RSPB again

It's only when someone complains that it matters. I'd like to hear from someone more knowledgeable than me on the EA2010 and how it applies, to be honest.

Maybe if they are also offering a men's only option too.

I've seen our local wildlife trust do this also so I'm sure it can't be illegal.

What's the point of calling it a women's walk fgs. Why can't they just call it a nature walk and not make it gendered.

I'm not sure that's correct, from a legal point of view. A women's only running group would probably fall under the rules for assocations; a single sex assocation is lawful.

The RSPB is offering a service to the public (I checked the website and this is open to the public); single sex public services are unlawful except in very tightly prescribed circumstances. I don't think this meets those circumstances.

It's perfectly legitimate to organise a women's only birdwatching walk, just as there are women's only running and walking groups (or any other women's only activity!).

I can see the benefits, having spent some time birdwatching myself, it's a male dominated hobby and can be intimidating.

No point if they are going to include fellas though. We've been looking for a reason to cancel our membership, maybe the time is now right.

DH and I have become interested in birds and I was thinking about becoming a member of the RSPB. Not any more. If one of our oldest wildlife charities is now confused about biological sex, I'll look for one that isn't.

But it's not about a bunch of us organising a bird walk for whoever we want, it's about the RSPB doing illegal stuff by naming something 'women only' and letting some but not all men join in.
That's against the EA2010.
In my universe, sometimes things are a matter of principle and not just 'can't be bothered to do anything about it', but that's just me.
Well actually it's not just me, I think that's the attitude of a lot of posters here - some stuff matters.

Are we the right type of birds? Or do they want male birds in female plumage? Or a cockerel with his cock chopped off? (An Erel?) What about hens? Can ex laying hens go on. the walk, or just cocks who wanna be hens and have never actually sat on an egg?

Additionally, women have the "right" not to be a member at a gym with unlawfully-mixed sex changing, the "right" not to work at a workplace which has unlawful mixed sex toilet and changing facilities, and the "right" not to compete in sports competitions where men are included in the women's events. Also, the right not to go to a women's prison where men are also kept. (Ok, no wait, women don't actually have that right. Women have to go to prisons where men are.)

What with all these rights we have, who needs more?

Glad that's amused you, guessing it's easily done.

I didn't, no, it was on trending which is where I tend to see threads

I dont think it has, I'm just so bored of clicking on threads on here that sound like they are about on e thing and finding that it's yet another person having a shitfit about trans people.

The point has soared over your head as gracefully as an eagle @FlayOtters

oh god give it a rest. or, better yet, organise your own bird walk and invite whoever you want. I honestly can't see how this affects you in any way. Don't want to go on the walk with that group of people? don't go. sorted.

How on earth can a man OR a woman who flagrantly denies what sex they are be more comfortable in a woman-only space?

A man can never legitimately be in a woman-only space, as his very presence nullifies that; and even if a woman claims to be non-binary - i.e. stating loudly and clearly (albeit non-factually) "I am NOT a woman" , why on earth would she actively seek out a space that she has determinedly self-identified out of?

Just another example of people claiming to be persecuted victims unless they're allowed to take other people's rights away from them to add on to their own already equivalent rights. Literally declaring that one of two people given half a cake is being treated unfairly, and the only way to make it 'fair' to them is to take half of the other person's half and make theirs up to three quarters, whilst insisting that the person who now only has a quarter of the cake IS still being treated 'fairly'.

Quoting myself - I attached a timely cartoon but it hasn’t posted. I guess it was deemed unacceptable 🤨

They would try to argue that a mixed-sex bird walk service would be "less effective" than a single sex one, that a single sex service is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Then they would be correct in their understanding that a lot of thoroughly disreputable and disgraceful organisations and companies will routinely tell blatant lies in order to deceive supporters and customers into coming to them, under false pretences.

Not that different in principle from the people in scam call centres who have found that claiming to be from their bank will be far more effective in getting money from vulnerable people than it would if they were honest and said "Good day, I am a scammer and I want to take your life savings from you."

Why is a mixed sex birdwalk less effective than a single sex one? How do the birds know which is which, and why are they less visible if men are present?

They offer men-only walks too at some reserves.

They also offer events open to children aged eg 8-12. Do you think adults should be able to crash those too?

It’s frustrating. I complained to RSPB about a year ago about this. They said they were ‘waiting for updated guidance from the EHRC’ before deciding what to do. I said they didn’t have to wait, that the law was clear already, but they didn’t care.

I almost cancelled my membership over it, and we have been members for years.

I disagree, I think it could be argued to be proportionate, assuming it is not the only walks they offer.

This chimes in with my observations. DH is an avid birder and occasionally I’ve accompanied him on a day out to see a Rare one that has turned up, if it happens to be somewhere interesting. Inevitably the birdwatchers we see there are overwhelmingly nerdy white men in the age range of 45-75. Many of them seem to be a bit socially awkward and take a mild acknowledgement to be an invitation to talk enthusiastically at you, and can be a bit overbearing. Even DH has observed that in some hides some men will pick a spot right next to him instead one of the other free benches. Probably because it has the best angle to see the bird, but DH doesn’t like his personal space being invaded so can well understand why some women would find that intimidating.

i see plenty of women volunteers at the big RSPB centres, but lone birding seems to be a male preserve. So 10/10 for the idea, 0/10 for the execution. It would only take one male participant to dominate the whole group and negate the whole point of the female single sex activity.

Re: the RSPB's reasons for having a 'women only' walk in the first place...

I'm a birdwatcher. Birdwatching is quite male-dominated. I do remember reading an article somewhere (maybe even the RSPB's own magazine??) about women birdwatchers feeling unsafe walking around nature reserves on their own. So I can sort of see why a woman might want to join a group walk

Whether said group walk needs to be woman only is another question. And, of course, if they allow men to join then it isn't