Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Why single-sex charities cannot become “trans inclusive” - Sex Matters

5 replies

IwantToRetire · Yesterday 01:43

During the past decade many charities for women or girls, among them the Women’s Institute and Girlguiding, became “trans inclusive”, meaning that they started to admit trans-identifying men and boys, and to regard such men and boys as beneficiaries of their charitable objects.

They did this not by rewriting their membership rules or going through the formal process required to change a charity’s objects, but by simply claiming that the words “girl”, “woman” and “female” included trans-identifying boys and men. This was never lawful. But girls and women who complained directly to charities generally discovered that the boys and men were allowed to stay, that they were subjected to disciplinary action and sometimes excluded – and that the rules were left unchanged. Meanwhile, instead of holding these charities to their objects the Charity Commission deferred to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which misinterpreted the law (in 2018).**

Since the Supreme Court judgment of April 2025 on the meaning of “sex”, many charities and other not-for-profit membership associations are revisiting such decisions.

  • Both the National Federation of Women’s Institutes and Girlguiding have accepted that they got the law wrong, and are in the process of requiring trans-identifying male members to leave.
  • KENRIC, the UK’s longest-running social group for lesbians, held a consultation with its members regarding membership criteria and announced in June that it would return to being open only to biological women who identify as lesbian.
  • Women’s Aid Federation has reaffirmed that it exists “to promote the protection of women and children survivors of domestic abuse”. It has welcomed the EHRC guidance, recognising that some services that are female-only will no longer be able to support “Trans +” survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence and saying that these survivors may need alternate caring, expert and reliable sources of support into which they can be referred.
  • Similarly, Rape Crisis England and Wales says its purpose is “is to relieve the trauma and distress of women and girls who have experienced any form of sexual violence and abuse”. Some rape crisis centres offer services to men and boys (including those that identify as trans) while others offer services just to women.

Some of these organisations are now experiencing a backlash. They are coming under pressure, both internally and externally, to become formally “trans inclusive” – that is, to make explicit what had previously been done by linguistic trickery.

Organisations such as the Good Law Project argue that Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of association, as well as the way the Equality Act is drafted mean that it would be lawful for women’s charities to remain “trans inclusive” (that is, to include trans-identifying men among their beneficiaries).

This is not the case.

Article continues at https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/why-single-sex-charities-cannot-become-trans-inclusive/

** I added in the 2018 because I am not sure why SM seems unable to acknowledge that under Lady Falkner (at great cost to herself) the EHRC took a strong stance against the misinterpretation of the law. If anything SM should use what happened at the EHRC as an example of just how powerful the trans campaign was. IMO!

Why single-sex charities cannot become “trans inclusive”

During the past decade many charities for women or girls, among them the Women’s Institute and Girlguiding, became “trans inclusive”, meaning that they

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/why-single-sex-charities-cannot-become-trans-inclusive/

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
IwantToRetire · Yesterday 17:52

Whatchamacallitt · Yesterday 16:52

What 'trans-inclusive' should designate is the female services that feel they can accept trans-identifying girls and/or women, and the male services that feel they can accept trans-identifying boys and/or men.

There are some circumstances where such a definition of trans inclusion might still not be appropriate, such as with male passing trans-identified women and rape crisis services. But other services could choose to be trans-inclusive.

What trans-inclusive must never mean is granting males access to female single sex space.

Maybe he booked Stonewall to do staff training!

OP posts:
IwantToRetire · Yesterday 17:42

Hoardasurass · Yesterday 09:32

The ECHR didn't accept that it got its guidance wrong until after FWS vs Scot gov (prt1) and the haldane ruling in 2022 said self id was illegal.
Even after that the ECHR didn't fully accept that men with a grc are still men and should be banned from all women's groups, facilities and spaces until it went to the supreme Court.
Baroness Falkner has suffered and did stand up for women but not properly until after the supreme crt ruling so no not since 2018 and that is why its not in the SM briefing and why the EHRC are not praised

I was pointing out the "example" given by SM was clearly dated 2018.

However, that isn't the point of the thread or rather they SM briefing which I thought others would find useful resource material!

OP posts:
Whatchamacallitt · Yesterday 16:52

What 'trans-inclusive' should designate is the female services that feel they can accept trans-identifying girls and/or women, and the male services that feel they can accept trans-identifying boys and/or men.

There are some circumstances where such a definition of trans inclusion might still not be appropriate, such as with male passing trans-identified women and rape crisis services. But other services could choose to be trans-inclusive.

What trans-inclusive must never mean is granting males access to female single sex space.

Hoardasurass · Yesterday 09:32

The ECHR didn't accept that it got its guidance wrong until after FWS vs Scot gov (prt1) and the haldane ruling in 2022 said self id was illegal.
Even after that the ECHR didn't fully accept that men with a grc are still men and should be banned from all women's groups, facilities and spaces until it went to the supreme Court.
Baroness Falkner has suffered and did stand up for women but not properly until after the supreme crt ruling so no not since 2018 and that is why its not in the SM briefing and why the EHRC are not praised

Retiredfromthere · Yesterday 06:43

Thank you. Went off to find out who chaired EHRC in 2018 when they got it wrong. Wikipedia entry for David Issac, Baron Issac. There is a name there that keeps out ...

'Isaac was a partner at law firm Pinsent Masons. He chaired the LGBTQ rights charity Stonewall from 2003 to 2012[5] and chaired the contemporary art gallery Modern Art Oxford for almost two decades.[3] He was also a director of the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (2005–2014), the Big Lottery Fund (2014–2018)[6] and was a trustee of 14-18 NOW (2016–2019).[7] Isaac was appointed as the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in 2016,[8] serving in that capacity until August 2020.'

Pinsent Masons - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinsent_Masons