is this legal

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

I agree - I’ve been a member of the RSPB for almost 50 years and would welcome more “women only” events as men can sometimes dominate spaces at reserves etc. I hate walking into a viewing hide and finding I’m the only woman there - it just feels a little unsafe.

You are right that near the bottom of the listing they have said it is an inclusive event for anyone who identifies as a woman. But that is not clear in the title or in the first few lines. So it is a bit misleading because most people would expect the basics to be covered by the headlines.

Under the Equality Act it is only legal to have a segregated group if everyone shares the same protected one or two or maybe three protected characteristics and wants to be in the group. You can't force people to be segregated as that would be discrimination.

So for an event advertised/headlined as "women only" that could be trans-inclusive by having women and trans men(bio women) attend = lawful

But if the RSPB want to include transwomen (bio males) then they can't call it a "Nature Walks for Women" event because as soon as one male is included, it is a mixed sex group. So by allowing TW and refusing other males, they would be discriminating against the males who don't have a feminine gender identity = unlawful

They would also run into trouble if they had a "Trans Women Gender Reassignment Walk" and allowed self-ID transwomen to join because for that to be lawful, the participants would all have to be male sex with a GRC (and self ID people don't have a GRC). And also illegal if bio women (including Trans Men) joined because they are neither male nor GRC holders.

It is not a criminal offence, but it is a breach of the Equality Act and members of the RSPB will be able to make a complaint about this walk. And potentially escalate to a civil case (although I have no idea what tribunal would cover this).

Any clearer @ToKittyornottoKitty ?

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"?

Again, very important to think wider than 'just a walk'.

If single sex does not always have a definite, fixed meaning that cannot be blurred, it ends the legal protections of women, of homosexual people and of women with trans identities for pregnancy and maternity. That is the consequence of thoughtless 'aww bless it does not harm in this one thing', it's a lot bigger than just one thing.

All organisations need to shift to understand the law in order for the protections within the law to work (including for trans people) and that means being careful with language.

Otherwise 'it's just a walk' equals no women's rape crisis service and men strip searching women if they identify a particular way today. (I am not joking.) To protect those groups' equalities there cannot be well meaning fluffing of this, it's too important and the cost too large. Women and homosexual people are not able to have groups of their own and set boundaries at all without this law being clear.

That's a misunderstanding of what 'legitimate' and 'proportionate' mean in terms of the act.

It doesn't mean 'can you justify why this one particular activity is really important?'. It isn't case by case. It simply means, has a decision been made that this activity should be offered as a single sex one rather than open to all as would usually be the case.

If the decision has been made that yes, it is needed or beneficial as a single sex activity to meet the needs of that sex, then it IS legitimate to exclude the opposite sex, and it is proportionate to do so. And that means you are legally able to discriminate by excluding those not of that sex.

If you want to keep that legal protection of being allowed to exclude the opposite sex, then they all have to be excluded. If you permit any, you have to permit them all, or your discrimination ceases to be legal.

We’re not tearing their plans apart, we are pointing out that they are acting unlawfully.

Women have had enough.

I for one will be calling it out every time I see it.

Time for organisations to get the memo that woman = adult human female.

Do you think bird watchers are less inclined to misogynistic behaviour than other men? There’s a reason women enjoy women only activities.

Because some women want to walk around without mansplaining ?

Because some women want to walk around without feeling like its a singles club ?

Because some women are scared of men and want a break ?

Can you really not imagine why some women will not attend an event that is also attended by men?

Got to admit I am at a bit of a loss to understand why a 2 hour bird spotting walk has to be classed as single sex (e.g. women only) to begin with. So much easier if they just said adults only & no dogs.

They are breaking the law though. If it is advertised as women-only it cannot include any men. The Supreme Court decision is very clear on this. Giving a clear description of the men you want to include, whether that be "men who identify as women" or "men with blue eyes" makes absolutely no difference.

Posters are giving you the correct information. They cannot say this is a 'women's' event and allow a specific group of male person to attend without allowing ALL male people to attend. But then they could not describe it in any case as a 'women's' event if any male person can attend.

Only female people under the EA 2010. It doesn't matter at all what they say in their promotional material or terms and conditions. This is the law that they must abide by.

The OP has asked on CHAT (where this thread was started,) for someone to let everyone on here know that she can't post on this thread anymore. It's been moved to this board, and as she's not been a member of MN for more than 90 days, she can't post on it now it's been moved. (Well not for about 90 days!)

Here's her thread on Chat letting people know she isn't ignoring them, she just can't post now the thread has been moved here..

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/chat/5355529-rspb-post-moved-and-now-i-cant-comment-on-it?reply=145023273

Luckily for us, Akua Reindorf KC has clarified a point that has been repeatedly doubled down on within this thread.

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.

That’s not how Law works.

It would be like a Rape crisis centre saying it is a women only session, then saying anyone can turn up. The Supreme Court ruled that is not lawful. “Women only” means those born female, you cannot then include men.

Under the latest clarification of the EA 2010 by the Supreme Court, because they have said it is for women, any male person who was excluded could take them to court and would win. You might have missed this.

Them just explaining this on the website is meaningless to the law. They would currently lose a case brought to court by a male who was excluded because they have stated that some male people are welcome. if they welcome some male people, they have to allow all male people. Not just those with particular gender identity beliefs.

What possible legitimate or proportionate reason could they have for excluding men without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and including those with that protected characteristic? If it was a walk for just trans people then that would be legal, or just women, that would be legal, but the two categories have no common protected characteristic so it is discriminatory to those who are excluded.

It is clearly not a women only event. They are trying to be inclusive but have not reached full speed on the SC clarification. I suppose their response might be that they like many other organisations etc. are awaiting EHRC final guidance.

It's still not a women only event as advertised though. I wouldn't go myself on that basis.

On the face of it this event is for women and for men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Organisations and spaces are not allowed to do this. It's an AND test, not an OR test.

So you can have an event for people who women AND are Muslim, but you cannot have an event for people who are either women OR Muslim.

Whether something is lawful or not is not dependent on whether the advert is clear enough. Something can be extremely clear but still be unlawfully discriminating- here some men are excluded on the basis of their sex and it’s my understanding that this is unlawful. It would only be lawful if they could rely on the single sex exemption meaning all men are excluded and they can’t here as some men (provided they identify as women) are permitted to go

Just because they are describe the event with a degree of accuracy does not make it lawful . It is unlawful under the Equality Act.

That's not how it works.

Its contradicting & misleading.
Why say it's a womans only event when it isn't?

Yes, they are. You can't make up your own meanings while trying to use legal discrimination.

How do you know they don't have a legitimate or proportionate reason?