is this legal

But the advertisement makes it clear what it means by this. They are not breaking any law.

It does seem like that would be the best way. Then any female people who are non binary can still go, but all men stay out. Wether they do that or just remove the ‘women only’ bit hopefully they will use the complaints they get as a learning experience. I think it’s most likely that they’ve tried to be inclusive and just missed the mark rather than intending to cause harm or act illegally.

They are breaking the law because it is advertised as Women only and lead by a woman volunteer. And it is not because they then state that men can turn up.

To comply with the law they need to change the description of the event to Mixed Sex or not allow men to attend. Simple.

I think a women only walk is a great idea. I know older widowed women who would be much more likely to go on this event. I think it encourages more involvement from solo women.
It’s a great idea of the RSPB, they just have to make it actually women only.

Its the woman only bit that's the problem.
Had they organised a walk open to all I don't think anyone would care.
Its the fact they use "woman only" as the carrot then later slip in that actually males but only certain males are also welcome.

The harm is in calling it 'women only', you're right. But that is harm. Without definite clarity about the term, the legal protections of all women, homosexual people and of women with trans identities are unworkable and lost, and that's pretty disastrous.

It's very easy to go awww bless what's the harm without seeing why this is important in the bigger picture. Change calling it women only, and it's fine.

Not sure if it is or not. I think removing the women only bit makes sense. But the rest of it isn’t really harming anyone, there are plenty of great opportunities for men to do what they want in this life. I can’t see many being too harmed by not being allowed to attend this type of walk. They are just a charity trying to engage people in wildlife at the end of the day, we don’t need to tear their plans apart.

It discriminates against men without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment without a legitimate or proportionate reason so yes, it is discrimination under the equality act.

Worth thinking as well - the judgment confirmed, if something was regarded as important enough to make single sex, as opposed to open to all, it was for a proportionate, legitimate reason. No one needs explanation on why some events may be women only.

If advertised as that, and intended as that, then it does have to be women only. Otherwise the purpose of the group and its benefits becomes unjustifiable. Either it's single sex (and important enough to be so) or it isn't.

Fair enough, i agree it’s as good a place as any. I wasn’t trying to be difficult by suggesting a potential way to get it moved. Based on your comments and questions about posting on the feminism board I thought you wanted it there, was trying to help with that one.

The OP later clarified that posting in chat was actually a good thing as maybe there would be a wider audience.

On reflection it seems it could be illegal given the points others have made which is that some males are excluded but not all so isn't that discrimination?

It can either be ‘women only’ OR ‘women and some men’. It cannot be both. So they need to remove the ‘women only’, because they don’t intend it to be ‘women only’.

They may need to justify why it’s only some men.

Purely because OP was quite keen to have it on the feminism board board, I was aiming to be helpful to her, not sure why you’ve taken issue with OPs want now as well as everything I say. The whole thread is about whether or not it’s illegal - glad you agree it’s not illegal.

Of course they haven't been 'banned for existing'.

By law, (which is what it's always been, the supreme court just confirmed it) if you want to use the legal sex discrimination of saying something is women only, or men only, you can, and exclude all who do not belong to that group. But that means that it is only that group, and you cannot then start permitting some members of the opposite sex in and not others without losing your legal protection. In this case, you cannot exclude some men and not others, it's discrimination.

When you (general you) start messing with this, you take away the boundaries that permit women to have women only refuges (obviously alongside lots of nice accessible options for all men), and women only changing rooms (obviously alongside lots of nice accessible options for men, it's ok, no one wants men to suffer), and women only rape crisis services (obvs men too, they won't suffer by women having accessible provision), and women only HCPs and strip searches and other things. You can't have it all ways. The term 'women only' has to mean what it says. And otherwise women are excluded (and banned for existing, as they have been when they cannot access mixed sex services being called 'womens'). This is inclusion: groups meaning what they say, and services being able to exist along side so that everyone has access equally.

There is nothing to stop anyone announcing it's an activity likely to be of interest to men and vegans and spot welders and nail bar professionals, it's fine. But you can't then invoke any legal right to exclude anyone, and you lay yourself open to legal action. In this case, non trans men who could claim discrimination as some men can do this but they can't, and possibly women who can claim for lack of actual sex based provision when they can't access a mixed sex group labelled for women.

I think you have to question if it is proportionate to exclude a group based on a PC, ie is it reasonable to exclude men from this group. If it is, ie, are single women more likely to go on the walk if there were no men, survivors of domestic violence, religious backgrounds etc, then why are some men included?
If you want to exclude normal men, you have to state why, and I can’t think of a reason why you would exclude normal men, that would make trans identifying men acceptable.

It's discrimination - you can't have a women-only walk which includes some men but not others.

They should just remove the women-only bit, then it's fine.

The (provisional) guidance covers this - you can have a combination of 2 protected characteristics - eg. woman and lesbian - ie an AND situation - if you are a woman AND lesbian then that's legal, but you can't have an OR situation - ie you could not have muslims OR disabled people (but you can have a group for muslim disabled people)

Of course it has to comply with equality law.

They are calling it a women only safe space
but letting some men in.

That is misleading and discriminatory against other men.

Either make it women only
or make it mixed

on my basic understanding it’s not illegal, but if a male who identifies as a male wanted to join and they were refused, then it would be discrimination to exclude him just because he’s a man. This is because they can’t rely on the single sex exemption because it is not a single sex event (as biological males identifying as women can attend and they aren’t women based on the Supreme Court judgement). Therefore if men who identify as men are excluded then I think that would be unlawful sex discrimination - that’s just my basic understanding though and accept I could be wrong .

I never said its illegal I said it was a contradiction.

Chat is as good as place as any to chat about things, I don't believe there is a list of acceptable chat topics attached so I don't see why it should be moved.

That sounds like a rational thing to do. I disagree it’s illegal, but I also wouldn’t have posted if this was in the feminism board. Hopefully OP is able to report the thread and get this moved to the right place if they allow that for new members.

Does a walk around an RSPB nature reserve need to comply with the Equality Act definition of a woman though?

Does it really matter if woman and people who identify as woman go on the walk. They aren't advertising the walk as a single sex safe space so I can't see why they are legally required to comply with the Equality Act definition of a woman.

Here you go @javyd

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5355496-who-wants-to-write-a-complaint-letter