Lesbian Pride March – Saturday 5th July – Women Only (London)

You can have an event for people who share two or three or four characteristics of course. What you cannot do is have something where people only meet one of the two protected characteristics. So black AND disabled - fine. Black OR disabled - not fine.

Actually, I think if we’re talking about what the Equality Act allows here, the event could only be for lesbians or for bi women, but not both. Lesbians and bi women do not share the same protected characteristic in relation to sexual orientation.

In theory anyone can join this lesbian & female bisexual march/picnic as there is no ticketing or verification of the participants. Participation just depends on normal polite societal norms i.e. you don't stick your nose in where you aren't welcome. Why would anyone who isn't a member of the invited groups want to attend when it's made clear that they aren't welcome? The Equality Act 2010 doesn't come into it.

Where on earth does the Equality Act or the Supreme Court judgement say that an event/service/facility/whatever can't be for two protected characteristics?

I thought that the judgement simply clarified that something described as 'women only' is in fact mixed sex if it admits transwomen; and therefore that if women were disadvantaged by the mixed-sex provision they could in principle make a claim under the act for discrimination on the grounds of sex.

Of course you can hold events for people who display at least two protected characteristics. For example, an event uniquely for older same-sex-attracted people homes in on two protected characteristics - age and sexuality; and an event for older same-sex-attracted Christians homes in on three - age, sexuality and belief. Neither of those is remotely controversial or illegal.

Where on earth does the Equality Act or the Supreme Court judgement say that an event/service/facility/whatever can't be for two protected characteristics?

I thought that the judgement simply clarified that something described as 'women only' is in fact mixed sex if it admits transwomen; and therefore that if women were disadvantaged by the mixed-sex provision they could in principle make a claim under the act for discrimination on the grounds of sex.

Of course you can hold events for people who display at least two protected characteristics. For example, an event uniquely for older same-sex-attracted people homes in on two protected characteristics - age and sexuality; and an event for older same-sex-attracted Christians homes in on three - age, sexuality and belief. Neither of those is remotely controversial or illegal.

The point is that anyone can join the official march, including allies - it doesn’t exclude anyone

"what are you planning?"

Nothing. Just trying to establish if this event will be similar in nature to the KJK anti-trans hate rallies (as described by NZ media I believe).

If people are actually going to be using megaphones to screech hatred against trans people and anyone who supports them it would be (just a suggestion) more balanced if some LGBT supporters were there also to peacefully show there is also support for LGBT people. You know, free speech for everyone?

It's been quite the display of dominance and power.
(paraphrasing)

"What - who's organising an event for women without my permission?"
"My question hasn't been answered"
"There'll need to be a counter protest if women are meeting without permission"
"Are male lesbians invited?"
" Then I'll organise a counter protest"

The complete inability to respect that women have the right to organise without male permission. Incapable of reading women's words without issuing threats. Counter protest ffs.

This behaviour is indicative of individuals spiralling out of control.

This is a lesbian-led march for lesbians and bi women who want same-sex spaces without being told off for it. No one’s hassling anyone, we're simply organising something for ourselves, like everyone else does.

If you’re going to argue that a) L and B are two separate characteristics, and b) that there are so many as not to meet the under representation requirement, your mind’s going to be blown when you hear about the other march - three separate characterises which include far more of the population! Better call the rozzers quick!

@Namechangeforobviousreasons100

sorry, I think your interpretation is wrong

I assume you are seeing those definitions as exclusive, however that is not a correct reflection on life - someone who is Lesbian is likely to only ever be female to female attracted, where someone bisexual under that definition is generic (male or female) attracted to both sexes…

I can see therefore your argument that to include bisexual as a protected characteristic it should also include bisexual men - therefore this is not covered, but that is I think to misunderstand…

someone who is bisexual doesn’t have to be always attracted to both sexes, nor are they always attracted to both sexes in equal weighting, either way there is only one group of them who enjoy lesbian relationships - bi-sexual women…

so this has one protected characterisation which is that of lesbian:

• born a woman
• sexually attracted to women

and this includes lesbians with no attraction to anyone else, plus lesbians who have a bisexual element and are also attracted to men…

it can’t though include bisexual men as they have no lesbian attraction and never will

so one protected characteristic- lesbian

it really couldn’t be simpler!

Ah, thanks, I can see it’s s158. So if the Equality Act applies to this event, the organisers could argue that both cisgender lesbians and cisgender bi women are underrepresented at Pride (as two separate groups with two different protected characteristics) and it is proportionate to organise a separate event just for them. I don’t know if the evidence of underrepresentation is there to support that argument though.