Page 2 | Work Women's Network still open to everyone who identifies as a woman

Polynerd · 2026-07-18T17:33:58+00:00

I work for a large organisation that has various 'diversity groups' including lgbtq+, disability, ethnicity etc. One is the Women's Network, but when I click through to the group's page it says it is for anyone who identifies as a woman. Are they actually allowed to do this, given recent rulings/guidance? Should I flag to my employer? I'm pretty nervous to do so, sadly.

Seethlaw · 19/07/2026 15:10

Whatdidyoujustcallme · 19/07/2026 14:51

Keeping biological sex strictly within their own single sex spaces for safety reasons has been achieved.

Excluding them from ANYTHING related to natal females is just anti-trans as it’s making a point that doesn’t need to be made. In our work menopause group I have NEVER heard a colleague talk about not being able to sleep because of vaginal dryness. I have seen colleagues, including myself openly talking about hot flushes and insomnia and how their menopause affects them openly in offices.

i honestly think this is petty picking for pickings sake, bad enough the snide remarks and ridicule they go though, now the safe spaces has been won it’s straight onto the next thing - exclude them from everything we possibly can. It is 100% anti trans, just fucking own it. You won’t be happy until they’re erased. I think you’ll be in luck, Reform are all over this (their other policies will break you and take away your NHS, but trans eh.). Reform aren’t too keen on same sex too, and want same sex marriage to be made illegal again. It’s going to be a lovely world, no nasty gays, or trans, or other colours, or languages, or religions. Maybe someone should think of a symbol we could get them all to wear, so, you know, we can make sure they keep in their place.

Excluding them from ANYTHING related to natal females is just anti-trans

Can be, but not necessarily.

If it's a group for everyone, then obviously, excluding them specifically is anti-trans.

But if it's a group exclusively for female people, then by definition it is exclusionary of non-female people, which includes transwomen. Nothing wrong with that.

In our work menopause group I have NEVER heard a colleague talk about not being able to sleep because of vaginal dryness.

Maybe because they didn't dare talk about their vagina around men?

You won’t be happy until they’re erased

That's a silly thing to say. We only want them to stop inserting themselves where they don't belong. For example, you don't see us saying they shouldn't join LGBT+ groups, do you? Because they belong there, so that's no problem.

MyAmpleSheep · 19/07/2026 14:58

Whatdidyoujustcallme · 19/07/2026 14:51

Keeping biological sex strictly within their own single sex spaces for safety reasons has been achieved.

Excluding them from ANYTHING related to natal females is just anti-trans as it’s making a point that doesn’t need to be made. In our work menopause group I have NEVER heard a colleague talk about not being able to sleep because of vaginal dryness. I have seen colleagues, including myself openly talking about hot flushes and insomnia and how their menopause affects them openly in offices.

i honestly think this is petty picking for pickings sake, bad enough the snide remarks and ridicule they go though, now the safe spaces has been won it’s straight onto the next thing - exclude them from everything we possibly can. It is 100% anti trans, just fucking own it. You won’t be happy until they’re erased. I think you’ll be in luck, Reform are all over this (their other policies will break you and take away your NHS, but trans eh.). Reform aren’t too keen on same sex too, and want same sex marriage to be made illegal again. It’s going to be a lovely world, no nasty gays, or trans, or other colours, or languages, or religions. Maybe someone should think of a symbol we could get them all to wear, so, you know, we can make sure they keep in their place.

Excluding them from ANYTHING related to natal females is just anti-trans as it’s making a point that doesn’t need to be made.

You have missed the point. There's no way to distinguish between trans-identifying men and other men. If whatever you discuss in your group (not vaginal dryness, but whatever else) can be said in front of one group of men, it can be said in front of a group of any and all men. Nobody is saying it's not possible to have a mixed-sex group to discuss women's issues.

