is this legal

Oh well done Maya!

I read the thread. No evidence of "trans people attacking bunny rescues" just accusations.

But we've got still visible posts from gender critical activists and GC orgs on social media with a lot of views to harass a bird charity which any regular member of the public is going to read and think this is all unhinged lunacy.

Yes, that's right. Women want their women only stuff back. And they've had to go to the Supreme Court to get it.

And we will continue spend all our time and vast sums of money to keep it.

You might as well pack up and go home.

And while you're at it, here's a bit of advice, tell your fellow transactivists to stop threatening animal sanctuaries, ffs.

There really are no depths too low, are there?

Here is that dismissal that we have come to expect from this poster.

The abuse that has been directed towards bunny charities has now been compared to polite letter writing as if they are the same. Letter writing informing a charity that they need to take legal advice so that an event they are hosting will not leave them open to legal action under the EA. So, in effect, letter writing that will assist them to protect themselves.

But letter writing now becomes an attack.

The charity absolutely had no obligation to provide the walk. But they chose to offer a service. And they seemed to have missed the law clarification that means that they are at risk here.

And yes, women choose to spend time to get organisations to understand the law and act accordingly. That you deride women's actions just shows the misogyny that cannot be hidden.

But the two situations are not comparable. Because on one hand is a bunny charity receiving actual abuse and all because they have a very common social media policy of following those who follow them and on the other is the RBPS receiving multiple letters pointing out where they have not followed the law ie. not abuse.

Yet in this poster's mind they two situations are the same.

So you're saying that it was fine for women only events and spaces when some men were included, but now they have to be properly women only, we must rethink the need for them?

I hate using activist language, but in this case I would be very happy, if not relieved, if they just called it ‘For Cis Women & Trans Women’ as then at least everyone normal and sane would know to stay away.

Seriously?? You are comparing women politely contacting the RSPB (a huge charity) to let the RSPB know that they would really like to go on one of their "Nature Walks for Women" but they can't because they are not just for women and also advising them that they are acting unlawfully and could be subject to a discrimination claim with . . .

An unwarranted seek-and-destroy attack initiated by activists in the USA on a tiny UK Bunny Rescue charity which is being

• bombarded with abuse and death threats
• publicly accused of transphobia
• reported to the Charities Commission with the aim of getting them closed down

It is now having to spend scant funds on getting legal advice.

All of those attacks are then also being targeted at other tiny Rabbit Rescue groups that have supported the original Bunny Rescue charity.

It's laughable when you get on your high horse because, as they say, the higher the monkey climbs the more it shows its arse!

I don't believe the RSPB has been attacked.
They announced publicly an event for women only then added in at the end, and some men too, is pointing out this is incorrect/wrong/a breach of EA attacking them?

Know what's ironic? On this board there's a thread claiming trans people are "attacking a bunny rescue" yet this thread is attacking a wildlife bird charity over what is literally a walk in the park they have no obligation to provide.

It's been picked up by Maya F too receiving 90.7K views so far and Women's Equality Watch Scotland (I haven't seen wor Jo tweet it yet though) have now claimed to write to the RSPB over this also with 90K views. Out of everything, this is what people are spending time and energy on. Other countries must be laughing at us.

No, it's not legal, it's discriminatory.

Think of one of those posh men's clubs in London, biological men only, no biological women allowed to join.

Then imagine if they said they also welcomed 'individuals who feel comfortable in a men-only space'. And allowed biological women who 'identify' as biological men to join.

This would discriminate against biological women who don't 'identify' as men.

In law, there is only biological sex, male or female, - and 'identifying' as the opposite sex is sheer fantasy and wishful thinking.

The thread is about discrimination law… not about trans. You are not the centre of everything. The event in question discriminates against men who don’t claim a special identity.

My guess is that people who have been happy with 'inclusive' womens groups and opportunities are going to question the need for womens groups and opportunities as the realities of the ruling dawns on them.

If RSPB want an inclusive walk then they advertise a “walk” everyone welcome

💯

@MyAmpleSheep
As a long term RSPB member
there is a HUGE need for female walks away from the big lens mansplainers.

I most hides 3/4 of the people are men.
It is NOT a friendly pursuit for single women.
THerefore trying to reverse that inequality is entirely appropriate

I think this is an interesting point as there are effectively two issues which, to me, seem to be getting conflated on the thread

1. should a bird nature walk be single sex in the first place- ie does it meet the threshold to benefit from the single sex exemption. I understand that the use of an exemption must be a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. Don’t know the answer to whether it does or not but appears that would be the test
2. if it does then meet the single sex exemption test, is it lawful to exclude some men but not all. it’s already been said on the thread several times, but my understanding is it would not be lawful as it’s not single sex because some men (who identify as women) have been permitted and therefore it’s not women only so would be unlawful sex discrimination to exclude some men (who identify as men) but permit others

don’t have the answers but it’s an interesting point.

I am amazed at how something really simple has been made so complex. The limited scope of the SC judgement is being made far more complicated than it really is. This is in part due to the widespread misrepresentation of what the EA2010 actually meant and the no debate stance from TRAs.

The RSPB is a service provider and if they want a women’s walk they can do this. Women means biological sex as observed and recorded at birth. It includes trans men (TIF) and non-binary (observed female at birth).

If RSPB want an inclusive walk then they advertise a “walk” everyone welcome.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this - I didn't see, if they have - but even a "biological women only" bird walk is close to the edge, in terms of equality law. The exclusion of men from a service needs careful justification. That's the point of equality law. I see a lot of people describing this as an "inclusive" event because it aims to include trans-identifying men with women, but the wider picture it's that it's an exclusionary service by excluding men.

Whether that's legal depends on things like whether a men-only bird walk is offered (i.e. a separate sex service - what is the justification for offering seperate sex services?) or not (a single sex service).

I'm not saying that there aren't good answers to these questions and hopefully RSPB legal has them all figured out in advance but I do think "this is an inclusive event" is the wrong lens through which to look at it.

Trans women are men. It’s not an overreach.

Already done that - I also found the consultation document itself frustratingly confusing. There are "explanatory" paragraphs that they say they do not want you to comment on. However, some of them are virtually unintelligible or self-contradictory. I have commented on them anyway.

Baroness Falkner.

But also pp correctly pointed out that this is a service provided by the RSPB, so associations not relevant to this situation.

An association for the purposes of the Equality Act is a group of 25 or more people. Groups with less than 25 people are not covered by the Equality Act provisions

Well, now I am out of my depth. I thought associations could only be 25 people tops?

This might be a good thing to add into any consultation response?