Judge says that women only art exhibit is legal

[WeMeetInFairIthilien]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvglvy6gn54o

This just popped up on my news feed.

Sounds encouraging, and the way it has been written makes the man sound like a twat.

Couldn't see if there was an earlier thread about the tribunal, to update.

Hmm sounds as though if he had claimed to I'd as a woman he'd have been allowed in though so it's not really female only but female and some males

Yeah, thought this was going to be a case where a judge had ruled that the gallery was "allowed" to say that women means women. Turns out any man who wants to can get in by calling himself a woman. What's they guy complaining about exactly?
Unlike the women the article mentioned who couldn't identify out of the rule banning them from drinking in bars

Yeah, it sounds positive in theory but then there's that telltale line, "anyone who doesn't identify as a woman".

Of course, if this goes all the way and the exhibit reopens with the women only lounge and this man then says he identifies as a woman to gain access, that would peak a few people.

Note that this is the exact opposite outcome to Tickle vs Giggle, so in Australia the rule is that you can have woman only spaces as long as you are defining a woman as anyone who identified as a woman and not as a female person.

This is just like Keir Starmer’s assertions.
Women-only means Nothing if a ‘woman’ can have a penis.

But because of Tickle vs Giggle, if a man identifies as a woman, particularly if his legal documents state female, they can’t exclude him. And from memory, this so-called feminist who wants to “smash the patriarchy” with this instillation and this ruling, supports such men.