Reform are all over this

Fine. Let them be. Hitler was a vegetarian. So so so bored with that brush.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 19/07/2026 14:55

Whatdidyoujustcallme · 19/07/2026 14:51

Keeping biological sex strictly within their own single sex spaces for safety reasons has been achieved.

Excluding them from ANYTHING related to natal females is just anti-trans as it’s making a point that doesn’t need to be made. In our work menopause group I have NEVER heard a colleague talk about not being able to sleep because of vaginal dryness. I have seen colleagues, including myself openly talking about hot flushes and insomnia and how their menopause affects them openly in offices.

i honestly think this is petty picking for pickings sake, bad enough the snide remarks and ridicule they go though, now the safe spaces has been won it’s straight onto the next thing - exclude them from everything we possibly can. It is 100% anti trans, just fucking own it. You won’t be happy until they’re erased. I think you’ll be in luck, Reform are all over this (their other policies will break you and take away your NHS, but trans eh.). Reform aren’t too keen on same sex too, and want same sex marriage to be made illegal again. It’s going to be a lovely world, no nasty gays, or trans, or other colours, or languages, or religions. Maybe someone should think of a symbol we could get them all to wear, so, you know, we can make sure they keep in their place.

Now there's no need to get testerical

trans women or men are more than fine to be any mixed sex space or group going

but a women's network is for women not for women and men who imagine they're women due to some kind of undefinable feeling

Whatdidyoujustcallme · 19/07/2026 14:51

Keeping biological sex strictly within their own single sex spaces for safety reasons has been achieved.

Excluding them from ANYTHING related to natal females is just anti-trans as it’s making a point that doesn’t need to be made. In our work menopause group I have NEVER heard a colleague talk about not being able to sleep because of vaginal dryness. I have seen colleagues, including myself openly talking about hot flushes and insomnia and how their menopause affects them openly in offices.

i honestly think this is petty picking for pickings sake, bad enough the snide remarks and ridicule they go though, now the safe spaces has been won it’s straight onto the next thing - exclude them from everything we possibly can. It is 100% anti trans, just fucking own it. You won’t be happy until they’re erased. I think you’ll be in luck, Reform are all over this (their other policies will break you and take away your NHS, but trans eh.). Reform aren’t too keen on same sex too, and want same sex marriage to be made illegal again. It’s going to be a lovely world, no nasty gays, or trans, or other colours, or languages, or religions. Maybe someone should think of a symbol we could get them all to wear, so, you know, we can make sure they keep in their place.

MyAmpleSheep · 19/07/2026 14:07

Steve3742 · 19/07/2026 13:31

There are implied rules. If a group advertised itself as a women's group, calls itself a women's group, then it has to be for women only. And the EA was very clear that that means real women, not trans-ID men. Both the Women's Institute and GirlGuiding were forced to restrict their membership to Women and Girls respectively because doing otherwise would have mean not just rewriting their Rules but also changing their name.
And the Service question seems irrelevant. It's an Association, and falls under the EA because of that. Yes, as it's a workplace association the employer is liable for any discrimination it might commit, but that changes nothing. A Women's group needs to be Women only if it calls itself a Women's group.

Edited

Show quote history

I don't think you can have "implied rules" that stand up in court. There's a rule, or there isn't. And I'm not aware of any rules about how you name your network.

What counts are the rules that you apply for membership: if you let only some men in and not others, that's potentially unlawfully discriminatory. If you let all men in, or no men, you're on safer ground. The title of your organization can be, but is not necessarily, the same as the rules of membership. A "Women's Network" that openly admits all men regardless of how they identify, is not breaking any rules.

Both the Women's Institute and GirlGuiding were forced to restrict their membership to Women and Girls respectively because doing otherwise would have mean not just rewriting their Rules but also changing their name.

