Trick to sidestep equality law?

i understand your point .
I do think labelling is relevant though.
A space can be single sex and labelled as such ie Womens
Or mixed sex and labelled as such ie: mixed sex and be legal.
But womens and trans identifying males ie: female and some males makes no legal sense and isnt' lawful.

The legal problem has nothing to do with what you call the space. The legal problem (for TRA’s, it’s not a problem for me) is that you can’t in any way have a “space” reserved for women of any any ate and trans-identifying men of any age.

the labelling is irrelevant, whether it’s labelled as inclusive, exclusive or not labelled at all.

The focus on how a space is labelled is unhelpful because it gives the impression that as long as the sign on the door says “this association is for women and trans-identifying men” it becomes legal. It doesn’t.

Not RTFT, so sorry if I'm repeating others.
A Mumsnetter (well, her DH) tested this, didn't she, with the WI? He wanted to join because the local WI group did a particular activity that he was interested in and couldn't find another local group to do it, but was told he couldn't because he doesn't identify as female. He pointed out that it was indirect discrimination to allow in some men but not all men.

I think it would be clearer to say Mixed sex Guides or Guides.
But the issue is calling a space/group or service womens/girls which means female and allowing some males to access that space ....because that's unlawful.
You don't have to provide single sex spaces (with exceptions eg:workplace) but if you do and you label them single sex, they have to be single sex.
Same with The Womens institute ,Women changing rooms,Womens toilets,Womens ponds etc.
The Scouts for example is a mixed sex group ,no problem.
The Girl guides is a female single sex space,that's why allowing some males access is a legal problem.

Didnt tge Guides get in trouble for excluding girls who identified as bkys, and have to back down on that policy?

Technically, under the trans ideology, those of us that say that we don't have a gender identity because we are just female/male man/woman are also trans as we do not identify with the gender identity that matches our sex.

Is it where you can't introduce a new member?

It would still be illegal

So would a 'Trans people and Allies' association work?
All the masculine people can meet in one corner and do manly stuff and all the feminine people can meet in the kitchen and make tea for the manly people.

According to trans ideology anyone female who doesn't have a feminine gender identity comes under the trans umbrella (along with anyone male who doesn't have a masculine gender identity) so any such female people would be being discriminated against for being trans even if they weren't specifically claiming a masculine gender identity.

No if the people seemingly discriminated against think it isnt discriminatory, then there would be no case brought because everyone would be happy.

And the discrimination would be because of their sex? Not because of them not having the required gender identity?

It doesn't matter what transboys , their parents or anyone else believes is discriminatory. The law decides.

TRA want groups where all women can attend by default, and some men can because they are very close to being women.

Once the group is established, how would the dynamics work? Would women be free to acknowledge that men attend?

If the group allow GC comments, trans identifying men would feel its a hostile environment, if not, GC women wouldn't feel welcome.

Whatever happens, trans ideology becomes front and center. Not women.

Ah I see. Makes more sense.

@GlovedhandsCecilia - it's about the WI too which is for adults.

@Datun I think the number of female people who were excluded because of identifying as nonbinary/no gender would be far greater than the number excluded because of having a male gender identity. I agree that those with a male gender might find it pleasing/validating to be excluded but the outcry from those who merely don't have a feminine one would be overwhelming.

WI is an adult group
Guides were allowing male volunteers who identified as women to share accomidation, changing facilities etc with the female children.

Plus the boys also sharing accomodation etc.

From what I have read in this thread, I only think it will be an issue to decline people who do not have a female gender identity, if trans boys (or their parents) believe that the criteria is discriminatory.

I personally think that they would see it as validating because it seemingly acknowledges their gender identity over their sex.

I have a question.

People keep referring to "men" being in this organisation, but arent these children's groups so it is about boys wanting to go, not men?

Ah.

They'd have to exclude transmen, on the basis that they didn't have a female gender identity.

And we all know you can't exclude people on the basis that they're trans.

A - yes they would, and they would be guilty of indirect discrimination generally and direct discrimination against trans-identifying female people.

B - Social organisations aren't generally legally required to provide single-sex facilities etc - they are usually meeting in community facilities like village halls etc which are shared across many organisations and are covered by building regulations and may, depending on what the building is, also be covered under workplace regulations. Any organisation which includes children or other vulnerable people must have safeguarding policies to manage and minmise risks and a fundamental principle of safeguarding is that there is no such thing as a person who can be assumed to be not a risk and intrinsically trustworthy. Safeguarding practices mean that we no longer say "of course it's fine for the male priest to be alone 1:1 with the 9 year old, he's a priest" and the priest who isn't a risk is wholeheartedly part of normalising the practices that the door is left open and the parish admininistrator is nearby and not turning a blind eye. In the same way we do not assume that a male with a feminine gender ID is inherently a lower risk than any other male.

I also cannot ever see how it could work to include all of one sex category and a sub-group of the other due to it then being sex discrimination. There is no way around it unfortunately.

Idealistically, sure a group or event should be able to choose who they allow membership to. However, the reality will always come back to sex discrimination as it should.

Maybe the solution will be many friendship groups under 25 people who end up doing one off events at the same place or something similar while still being friendship groups.

RareGoalsVerge is right. I know it’s complicated but this is exactly what the Supreme Court ruling was about, namely how the single-sex exceptions worked in the Equality Act. I’d recommend reading the judgement in full to understand why the single gender proposal would be breaking the law.

Indeed. Any definition of gender is liable to fall foul of sex discrimination laws. Because the whole concept is sexism.