is this legal

the recent supreme court ruling

I thought the issue with trans people was about sports and bathrooms? This is a walk out in public.

I dropped them an email to show them this thread should give them a laugh.

Oh, I was quoting someone who asked if it was possible to have a group for just transgender people that excludes everyone else.
i think you can.

Oh, I was quoting someone who asked if it was possible to have a group for just transgender people that excludes everyone else.
i think you can.

Further down the page it states

These events are welcoming of any adults who identify as women. We also welcome non-binary individuals who feel comfortable in a women’s only space to these sessions.

Therefore it is not women only, men are entitled to attend

Well shit, guess I won't be going to many women's events any more. I don't tend to go to these things alone and it would feel nasty to start excluding one or two of my friends from everything.

I appreciate there's nothing really I, or anyone else, can do about it- the law is the law. It's just sad, I suppose, that a decision with so many positives in turn bans inclusive groups and events that have been happily existing without issue.

To the PP who asked what is different about trans women and men; in my experience almost everything? Personality, interests, empathy. Not to say that men aren't empathetic, but they don't tend to understand women's interests particularly well and tend to change the conversation topics. I didn't know my trans friends were trans for a good while so the only real difference is biology- and that tends not to affect arts and crafts or nature walking groups.

It's such a weird grouping. If I'm going to hang out in a mixed sex group, I don't want every single male there to be one who believes that biological sex is irrelevant. What a horrible power imbalance that would be.

What's wrong with "women and transmen"?

You are wrong. If they are using the single sex exemption under the equality act to say it’s “women only” then they can’t include some men.

thr test of being a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” is when they decide to invoke the exception - if it meets that threshold then all male people must by definition be excluded. That’s exactly what the Supreme Court were ruling on

Yes, it could have transwomen and transmen but not normal men/women and not non binary people.
There would have to be a proportionate reason why you would exclude non-gender change people though. To exclude someone on the basis of a PC you would have to have a fair reason, like to discuss specific issues around gender change which they would not feel comfortable discussing with non gender change people. Or to increase the bird watching uptake of gender change people who are uncomfortable around non gender change people, feel judged etc.
i don’t think you can just exclude someone based on a PC without a good reason.

You can do a super inclusive bird watching walk for people who are super inclusive and want to celebrate diversity while looking at birds and it could be an interest group I guess, but you can’t exclude anyone on the basis of a PC like sex or gender change or age or whatever. Or you could do a private friends guided walk of whoever you like.

IANAL and this is just my understanding. Happy to be wrong.

Nature Walks for Women then it says for women only, then it goes on to say nbs or those who identify as women are welcome.
Then it’s not “women only” it’s mixed because they say men who dress as women can attend. So not clear.

You cannot say 'I'd still like to go to casual events aimed at women including trans women and non binary folks [aka men or women] without men being included by some legal necessity' as YOU already included men in the 'non-binary folks' and 'trans women' categories. It makes no sense whatsoever. So you only want to exclude men who know they are male?

Are there other EA protected characteristics where you get complaints that you should be able to include friends who ok, aren't .....(insert protected characteristic) but they're really nice people?

I also get confused about this. I think it’s for the GRC application itself that you have to show meaningful steps. There’s a section on the form where an applicant has to explain what steps they’ve taken and if they haven’t taken hormones or had surgery then why not?

I looked this up on Saturday because after the thread about the 17 year old who got a diagnosis with a fairly light case history assessment I wondered if I could potentially tick all the boxes (without actually applying). I concluded that I probably could show enough male tendencies over my whole life (inc childhood photos and career choice etc) and it would probably just come down to being able to pay for the 2 doctors letters. Assuming they didn’t ever ask friends and family for evidence obvs.

ETA I mean if there are late male transitioners then why not females?!

I hope it's not against the law- that would feel like a massive overreach of the ruling. I appreciate the need for single sex spaces where necessary- toilets, prisons, etc- but I'd also like some things to be open to trans and non-binary women if- and only if- they want to be. I'd like to still be able to go to casual events aimed at women (including trans women and non-binary folks) without men being included by some legal necessity. Men's presence completely changes the atmosphere of so many groups, if this becomes commonplace I'll probably stop going to a lot of events altogether.

Please quote this reference exactly. It has never been a requirement to be working towards a GRC to claim the protected characteristic of gender reassignment so you are misunderstanding/misremembering. It is not the same as the protected characteristic of sex, as we all know.

I agree. Have your “inclusive walk”, just don’t pretend it’s for women only when it isn’t.

The meeting was discussing the Supreme Court ruling which was about the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act. The decision was that sex in the EA means biological sex so a man with a GRC is not a woman. They weren't discussing the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment.

Men without a GRC are men, however they identify. The Supreme Court ruling clarified that men with a GRC are still men for the purposes of the protected characteristic of sex in the EA. Baroness Falkner mentioned that the ruling applied to fewer than 10,000 people, which is the number of GRCs issued to date.

People need to get some perspective, and stop using silly examples.The Supreme Court ruling relates to facilities ansd categories which have been officially or formally declared to be for one sex or the other.

A local birdwatching group can invite anyone they like...but why bother to call it 'a women's' group if you want to invite men as well? People can play these silly games as much as they like........in their own small friendship groups and tribal gatherings...but when it comes to the general public you have to be a lot more spoecific and if you have membership rules that you are advertising, then you really need to abide by them.

Well the meeting I listened to live certainly included this reference.

And led to the comment why is it an issue if there are so few.

But nobody took up which has been raised elsewhere all those who think self iding has a legal status.

Presumably as gender reassignment is a protected characteristic you could have a group event just for them.

I hope it's not against the law- that would feel like a massive overreach of the ruling. I appreciate the need for single sex spaces where necessary- toilets, prisons, etc- but I'd also like some things to be open to trans and non-binary women if- and only if- they want to be. I'd like to still be able to go to casual events aimed at women (including trans women and non-binary folks) without men being included by some legal necessity. Men's presence completely changes the atmosphere of so many groups, if this becomes commonplace I'll probably stop going to a lot of events altogether.

Well shit, guess I won't be going to many women's events any more. I don't tend to go to these things alone and it would feel nasty to start excluding one or two of my friends from everything.

I appreciate there's nothing really I, or anyone else, can do about it- the law is the law. It's just sad, I suppose, that a decision with so many positives in turn bans inclusive groups and events that have been happily existing without issue.

To the PP who asked what is different about trans women and men; in my experience almost everything? Personality, interests, empathy. Not to say that men aren't empathetic, but they don't tend to understand women's interests particularly well and tend to change the conversation topics. I didn't know my trans friends were trans for a good while so the only real difference is biology- and that tends not to affect arts and crafts or nature walking groups.