I don't think that's true. Although neither the WI nor GG has released the legal advice that made them take the action of becoming single-sex associations, there's nothing to suggest it's because of the name. It's widely supposed (and I agree) that the significant legal hurdle is that the charitable purposes of those two organizations prevent them from benefiting other than women and girls. I'm fairly confident if all it took to permit men (or boys) to become members of either organization was a name change, that would be done lickety-split. The Boy Scouts Association changed it's name to The Scouts Association in 1967, I'm told, and it's royal charter (to admit girls) in 1991. The two are different matters.

It's possible for a workplace network to be both an association and also part of an employer's duty not unlawfully to discriminate. The choice of which tack to take would be down to the person complaining of discrimination. Do you want to take the employer to court, or the network itself (which may not in fact have a legal personality)?

This is not a moot question: you'll recognize that SEEN very unusually formed a corporate body when it looked like it was facing legal action from Tempest; one might guess this is to shield its individual members from personal liablility. In the end DEFRA was the defendant.

YouCanCallMeMonster · 19/07/2026 13:50

AltitudeCheck · 19/07/2026 10:16

I don't think we'll be able to hold the 'absolutely no TIM in any way shape or form' line forever. People are transitioning earlier, treatment and surgery is advancing and more will 'pass' and experience work place sexism in a way that is somewhat similar to women. Attitudes will gradually soften as there is natural turnover and younger (less terfy) women replace us!

Not all TIM are shouty TRA types who'd shift the dynamic of a group, those are just the ones we most hear about.

I'm firmly in favour of fighting for single sex spaces when there's risk to women's safety/ dignity and welcome the legal decision that allows for women only spaces and groups where they are necessary. Socially (like a women's work network) I think it should be up to the group/ workplace to decide if they wish to include or exclude TIM in all/ part of the group) so long as they make it clear when they are using 'women' in a gender way or a biological way.

I think refusing to explore any middle ground makes us just as bad as the TWAW brigade.

Edited

Why not? Why can’t we have a group just for females? Why can’t 51% of the population be represented as a diversity group that is consulted by management as part of change management the same way that other groups are?

Steve3742 · 19/07/2026 13:31

MyAmpleSheep · 19/07/2026 11:41

The EA2010 doesn’t have any rules about what you call your group. It has rules about who you can turn away.

if they call themselves a women's association, have to use the EA's definition of women

This is not true, not because they don’t have to “use” the EA definition of a woman but because it’s true all of the time regardless of what they call themselves. There’s no “correct labelling” rule that applies here.

The “Is it a service” question is also moot. If it’s within a workplace and provided with the cooperation of the employer then the rules that count are the workplace rule and the employer is responsible for any unlawful discrimination caused by the group.

This is the basis on which Tempest is pursuing an action against DEFRA as his employer, responsible for the SEEN workplace network. Not as any kind of association but for discrimination in the workplace.

Edited

Show quote history

There are implied rules. If a group advertised itself as a women's group, calls itself a women's group, then it has to be for women only. And the EA was very clear that that means real women, not trans-ID men. Both the Women's Institute and GirlGuiding were forced to restrict their membership to Women and Girls respectively because doing otherwise would have mean not just rewriting their Rules but also changing their name.
And the Service question seems irrelevant. It's an Association, and falls under the EA because of that. Yes, as it's a workplace association the employer is liable for any discrimination it might commit, but that changes nothing. A Women's group needs to be Women only if it calls itself a Women's group.

MyAmpleSheep · 19/07/2026 11:41

Steve3742 · 19/07/2026 11:29

Pretty sure that's not true. I think they would count as an Association under the Equality Act and, if they call themselves a women's association, have to use the EA's definition of women, ie real women. If they want to include trans ID men, they can't call themselves a women's group. If they rename themselves something like a "Woman and Transwomen Group", it leaves the field open for someone else to set up a real women's group which, under the EA, your employer wouldn't be allowed to refuse.

IANAL.

