is this legal

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.

Also you need to consider that to have an event for Gender Reassignment only via the EA it would only cover the 8400ish GRC holders in the entire UK as self-ID is not the law here.

You don't need a GRC to possess the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. In fact we do have de facto self ID & the GRC is all but irrelevant now. Self ID isn't an issue now as it only means you ID as "trans" as the Supreme Court clarified that males cannot become females.

For example RMW does not have a GRC but does have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment so should not be treated less favourably than another male who does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

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.

Sorry I have been quoting the number of GRCs wrong all weekend. Doh! Sorry

It’s not 8400ish but currently 9633.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/16/thousands-of-gender-recognition-certificates-granted/

Gosh. Are women allowed to convene without males present or not?

Who cares why the rspb want to have a women's only walk? Maybe women want a women's only walk? Can women have that? I can't believe we are harping on about the legality of it. Not allowing women to meet without a male being potentially permitted should be indefensible.

This sounds like the asterisk's text in real life:
This walk is for women* only.
* women means women and some special men and some special women. And the little star means I am adding meaning to the law despite knowing the law says the definition of women is biological. My little star absolves me of all wrong doing as you are now openly aware of my deceit.

Ahh yes, the "women only" part of their description was crystal clear that it's not just for women 😶

You can see the note I am giving you is a £5 note yet I am telling you it's a £20, I never said they lied I said they contradict themselves.

How can an event claim to be woman only yet also state males will have access? Why claim to be a womans only event in the first place?

No worries. Looking back I don’t think I was very clear and it could well be taken that I was referring to the bird watching. But alas, I was poorly attempting to provide them with a scenario where they could meet up with their friends in a women and male people with a gender identity group.

Apologies - I misunderstood! 🙏

Yes, that's what I said. I agree. 👍

Thanks. I thought it was 25. Just to clarify, my suggestion to the pp about doing things with their friends was what I was referring to in the post you quote.

I understand that the bird watching would fall under a service offered by that organisation. And that it is different to a group organising under a friendship group scenario to get together.

This is not an association; the RSPB as whole is an association. This is a service provided by the RSPB. To be lawful it would have to meet various conditions that (without going into a lot of detail about sections 26 and 27 of schedule 3 to the EA 2010) they might have trouble meeting.

There's no way on earth that it would be lawful to include trans identifying men from this service and exlude non trans identifying men.

The requirements for a "group" to be considered an "Association" under the Equality Act 2010 are in the Explanatory Notes:

345. This section explains what is meant by terms used in Part 7 of the Act. It defines an association as a body with 25 or more members where access to membership is controlled by rules and involves a genuine selection process based on personal criteria. It gives a Minister of the Crown power to amend this definition so as to change the number of members required by the definition.

Examples

✅ Associations include: private members’ golf clubs and gentlemen’s clubs where applicants for membership are required to make a personal application, be sponsored by other members and go through some kind of selection process.

✅ Membership would cover full membership, associate membership, temporary membership and day membership.

❌ Casinos, nightclubs and gyms, where payment of the requisite “membership” fee is all that is required to secure admittance are not associations for the purposes of this Part. These are covered instead by the provisions in Part 3 concerning services provided to the public.

❌ A book club run by a group of friends which has no formal rules governing admittance or whose membership is less than 25 is not an association for the purposes of this Part.

----

The RSPB "Nature Walks for Women" (£5:50 - £6:50) are a SERVICE being offered by the RSPB,

In which case, the relevant part of the EA2010 would be for Services not Associations and the "under 25 rule" does not apply.

https://events.rspb.org.uk/events/96479

“However, just because you believe your friends are not like other male people and you couldn’t tell they were not female, doesn’t mean that any other female couldn’t and would not be upset at their inclusion. I find that you might find other women find your friends to be just like other men upon interaction”

Sorry. lots of typos and should have been

However, just because you believe your friends are not like other male people and you couldn’t tell they were not female, doesn’t mean that any other female person couldn’t and would not be upset at their inclusion. I think that you might find other women may find your friends to be just like other men upon interaction.

If it is a small group, ie under x number of people iirc (I could be wrong, 25 maybe), then this could be considered a ‘friendship group’ which is not subject to the ruling.

However, just because you believe your friends are not like other male people and you couldn’t tell they were not female, doesn’t mean that any other female couldn’t and would not be upset at their inclusion. I find that you might find other women find your friends to be just like other men upon interaction. And might then not join a group described as being just for women if they found your male friends present.

”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.”. This really is your opinion only. I happen to read this and think you have just applied some rather strong stereotyping there.

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.

Yes - you are right.

Didn’t the answer to the question about women’s and males with transgender is identity’s hypothetical walking group end up being a not possible in the WEC hearing the other day?

Isn’t this the same application?

I have to go back and reread the transcript but isn’t this a similar scenario?

excellent. That means that they should seek some unbiased legal advice very quickly then.

Thanks. They would be foolish to not seek that legal opinion (and not from a transgender lobby group). You might find they are not laughing at all when they get that opinion and you saved them from an issue they overlooked.

The EA says that positive action is Ok If it is for an under represented group - which is why white males cant use the EA to increase their representation via positive recruitment in an engineering firm, but possibly could in nursing. Or for the RSPB if they find their walks are male dominated compared to their membership profile (or they wanted to recruit more female members) then it’s ok to offer a women only walk to redress that balance

No she didn’t. She never said that a GRC was required to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, did she? They hardly mentioned the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, the conversation mainly revolved around the SC judgment on the protected characteristic of sex, no? I watched it all.

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

Well please do tell Lady Falkner this because is this is true she lied to the WEC!

I personally have no issue with “women and men who identify as women” social groups, I would just require that they are clearly labelled. “Women and trans women”, although I don’t use that term, would be fine.

Self IDing is entirely enough.