Page 2 | Female only hostel in London…except it isn’t.

SidewaysOtter · 2026-03-14T14:29:00+00:00

[[https://www.hostelle.co.uk https://www.hostelle.co.uk]] Hostelle appears to be a woman-only hostel in London, offering cheap accomodation. Being a hostel, this means dorm rooms as shown in their own pictures. Sounds great, right? Perhaps you’re a woman travelling alone and you’re unfamiliar with London, so a woman only space would be a great idea. Except, for reasons of inclusivity, they include transwomen. So you rock up to your room in and find you’re sharing with a male. And you can’t ask for single sex accomodation as the owners have made it clear they include TIMs in their definition of “woman”. Their policies include the right to deny service for noncompliance, which includes “making a guest feel uncomfortable”. So you’d be between a rock and a very hard place: sleep in a room with a man, or find somewhere else in an unfamiliar city, perhaps late at night. It’s almost like the Supreme Court ruling never happened, isn’t it? [hmm]

Needspaceforlego · 14/03/2026 23:46

tutugogo · 14/03/2026 23:09

As a private business they can choose to include trans women if they want, law doesn’t apply. What they must do though is be clear about their policy. Ideally in a hostel thru can accommodate both groups separately but then they can accommodate men too!

Well no they can't, by including trans gender males they are effectively including some males but excluding others. That is illegal.

That's the thing that has made Girl Guides and Womens Institute change their tune. They can't include some men but discriminate against others.

I'm also curious about their Public Liability insurance who would want to assess the risk of a bloke in a pink t-shirt being guaranteed to end up in a room with women.

tutugogo · 14/03/2026 23:09

As a private business they can choose to include trans women if they want, law doesn’t apply. What they must do though is be clear about their policy. Ideally in a hostel thru can accommodate both groups separately but then they can accommodate men too!

ScrollingLeaves · 14/03/2026 23:02

Could it be reported to the advertising standards agency?

Lovelyview · 14/03/2026 23:00

MyAmpleSheep · 14/03/2026 18:36

providing single-sex services is lawful if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim,

That’s one condition that must be satisfied, but it’s not the only condition. On its own that is not enough.

See EA2010 Schedule 3 section 27:

(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

As an exercise, have a look through and see which conditions in sub-paras (2) to (7) you think they meet.

We’re not talking about services provided to both men and women separately. An analogue of this would be toilets provided for women, but not for men. There’s a reason toilets are provided equally for both sexes. To provide toilets only for women would probably not be lawful.

such as privacy, decency, or safety.

Those words don’t appear in the act. They might provide a reason to separate men from women and provide separate hostels; I don’t think they justify not providing separate facilities for men at all.

Edited

Show quote history

The analogue isn't providing toilets for women and not for men. It is fine to provide a service such as a hostel just for women or just for men - for example for religious reasons or because women feel safer in single sex accommodation. You don't have to provide the same facility to the opposite sex which is what you seemed to be saying.

Theonethatmakesmelaugh · 14/03/2026 22:54

IwantToRetire · 14/03/2026 22:46

Surely the issue here is that the providers dont want to provide women only as per the EA SSE.

That's the issue.

Not whether they could by quoting the relevant sections of the EA.

What power do any of us have to say to those setting up and running such a hostel to tell them please dont use the word "women".

Show quote history

Sure, but there was a discussion on this thread about the interpretation of Schedule 3 when the relevent law is in Schedule 23 and I just wanted to put people straight on what the law says.

Personally I think Schedule 23 makes it clear that single sex communal accommodation is lawful and FWS confirmed this means biological sex. This hostel can provide mixed sex communal accommodation if it wants but they are playing a very risky game indeed pretending it's single sex when it's not.

IwantToRetire · 14/03/2026 22:46

Theonethatmakesmelaugh · 14/03/2026 22:43

The relevant part of the Equality Act 2010 is paragraph 3 of Schedule 23 which specifically deals with communal accommodation.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/23/crossheading/communal-accommodation

Show quote history

Surely the issue here is that the providers dont want to provide women only as per the EA SSE.