Show quote history

The EA2010 doesn’t have any rules about what you call your group. It has rules about who you can turn away.

if they call themselves a women's association, have to use the EA's definition of women

This is not true, not because they don’t have to “use” the EA definition of a woman but because it’s true all of the time regardless of what they call themselves. There’s no “correct labelling” rule that applies here.

The “Is it a service” question is also moot. If it’s within a workplace and provided with the cooperation of the employer then the rules that count are the workplace rule and the employer is responsible for any unlawful discrimination caused by the group.

This is the basis on which Tempest is pursuing an action against DEFRA as his employer, responsible for the SEEN workplace network. Not as any kind of association but for discrimination in the workplace.

Steve3742 · 19/07/2026 11:29

MissingLynks · 18/07/2026 21:35

In law, as long as they're not professing to offer a single sex space, they can call their network what they like and admit who they like. They can even include trans women while excluding cis men provided cis men have an equivalent network that they can join as per GLP Vs EHRC.

I guess the other question is, does it matter? This isn't a space where anyone is getting changed, accessing healthcare, using the toilet, or anything else that would make them particularly vulnerable or create a need for privacy. It's essentially just a social and networking group. Is it really that important to exclude trans women from absolutely everything? At a certain point isn't it actually just about reviling in exclusion rather than actually protecting anyone?

Pretty sure that's not true. I think they would count as an Association under the Equality Act and, if they call themselves a women's association, have to use the EA's definition of women, ie real women. If they want to include trans ID men, they can't call themselves a women's group. If they rename themselves something like a "Woman and Transwomen Group", it leaves the field open for someone else to set up a real women's group which, under the EA, your employer wouldn't be allowed to refuse.

IANAL.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 19/07/2026 11:11

AltitudeCheck · 19/07/2026 10:16

I don't think we'll be able to hold the 'absolutely no TIM in any way shape or form' line forever. People are transitioning earlier, treatment and surgery is advancing and more will 'pass' and experience work place sexism in a way that is somewhat similar to women. Attitudes will gradually soften as there is natural turnover and younger (less terfy) women replace us!

Not all TIM are shouty TRA types who'd shift the dynamic of a group, those are just the ones we most hear about.

I'm firmly in favour of fighting for single sex spaces when there's risk to women's safety/ dignity and welcome the legal decision that allows for women only spaces and groups where they are necessary. Socially (like a women's work network) I think it should be up to the group/ workplace to decide if they wish to include or exclude TIM in all/ part of the group) so long as they make it clear when they are using 'women' in a gender way or a biological way.

I think refusing to explore any middle ground makes us just as bad as the TWAW brigade.

Edited

There is no middle ground between "women include all adult human female people because woman is the name for those people" and "woman can be either sex because woman is a type of mind not a type of body".

As soon as you allow even one non-female person to qualify as a woman on the basis of something other than sex, you have legitimised the concept that womanhood can be mental rather than physical. Like the black swan, you only need one example that doesn't fit the rule to undermine the previous understanding of the whole group.

MyAmpleSheep · 19/07/2026 11:03

AltitudeCheck · 19/07/2026 10:16

I don't think we'll be able to hold the 'absolutely no TIM in any way shape or form' line forever. People are transitioning earlier, treatment and surgery is advancing and more will 'pass' and experience work place sexism in a way that is somewhat similar to women. Attitudes will gradually soften as there is natural turnover and younger (less terfy) women replace us!

Not all TIM are shouty TRA types who'd shift the dynamic of a group, those are just the ones we most hear about.

I'm firmly in favour of fighting for single sex spaces when there's risk to women's safety/ dignity and welcome the legal decision that allows for women only spaces and groups where they are necessary. Socially (like a women's work network) I think it should be up to the group/ workplace to decide if they wish to include or exclude TIM in all/ part of the group) so long as they make it clear when they are using 'women' in a gender way or a biological way.

I think refusing to explore any middle ground makes us just as bad as the TWAW brigade.

