is this legal

You could!
But that would be for females which includes gender reassigned trans men. Not trans women because they are not female.

Organisations don’t get to decide whether they are bound by the law or not, otherwise they’d all decide they’re not and discriminate away to their hearts content!

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.

I think they can lawfully offer a segregated walk to improve participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low. Quoting the EA itself.

As Susan of FWS - anywhere there is segregation by sex for employment, services or associations the EA is invoked. In this case the RSPB need to re-badge the event so it is clear who the walk is targetted at and if they want it trans inclusive they need to do that in a way which welcomes women and trans women but might discourage men without a feminne identity to stay away, without somehow discriminating against them. Total minefield! But when the Brighton sauna on the beach tried to have a clear advert they got a lot of abuse from TRAs even though they were simply trying to follow the law

You could have two separate walks, one for women and one for gender reassigned persons, but you can’t lump the two together and exclude men because that’s not allowed by the equality act.

Where does the Act say you cannot discriminate in favour of two separate protected characteristics?

Well you can, but only where it is logical.

A support service for Black women or for Black Lesbians.

It is about creating a service or "space" where people with the same characteristics feel save or supported because of their shared characteristics.

What I am not sure is if you could offer a service to Black Women and Black Lesbians.

As they've explained exactly what they mean openly and fully, they aren't lying. What they are doing bears no resemblance whatsoever to your analogy.

Although everyone is quoting the Supreme Court ruling but it only relates to the EA.

So if the organisers haven't invoked the EA presumably they can say who the walk is aimed at.

Unless and until somebody makes a complaint.

Not sure that (even though I support the idea) a women only walk would qualify as a proportionate means to meet a justifiable end. Unlike say toilets or women support services.

The problem is, this is all part of the minefield created by Stonewall etc., that has created the impression that identities etc., are as valid, real, as actual biological fact. And sadly many members of the public, not just entrenched TRAs think this is the norm.

And the fact that a charity is blithering on like this is no surprise.

So - and sorry if this has been already said - surely just a simple email to RSBP would alert them that what they have said doesn't match the Supreme court ruling.

It would be interesting to see what they say.

I suspect many people think it is just about toilers. Not about social events.

Then it's not a womans only event so they are lying to state it is.

If I gave you £5 and told you it was a £20 would that be ok?

You absolutely can have a walk which is inclusive of women and transwomen - but you can't advertise it as a "Women's Walk". You would need to call it something else. AND you wouldn't be able to stop any old regular male joining in too

158Positive action: general
(1)This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—
(a)persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic,
(b)persons who share a protected characteristic have needs that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it, or
(c)participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.

They have to share the same protected characteristic - not that they both have different ones

But you can equally have one walk for both categories. If there's no legitimate reason for favouring gender reassignment candidates, then there would equally be no legitimate reason for a women-one walk. It really isn't hard to work out what legitimate reason would be motivating the RSPB here.

That definitely is not what section 158(1) says.

I think it is because they are saying men can’t go (it’s for women) so they are making it discriminatory on the basis of the protected characteristic of sex in the equality act (which is allowed if the aim is reasonable eg. women sharing a walk without men taking up all the oxygen in the room). Except actually, some men can come along, as long as they think they are female, or “identify” as female.

So it claims to be single sex (use of “women” in the context of permitted discrimination) but at the same time saying it isn’t just for women, but for males who think they are women or want to join a women’s group for validation.

In general, discrimination is not legal. But exceptions in the equality act include on the grounds of sex. A group can be defined by any of the protected characteristics eg sex being one of them, that all the group
must share.

Equality Act 2010, Part 11, Ch2 158(1)

cryptide

”Where does the Act say you cannot discriminate in favour of two separate protected characteristics”

Akua Reindorf KC has clarified this.

Starts between 34-35 minutes in, but the entire session is good with Naomi Cunningham, Akua Reindorf, Ben Cooper and Sarah Vine.

Either way this is the transcript that I tidied up, although there could be typos.

This is the bit about associations and whether there can be an association with women and males who identify as female.

"But everybody has to have ALL the protected characteristics in question."

And then

"What you can’t have is a group for people with two separate [protected characteristics] …where some people have one protected characteristic and others have a different one".

"Because then let's say you have a group for lesbians or women and men who identify as women, trans women, it's not a… it doesn't satisfy the condition of being a single sex association. A single protected characteristic association for women because not everybody is a woman. It doesn't satisfy the condition for being um a single characteristic association for people who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment because not everybody has that protected characteristic ."

"So you can't have that kind of an association. So you can't have a so-called trans-inclusive association. I mean as Maya says, you can always have two associations that join up and do things together. There are ways around it. But fundamentally, what we have started to call sumptions law is wrong both for services and for associations. um "

"Of course, if it was possible to have a self ID service or association, For Women Scotland simply would not have won the case. Because this is what the Scottish government wanted to do. They wanted to have transidentified males in a quota for women."

I think I will listen to Akua Reindorf KC on this. She kind of has specific experience and relevance in getting the interpretation of the law clear. You know, being part of the EHRC and all.

And a walk just for those people would be fine.

What you seem to be missing here is that men are being discriminated against. The only group who could bring a discrimination claim in this case is a man because he is being treated differently to women and to men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment without a legitimate reason.

Please get up to date. The Supreme Court has made this quite clear. I think you might be confused.

But people proposing to go through, or in the process of going through, or who have gone through gender reassignment are listed as having protected characteristics.

@cryptide Have you read the Supreme Court judgment in the For Women Scotland Case? Or even any of the commentary around it?

Genuine question.

Where does the Act say you cannot discriminate in favour of two separate protected characteristics?

Transwomen are men
as stated by the Supreme Court
so its not a women's event

Non Binary has no legal meaning

Not if it is contrary to the law.

For those of us old enough to remember "no blacks, no dogs, no Irish"

Service providers CANNOT contradict the law
which is what the RSPB are doing

Because the description of the event clearly sets out who can attend. No-one booking can reasonably say they thought transwomen and non-binary people would be banned.

Well, yes, you can in effect, when you are describing the service that you offer. You simply have to demonstrate that there's a proportionate reason for the decisions you have taken.