionaryOfTheDoldrums · 23/05/2025 15:53

I still don't see why LGBT groups wouldn't be allowed. It's be a group for the L plus the G plus the B plus the T. It's just not allowed to call itself an L only group if its not an L only group.

soupycustard · 23/05/2025 15:51

Confirming what's been said already.
The ruling hasn't changed anything to do with unisex lgbt gatherings. It simply clarifies that sex-based rights for women are based on biological sex.
Anyone can still have any kind of group they want - and indeed it has now been made clear that a group stated as being for lesbians doesn't have to welcome males as males can't be lesbians.
As long as a group is clear that it is unisex, that's fine.
(Of course provision of certain services, eg rape crisis services, would struggle to argue that unisex provision only was adequate, and would realistically have to provide single sex services, but as rape is a male crime, that's for clear reasons which wouldn't apply to an ordinary lgbt gathering)

Stepfordian · 23/05/2025 15:47

The only people excluded from an LGBT group would be heterosexual people without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, in practice I doubt those people would actually be excluded, more that they would self select out. It’s not quite the same as for example a lesbian group that would actually prevent men from joining.

It will really only come in to play if someone complains about being excluded.

MarieDeGournay · 23/05/2025 15:47

You make an excellent point, gayhistorynerd ·though possibly unintentionally!

The recent and illogical tacking on of T for Transgender to the existing LGB community and organisations has resulted in a situation where same-sex-attracted groups can no longer exist without people-who-want-to-be-the-opposite-sex tagging along - and taking over. Stonewall is a good example.

Trans and lesbian/gay are two different things, different identities, different issues, different interests, different aims and objectives.

The SC ruling reaffirms that women who are lesbians may meet on their own and are free to exclude men, even men who claim they are lesbians, so it's good news.

If a group or a venue is just for lesbians, it's just for women who are lesbians.
If it is just for gay men, it is just for men who are gay.
If it for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people - no problem, it's then a mixed sex group/venue, everybody knows it is and everybody's happy.
LGB✂T

atoo · 23/05/2025 15:42

I don't think anything has changed here. A group that was only open to LGBT people is a mishmash of different protected characteristics on any possible reading of the equality act, either before or after the SC ruling.

I'm not an expert, but as I understand it, one could have two different groups - one LGB group and one T group - that do joint events, which is virtually the same thing, assuming the two groups do in fact want to have joint events.

TangenitalContrivences · 23/05/2025 15:41

you're very confused here. Group CAN be set up to one characteristic. or even two.

they don't HAVE to be

Original poster
gayhistorynerd · 23/05/2025 15:39

My concern is that the guidance states that in a group specifying multiple protected characteristics, they have to be shared by all members. This makes a lot of sense when a lesbian group is for people with the protected characteristics of sex and same-sex attraction, so women who aren't same-sex attracted are excluded and same-sex attracted men are excluded as well. What you can't have is a group for, say, women and disabled people, because that would be unlawful discrimination against non-disabled men under the new guidance.

When it comes to LGBT groups, you're likely to have same-sex attracted people who aren't trans and, similarly, trans people who aren't same-sex attracted. It seems like for this to work, the group would then have to allow anyone and everyone to join otherwise it would be considered discriminatory. I have no problem with some LGBT spaces already being open to anyone, such as gay bars which often end up with a significant straight female clientele, but I worry that the more exclusive groups may now have to open up as well.

I apologise if it's hard to get my point across correctly, I find the guidance is difficult to understand and discuss on this subject- it ends up sounding like word salad.

OP posts:
MyPresumablyScrotum · 23/05/2025 15:26

I think of the SC ruling as the Ronseal slogan - it does what it says on the tin.

If the sign outside says "female changing" then no men, no TW.
If the group is for lesbians, then it's women only - no men, no TW.
If it's a LGBT group for lesbians, gay men, bisexual and trans people - then those people are welcome.

What is stopping is a women's only group, calling itself a women's only group but having men in it. It either changes its name, or stops including men - so it does what it says on the tin.

IllustratedDictionaryOfTheDoldrums · 23/05/2025 15:22

I don't see why they would be unlawful?
Gay only or lesbian only are now clarified as being allowed. An LGBT broader group would be mixed sex which is also allowed, so you can have that too.
Could you clarify why you'd think they wouldn't be lawful?

Swipe left for the next trending thread