Edited

The “middle ground” is to admit any and all men who are interested in joining. There’s no legal or practical way to distinguish between “shouty TRA types” and “genuine meek womanly men”, who “transitioned” a couple of days after their first birthday.

If you’re prepared to have men in your group, go right ahead and do so. That’s no problem. But you have to admit both the men in spinny skirts and the men in trousers.

Floisme · 19/07/2026 10:58

AltitudeCheck · 19/07/2026 10:16

I don't think we'll be able to hold the 'absolutely no TIM in any way shape or form' line forever. People are transitioning earlier, treatment and surgery is advancing and more will 'pass' and experience work place sexism in a way that is somewhat similar to women. Attitudes will gradually soften as there is natural turnover and younger (less terfy) women replace us!

Not all TIM are shouty TRA types who'd shift the dynamic of a group, those are just the ones we most hear about.

I'm firmly in favour of fighting for single sex spaces when there's risk to women's safety/ dignity and welcome the legal decision that allows for women only spaces and groups where they are necessary. Socially (like a women's work network) I think it should be up to the group/ workplace to decide if they wish to include or exclude TIM in all/ part of the group) so long as they make it clear when they are using 'women' in a gender way or a biological way.

I think refusing to explore any middle ground makes us just as bad as the TWAW brigade.

Edited

'People are transitioning earlier, treatment and surgery is advancing and more will 'pass' and experience work place sexism in a way that is somewhat similar to women.'

Parking for the time being, the claim that more men will 'pass' in future, I will be somewhat startled if they ever experience workplace sexism related to menstruation, pregnancy, child birth, breastfeeding or menopause.

I agree that they may well experience other types of discrimination but, as posters have pointed out, there are other networks for those issues. Or they could start their own like women did.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 19/07/2026 10:37

AltitudeCheck · 19/07/2026 10:16

I don't think we'll be able to hold the 'absolutely no TIM in any way shape or form' line forever. People are transitioning earlier, treatment and surgery is advancing and more will 'pass' and experience work place sexism in a way that is somewhat similar to women. Attitudes will gradually soften as there is natural turnover and younger (less terfy) women replace us!

Not all TIM are shouty TRA types who'd shift the dynamic of a group, those are just the ones we most hear about.

I'm firmly in favour of fighting for single sex spaces when there's risk to women's safety/ dignity and welcome the legal decision that allows for women only spaces and groups where they are necessary. Socially (like a women's work network) I think it should be up to the group/ workplace to decide if they wish to include or exclude TIM in all/ part of the group) so long as they make it clear when they are using 'women' in a gender way or a biological way.

I think refusing to explore any middle ground makes us just as bad as the TWAW brigade.

Edited

Can you describe woman gender without resorting to stereotypes about hair and clothes?

and why men performing women gender need to be in a woman's network when other men don't?

SockPlant · 19/07/2026 10:19

all TIM have one thing in common: they are men.

And i am fine with there being mixed groups, TIM groups or whatever. But i also want women's groups too.

Discussions about the gender pay gap? discuss in a women's group for sure. But then discuss elsewhere - and incude men too. It is not difficult.

AltitudeCheck · 19/07/2026 10:16

I don't think we'll be able to hold the 'absolutely no TIM in any way shape or form' line forever. People are transitioning earlier, treatment and surgery is advancing and more will 'pass' and experience work place sexism in a way that is somewhat similar to women. Attitudes will gradually soften as there is natural turnover and younger (less terfy) women replace us!

Not all TIM are shouty TRA types who'd shift the dynamic of a group, those are just the ones we most hear about.

I'm firmly in favour of fighting for single sex spaces when there's risk to women's safety/ dignity and welcome the legal decision that allows for women only spaces and groups where they are necessary. Socially (like a women's work network) I think it should be up to the group/ workplace to decide if they wish to include or exclude TIM in all/ part of the group) so long as they make it clear when they are using 'women' in a gender way or a biological way.

