The Glasgow Women's Library likely did not come under pressure. This seems designed for maximum damage to the reputation of the Audacious Women Festival.
The library fell off the women-supporting wagon some time ago, quite spectacularly, too. Publicly stated their determination to break the law and discriminate against us women on the basis of our sex. They will refuse any booking for a women-only event that excludes ALL males and any booking for a women-only event that excludes all LEGAL males.
Which is of course sex discrimination and completely illegal, but utterly reprehensible for something that calls itself a women's library.
FYI, there are now two ways, well, two-and-a-half, to have a public women-only something that is in line with the Equality Act 2010. (For the purpose of this, we will assume that this is something that only makes sense as single-sex.)
- Biological females only. All biological and legal males excluded. All biological males who are legally female excluded.
For this you need to be able to show that it is legitimate and proportionate, which carers are, or prisons, or a support group, or sports.
We have no real guidance on how to enforce this option and how the procedure works for excluding GRC-holders. We also have no case law testing the limits of this option (as to which are legitimate reasons or proportionate means).
Now, the sex-based exemption for religious purposes works on the reasonable assumption that someone is not the sex they present as, which allows Catholic priests for instance to reject to perform a marriage ceremony between a man and a male who identifies as trans who has a GRC (not saying the church will or has to do this, but they can).
If this could be used outside of church, it would make it easier for those organising women-only things to ensure that it is for biological females only. Especially where we cannot rely on medical testing to establish sex or on someone's birth certificate.
- Biological and legal females only. All biological males who are legally male excluded.
This is in some ways the easiest option. Entry requirement could be showing your birth certificate. (As female GRC-holders do not have to hand back their original birth certificate, they could could gain entry by showing their original birth certificate).
No justification needs to be given to exclude persons who are biologically and legally male. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment (which all males who identify as trans fall under, regardless of whether they have transitioned, or how they present or whether they have a GRC) does not supersede the protected characteristic of sex where that is the basis for access.
If you think of this vs the other protected characteristics, it's a little easier to understand. So no one says to
"All males are excluded on the basis of their sex"
"Oh, but Connor here is blind, therefore he has the protected characteristic of disability and if you don't let him in, you're discriminating against him".
So, the only thing that matters for sex discrimination purposes is someone's biological and/or legal sex.
2.5) Biological and legal females as well as biological males who are legally male but who "pass" ie who present convincingly as the opposite sex. All other males excluded.
This is the kindest option towards those males who have meaningfully transitioned but who may - for whatever reason - not have a GRC. They tend to have medically transitioned, are often post-op, and are perceived as women under most circumstances/by most people.
While options 1) and 2) are legally clear cut and depend on a measurable quality (actual biological sex for 1) and for 2) female birth certificate), this option is difficult to quali- or quantify. How do you measure if someone passes as the opposite sex? How many women does it take to clock you as male to count as not passing?
Options 2) and 2.5) of course ignore the needs of women to have female-only spaces, provisions or services entirely. Here the feelings and needs of males who identify as trans to be included are prioritised over and above those of women.
Option 2.5) is based on guidance (provided alongside the actual text of the law of the Equality Act) which mentions the rights of those who pass as the opposite sex but who do not have a GRC. IIRC, the actual text of the EqA makes no mention of passing, but EHRC refer to this in their guidance. Bearing in mind that EHRC have had to change their guidance last year because they completely misrepresented the EqA, this most likely falls into the same category - interpretation of the law not in line with the law.
The Audacious Women festival chose option 2.5), the most inclusive option that still allows you to legally exclude males who are legally and biologically male while including males who are either legally female or "who are visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from other women".
The latter comes from case law preceding the GRA and the EqA, I think, involving and therefore specifically referring to post-op males. Which is precisely why TRAs are having fits about the festival. How dare they invoke the sex-based exemptions that we've been assured we would not be stopped from invoking. And how dare they do so by implying someone could be not woman enough.
So, yes, Audacious Women is as fully trans-inclusive as a women-only festival can possibly be while still legally excluding all other males. Because if they also included biological and legal males who do not "pass", all those other males could sue them for sex discrimination (if they wanted to).
On the latter I am really not convinced that letting in legal males who "pass" would win the day in court, but that's what Audacious Women have gone for and it is the most inclusive option that at least the EHRC clearly considers to be legal.
And it's not enough. It's never enough. The "drag king" who has started the boycott of the festival has done so saying
"transwomen ARE women - no matter their presentation"
Confirming publicly what we have been saying for ages - this will not ever stop until women are not allowed to exclude any man from their spaces. Not even males who present as men can be denied access to the things we wish to reserve for women. Not for our privacy, dignity, safety, for fairness, to address discrimination, sexism or inequality.
Nothing shall be reserved for women only if he utters the magic words
I identify as a woman.