That's the issue.

Not whether they could by quoting the relevant sections of the EA.

What power do any of us have to say to those setting up and running such a hostel to tell them please dont use the word "women".

Theonethatmakesmelaugh · 14/03/2026 22:43

MyAmpleSheep · 14/03/2026 18:36

providing single-sex services is lawful if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim,

That’s one condition that must be satisfied, but it’s not the only condition. On its own that is not enough.

See EA2010 Schedule 3 section 27:

(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

As an exercise, have a look through and see which conditions in sub-paras (2) to (7) you think they meet.

We’re not talking about services provided to both men and women separately. An analogue of this would be toilets provided for women, but not for men. There’s a reason toilets are provided equally for both sexes. To provide toilets only for women would probably not be lawful.

such as privacy, decency, or safety.

Those words don’t appear in the act. They might provide a reason to separate men from women and provide separate hostels; I don’t think they justify not providing separate facilities for men at all.

Edited

Show quote history

The relevant part of the Equality Act 2010 is paragraph 3 of Schedule 23 which specifically deals with communal accommodation.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/23/crossheading/communal-accommodation

IwantToRetire · 14/03/2026 21:59

This was discussed on a thread about a year ago. And I think they didn't respond to enquiries.

But it comes down to in using the word woman are they being misleading.

The supreme court ruling clarified that within the EA sex = biology.

So a hostel wouldn't be covered by the EA unless within it description it for instance specifically says it has a women only policy so that women will feel safe from men / male violence.

I am not sure there has been a court case about this or something similar, but would presumably say the use of the word women is just descriptive of a type of place, they same as if you said it was a pink, or feminine hostel.

JanesLittleGirl · 14/03/2026 21:48

@MyAmpleSheep

Pretty sure that:

(6)The condition is that—

(a)the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and

(b)the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

Would apply.

SirChenjins · 14/03/2026 21:32

FallenSloppyDead4 · 14/03/2026 20:28

What about trans-identified females? Poor sods never get a mention. Can they stay there or not?

That's because they're not the special male type of female. All hail the boys.

tobee · 14/03/2026 20:30

I really hope they go out of business as soon as possible but better still they should be legally sanctioned/taken to court to highlight what these flagrant law breakers are getting up to.

All this pissing all over the supreme court judgement by tras and dick panderers is getting really, really boring. And it’s time the law got serious at coming down it.

FallenSloppyDead4 · 14/03/2026 20:28

What about trans-identified females? Poor sods never get a mention. Can they stay there or not?

BackToLurk · 14/03/2026 20:26

I might email them and ask if it’s ok for me to stay. Tell them I’m non-binary and use a gender neutral name. I fancy being Chris.

Needspaceforlego · 14/03/2026 20:13

ThisKhakiCrow · 14/03/2026 16:13

I wonder when the first sexual assault will occur 🤷‍♀️

It's verging on luring women into to be attacked isn't it.

Scary, very scary.

MyAmpleSheep · 14/03/2026 19:27

theilltemperedamateur · 14/03/2026 19:22

The explanatory notes suggest these as examples:

738.These exceptions would allow:

a cervical cancer screening service to be provided to women only, as only women need the service;
a fathers’ support group to be set up by a private nursery as there is insufficient attendance by men at the parents’ group;
a domestic violence support unit to be set up by a local authority for women only but there is no men-only unit because of insufficient demand;
separate male and female wards to be provided in a hospital;
separate male and female changing rooms to be provided in a department store;
a massage service to be provided to women only by a female massage therapist with her own business operating in her clients’ homes because she would feel uncomfortable massaging men in that environment.

Show quote history

I’ve read the notes. (6) is the most persuasive as @theilltemperedamateur suggests, but in the notes there is no example given that actually matches that condition.