I think refusing to explore any middle ground makes us just as bad as the TWAW brigade.

SockPlant · 19/07/2026 10:15

Whatdidyoujustcallme · 19/07/2026 00:49

We have men in our menopause support group. They need to be informed and hear lived experience to hopefully be more understanding

i would have to leave a menopause group that allowed men, especially at work.

I'm not sitting there talking about vaginal dryness, or the night sweats/anxiety that disrupt my sleep, etc etc.

If men want to now about the menopause, they can join a menopause support group for people wanting to help people get through it.

Shedmistress · 19/07/2026 09:55

GiddyGiddyGiddy · 18/07/2026 21:05

Just a genuine question; where should trans women go then? Should there be a network for trans women?

Because as gender critical as we want to be (and I certainly am), they do exist, and they're not exactly not discriminated against.

Men's network
It network
Lgbtqia network
Men's health network

Any network that includes men will also includes men of all descriptions.

LeftieRightsHoarder · 19/07/2026 09:53

Imdunfer · 19/07/2026 08:31

I wonder how many women can't access that support group because they don't want to be talking about period flooding in front of men?

If men need to be educated then they need separate education sessions, not a general invitation to a women's group.

Show quote history

I agree. And I wonder how many men genuinely attend a menopause group to find out how they can support women, and how many are just interlopers.

MinistryofMom · 19/07/2026 09:52

Stand by for the women's network to be rebranded 'The Gender Network' if/when you raise this.

Looking at you civil service.

LeftieRightsHoarder · 19/07/2026 09:48

PeachyDaisy · 19/07/2026 00:21

It's about recognising that female people exist and have experiences, challenges and risks that are sometimes different to male people.

Women also have experiences that are different to each other. For example I have not faced any of the challenges or issues women have faced in the workplace (presumably because I have chosen to remain single and childfree). I don't think you need to have experienced sex based discrimination in order to be allowed to join a womens group. Making it the reason why we exclude transwomen would also exclude women like me.

Edited

I was a single woman in the workplace for many years before marrying, and I have no children. I have certainly experienced sex-based discrimination more than once.

But that’s not the criterion for joining a women’s group. Being female is the only criterion. You are as eligible as I am. No man is eligible, whether or not he says he’s a woman.

MoistVonL · 19/07/2026 09:27

FlirtsWithRhinos · 19/07/2026 09:16

He needs a new challenge.

She's a safe pair of hands.

Very insidious that one.

He's commanding
She's bossy

He takes an interest
She's gossips

EBearhug · 19/07/2026 09:19

Ibi · 19/07/2026 06:44

Our women’s network campaigns for women and the issues affecting them in the workplace, but it’s open for anyone to join. Same with all our other networks. We have had lots of attendees (both men and women) for our latest discussion on the gender pay gap. Having male allies has been positive for our network.

Same with ours, and in the last big corporate I worked in.

Current job has (or had, I haven't had mails about it recently,) a menopause sub group. It was women-only in practice, certainly, but I don't know if it was open to men as well.

I think it can depend on the stated aims of the group- discussions and events have generally been about careers and specific challenges faced by women, and I can't see a problem with men hearing about that. Most of them don't speak unless directly asked a question IME.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 19/07/2026 09:16

He needs a new challenge.

She's a safe pair of hands.

Very insidious that one.

Imdunfer · 19/07/2026 09:14

FlirtsWithRhinos · 19/07/2026 08:56

Or even just been held to different standards when it comes to what is held to demonstrate ambition, leadership and vision.

Show quote history

He's assertive, she's aggressive.

Same behaviour.

Been there got the t shirt on that one.

pontefractals · 19/07/2026 09:07

FlirtsWithRhinos · 19/07/2026 08:56

Or even just been held to different standards when it comes to what is held to demonstrate ambition, leadership and vision.

Show quote history

Or had your application for a job or a promotion looked on unfavourably because you are of child-bearing age, even if you don't have or want children.