Men in women’s groups.

Breaking equality law I suspect - all men or none

strange how some people react isn’t it ?

All I said was that it wouldnt bother me. Making friends as adults can be hard and I can imagine making friends when you are trans would be 100x more difficult as you will always come across people who wouldn't accept you simply based on that, no matter how funny or nice or friendly you were. So the way I look at life is I would accept them into the group as I'd understand they were trying to make female friends and wishing to hang out in that environment and only judge them on how they behave. If they were an arsehole I'd wish they had never joined, but that would be the same if they were biologically female.

I’m in a Fb book group that’s predominantly women as it’s mostly romance, we welcome men in if they read what we read. It’s Fb, why wouldn’t they just have let those first men in if they’ve the same interests

You can't use "being upset" as a bench mark. How upset counts? What if you are unable to say you are upset? What if a small group is welcoming but the others are quiet on the subject? This is why you have rules. And the Supreme Court judgement is that you either make it single sex or for everyone but you can't include a trans identifying man and exclude other men.

3 weeks after 10 years 🤣 what a strong friendship group that was!

This.

As they've welcomed him so enthusiastically I suspect that would immediately lead to calls of "but Bertha isn't a man!" and OP getting asked to leave.

What a weird post. Obviously transmen are women so would be welcomed.

I think in this situation, where maybe you aren’t really fired up, you could raise it as a point of discussion. Could the group be in trouble for discriminating against one man, but not another?
At least then the group don’t sit there thinking everyone is going along with it with open arms.

I absolutely support “live and let live” approach and that’s why I don’t mind if men have “men only “ groups on FB. I don’t ask to join them.
I think for fairness you have to stick to “women only” from EA point of view. Ime many women who do mind and for whom it matters often are shy and quiet and they won’t be comfortable to raise this issue openly. These women have chosen your “women only” FB group for a reason, so don’t let them down now but changing goalposts.
And the vote to let in a man doesn’t make sense for me if you are women only group.

OP says they have been welcomed with open arms 🤷‍♀️ OP says herself she believes in live and let live but just isnt sure about how fair it was that a man was refused. She hasnt mentioned anyone being upset.

So you think that a man's feelings matter more than anyone else's - the women's group now exists primarily to offer him female friendship opportunities? What about the women who want a women only group? This matters to many women and it is legal. What isn't legal is to say you are a women only group then decide to let some men in and not others.

I think you should ask a number of men friends you know to apply to join. If they are rejected, it puts the group at odds with the Supreme Court judgment. I'm not suggesting that anyone should launch a legal challenge but it would start a debate within the group, hopefully peak a few women and force the trans allies to defend their illogical and illegal position.

I wonder what they'd do if a trans man asked to join 🤔

If there are fewer than 25 of you, you can pick and choose who joins, without falling foul of sex-discrimination rules.

I think it will depend on how many are in the group. Under 25 people is, if I remember correctly, considered a friendship group and the EA is not applicable.

Either way OP, if others didn’t like the decision, you could start your own group and only recruit new members through word of mouth with someone vouching that the new member is known to them and female.

OP, I suspect that since it is an informal group and you surely can't be bothered with the hassle of taking legal action, you could try making your case (which is correct) but be prepared that it might cause a big argument and ruin the group anyway.

It's a real shame and it shouldn't happen, but realistically I'm not sure what you can do apart from make the argument and create a separate group with the women who agree with you.

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."

Hope that might be helpful if you need it OP.

The FWS Supreme Court judgment we've just had ruled that certificated sex is not relevant to the Equality Act. The EA2010's law about single-sex organisations is based on real sex.

Why wouldnt it bother you unduly? Are you not that bothered about the friendships? If there are one or two that go that you do like and wish to remain friends with then perhaps you can meet up just with them.

For the purposes of the Equality Act (which is what allows you to have single-sex groups in the first place), yes, they are still legally men. That is what the FWS case was about.

Are they still legally (I’m not talking biologically, I know the answer to that one!) male if they have applied for and got their new birth certificate that they can get when they transition?

This. ^^

This makes as much sense as saying you wouldn't have a problem with the local chess club starting to play backgammon as well because you don't even like chess.

Like what is your point?

If a group is stated as women only, then it becomes mixed sex if a man is allowed to join, it no longer is women only. The group has voted to remain single sex, to then admit a trans identified man goes against the democratic mandate of the group