I agree with this though:

And, this SSE does not apply anyway, because the hostel in the OP is mixed-sex.

Legitimate aim - to provide safer accommodation for women away from the possibility of being sexually assaulted by men.

Nobody denies that a women only hostel is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. It clearly is. However that alone is insufficient to justify the inherent discrimination.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 14/03/2026 19:26

I've no problem with them providing mixed sex accommodation

I have a problem with them pretending it's single sex

RedToothBrush · 14/03/2026 19:26

MyAmpleSheep · 14/03/2026 18:36

providing single-sex services is lawful if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim,

That’s one condition that must be satisfied, but it’s not the only condition. On its own that is not enough.

See EA2010 Schedule 3 section 27:

(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

As an exercise, have a look through and see which conditions in sub-paras (2) to (7) you think they meet.

We’re not talking about services provided to both men and women separately. An analogue of this would be toilets provided for women, but not for men. There’s a reason toilets are provided equally for both sexes. To provide toilets only for women would probably not be lawful.

such as privacy, decency, or safety.

Those words don’t appear in the act. They might provide a reason to separate men from women and provide separate hostels; I don’t think they justify not providing separate facilities for men at all.

Edited

Show quote history

Legitimate aim - to provide safer accommodation for women away from the possibility of being sexually assaulted by men.

I present exhibit A as a justification as to why single sex hostel accommodation for women might be appropriate and there would be a legitimate aim to prevent all entry to men.

https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2026-03-09/travelodge-faces-pressure-over-security-breach-after-guest-sexually-assaulted

theilltemperedamateur · 14/03/2026 19:22

MyAmpleSheep · 14/03/2026 19:05

I think at least one of the above would apply

OK then - which one?

Show quote history

The explanatory notes suggest these as examples:

738.These exceptions would allow:

a cervical cancer screening service to be provided to women only, as only women need the service;
a fathers’ support group to be set up by a private nursery as there is insufficient attendance by men at the parents’ group;
a domestic violence support unit to be set up by a local authority for women only but there is no men-only unit because of insufficient demand;
separate male and female wards to be provided in a hospital;
separate male and female changing rooms to be provided in a department store;
a massage service to be provided to women only by a female massage therapist with her own business operating in her clients’ homes because she would feel uncomfortable massaging men in that environment.

theilltemperedamateur · 14/03/2026 19:10

MyAmpleSheep · 14/03/2026 19:05

I think at least one of the above would apply

OK then - which one?

Show quote history

PP already suggested: (a)the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

But, in any case, women-only hostels have always been accepted in practice. And, this SSE does not apply anyway, because the hostel in the OP is mixed-sex.

MyAmpleSheep · 14/03/2026 19:05

theilltemperedamateur · 14/03/2026 19:04

27(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.
(3)The condition is that—
(a)the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.
(4)The condition is that—
(a)a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.
(5)The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)a hospital, or
(b)another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.
(6)The condition is that—
(a)the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.
(7)The condition is that—
(a)there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.
(8)This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

I think at least one of the above would apply.

The problem is that if the hostel is not single-sex, the above exemption does not apply at all. The situation must be analysed from scratch to determine whether there is any less favourable treatment of people sharing a protected characteristic. Mixed sex provision can be indirect sex-discrimination against women (Darlington). 'Trans-inclusive' provision can be direct discrimination against men, depending on the facts (GLP v EHRC).

I think at least one of the above would apply

OK then - which one?

MyAmpleSheep · 14/03/2026 19:04

KitWyn · 14/03/2026 18:58

There are many, many hostels in London that will happily accommodate men.

It's analogous to domestic violence refuges in the UK. A women-only refuge can legally turn away all men (and teenage boys). The refuge should, however, provide details of nearby alternatives that will accept males if needed.

So Hostelle would just need a sensible written policy of how to handle phone/email/in person enquiries from male people. And what to do if someone obviously male books, turns up, and tries to check in.

Politely and firmly providing them with a list of names, phone numbers and addresses of those nearby would be adequate.

If only we had an EHRC Code of Practice to help with this.

Show quote history

Because another service provider will accommodate men doesn’t excuse otherwise unlawful discrimination by this one. (That should be obvious: “we don’t serve black people, but the place down the road does, just go there.” won’t work).

Refuges can argue that the extent to which men need a refuge from domestic violence is insufficient to make it practicable to provide a service for men. That would be a defence, under schedule 3 section 27(4). [Oh - and probably 5(b) too - persons requiring special care or attention].

I don’t think anyone could reasonably argue that not enough men need hostels to make it practicable to provide one, so that defence won’t wash here.

theilltemperedamateur · 14/03/2026 19:04

27(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.
(3)The condition is that—
(a)the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.
(4)The condition is that—
(a)a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.
(5)The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)a hospital, or
(b)another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.
(6)The condition is that—
(a)the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.
(7)The condition is that—
(a)there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.
(8)This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

I think at least one of the above would apply.

The problem is that if the hostel is not single-sex, the above exemption does not apply at all. The situation must be analysed from scratch to determine whether there is any less favourable treatment of people sharing a protected characteristic. Mixed sex provision can be indirect sex-discrimination against women (Darlington). 'Trans-inclusive' provision can be direct discrimination against men, depending on the facts (GLP v EHRC).

tropicaltrance · 14/03/2026 19:01

MyAmpleSheep · 14/03/2026 18:36

providing single-sex services is lawful if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim,

That’s one condition that must be satisfied, but it’s not the only condition. On its own that is not enough.

See EA2010 Schedule 3 section 27:

(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

As an exercise, have a look through and see which conditions in sub-paras (2) to (7) you think they meet.

We’re not talking about services provided to both men and women separately. An analogue of this would be toilets provided for women, but not for men. There’s a reason toilets are provided equally for both sexes. To provide toilets only for women would probably not be lawful.

such as privacy, decency, or safety.

Those words don’t appear in the act. They might provide a reason to separate men from women and provide separate hostels; I don’t think they justify not providing separate facilities for men at all.

Edited

Show quote history

(6)The condition is that—

(a)the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and

(b)the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

KitWyn · 14/03/2026 18:58

MyAmpleSheep · 14/03/2026 18:36

providing single-sex services is lawful if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim,

That’s one condition that must be satisfied, but it’s not the only condition. On its own that is not enough.

See EA2010 Schedule 3 section 27:

(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

As an exercise, have a look through and see which conditions in sub-paras (2) to (7) you think they meet.

We’re not talking about services provided to both men and women separately. An analogue of this would be toilets provided for women, but not for men. There’s a reason toilets are provided equally for both sexes. To provide toilets only for women would probably not be lawful.

such as privacy, decency, or safety.

Those words don’t appear in the act. They might provide a reason to separate men from women and provide separate hostels; I don’t think they justify not providing separate facilities for men at all.

Edited

Show quote history

There are many, many hostels in London that will happily accommodate men.

It's analogous to domestic violence refuges in the UK. A women-only refuge can legally turn away all men (and teenage boys). The refuge should, however, provide details of nearby alternatives that will accept males if needed.

So Hostelle would just need a sensible written policy of how to handle phone/email/in person enquiries from male people. And what to do if someone obviously male books, turns up, and tries to check in.

Politely and firmly providing them with a list of names, phone numbers and addresses of those nearby would be adequate.

If only we had an EHRC Code of Practice to help with this.

GoldenGate · 14/03/2026 18:48

False advertising if they allow males.

Female dorms are in demand everywhere so they must be as they say on the tin. Our daughter is looking at hostels in Edinburgh for a trip with friends which all have female dorms more expensive and sold out first, and often mixed as the alternative which we assume are filled by men.