Rape Crisis Legal Case - Court Date!

[IamSarah]

I thought this day would never come. The case has FINALLY been listed at Brighton County Court from 22-30 September 2025.

Thank you so much everyone for the ongoing support, encouragement, gardening and lovely messages.

Looking forward to the case being over and hopefully the right outcome being reached - women having the option of single sex rape crisis therapy.

Keen gardeners please Google Sarah Summers Brighton

Thank you

I may have misunderstood the SC ruling, but I don't think they can advertise having a group for women and then allowing transwomen in it now, it would have to be called a mixed sex group.

Does anyone know if that's right?

Ironically I think prior to the SC ruling (which is when this case arose) it was the other way round.

ie if you didn't advertise the group as operating under the SSE, but just used the word women, it would not (even if most people would think it would be) be only biological women.

So in a related way the complaints against a trans man being appointed to ERCC were based on the fact not that he was a trans man, but that the post had been advertised under the SSE ie the post only being open to biological women. (Not that any authorities bothered to investigate complaints.)

Which shows how bonkers the system was, given this was about supporting women who had been raped or sexually assorted.

The idea that you would ring a support service and start doing some sort of check eg "are you operating this group under the SSE of the EA"

In future (or as from now?) the court has said that in the EA the word woman means a biological female.

So glad to hear from you, @IamSarah! I'd been wondering what had happened to your case.

You are one hell of a woman for hanging in there so long. I'll be rooting for you every single bit of the way ❤

That was my understanding too. If you specify it's women only it needs to be.
And that has always been the case, despite misinterpretation / chosing to do otherwise. So when organisations haven't adhered over the years they were in the wrong and to my mind should take responsibility. Pleading ignorance shouldn't be an excuse.

But I may have misunderstood.

Good luck luck with your case I hope everything is going well and the SC judgement gives your lawyers lots of fodder for their arguments.

I saw this on twitter, which shows how unfortunately it is going to be necessary to continue pushing the issue through a courts. A rape crisis service in the North East says it will continue operating the service the same as before inclusive if trans women, and:

'Our definition of a woman-only includes transwomen and non-binary people who identify that women’s services are right for them.’

x.com/LWSNorthEast/status/1914747280101453930

As I said upthread, based on the law until clarified last week if you advertised as women only it included TW.

You had to specifically say it was women only under the Single Sex Exemptions.

ie the law as it was written meant that the word woman included both actual women and trans women (legal women).

That was the whole point of the court case.

To make it clear that in law the word woman should always mean biology.

So anything prior to that ruling could claim they were within the law.

And in fact you cant blame them. You can blame the then Labour Government and all the MPs who passed the equality act with this attack on women's sex based rights.

This wasn't an accident. This was deliberate.

To my mind it was in fact about social engineering and am glad to see that Kemi Badenoch used that description only the other day.

You had to specifically say it was women only under the Single Sex Exemptions.

True for job adverts using the occupational requirement clause. But not otherwise. It has never been necessary to 'claim' the exception in advance.

So anything prior to that ruling could claim they were within the law.

The law has not changed. The Supreme Court ruling clarifies the law as it always was.

I really wish I'd taken it further when RC refused to stop allowing men in.

Back in 2017 or 18 I was accessing RC and I arrived at my usual appointment only to find a male in the waiting room. It absolutely broke me and triggered a relapse. I actually managed to complain, but got nowhere. They said their funding relied on government and they said they couldn't discriminate against men.

Wasn't even a TW, just a bloody regular dude. They wouldn't compromise with offering men only sessions. Just lumped them in with women.

One of the worst times of my life. It was impossible to access any women's only trauma therapy. Not even Red Tent could help me. They just straight up called me a bigot and blocked me for asking if the trauma sharing circle was female only.

Those experiences made me a RadFem.

So well bloody done for fighting this. I got absolutely nowhere! I am so very sorry for your trauma.

So now when a rape support group says Woman, it means just biological women.

So all the ones that just offer mixed sex spaces, but call them woman groups will have to either make sure it is just bio women or change the name so it will be clear to everyone.

True for job adverts using the occupational requirement clause. But not otherwise. It has never been necessary to 'claim' the exception in advance.

Sorry - but logically if in the past the only time you could advertise for a post that was only open to biological women, this meant "for all other purposes" woman could include "legal women". Whether on the Board of a Company or in a sport, let alone a support service.

So under that set of circumstances to only use the word women and not clarify that it did or did not include trans women would always be open to misinterpretation.

And we know that TRAs exploited that because without implementing the SSE woman could include "legal women".

Although of course equally as bad was the TRAs acting as though "indentifying" as a woman was the same as a TW with a GRC.

I have been away from Mumsnet for a while but am so overjoyed at the ruling. Been thinking specifically about Sarah Summers’ case. I was dismayed that it had been dragged out so long, BUT coming after this clarification it’s surely a done deal now.

logically if in the past the only time you could advertise for a post that was only open to biological women, this meant "for all other purposes" woman could include "legal women".

No. If a job is advertised as having an occupational requirement allowing it to be restricted to one sex, that meant 1 sex (ERCC notwithstanding). If it doesn't meet the condition to allow that, it is open to everyone. Not 'all definitions of women' but everyone - all men and women, regardless of identity.

And that is the same for other single sex exceptions - it's single sex or it's both sexes. You don't need to state that it falls under the regulations. (I don't know that you actually need to state it for jobs. Adverts do, but that may simply be to fend off timewasters and whingers rather than because it's required to do so.)

without implementing the SSE woman could include "legal women".

The SSE is not a thing you 'implement'.

I think you are choosing to miss the point.

Prior to the Court ruling the word woman could be used (appart from when implementing ie taking up the option of the SSE) to mean not just biological women but "legal women" ie those with a GRC.

So if you as a provider just advertise a service as being women only without clarifying that you were using the option offered by the SSE, then the service was open to being seen as including "legal women".

Not to say it was a service operating under the SSE would leave it open to misunderstanding.

Because the interaction of the GRC on the protected characteristic of sex created this dual meaning.

So yes, in the interest of women looking for a service that was genuinely women only, they should (or rather should have) clearly stated whether it was women as in the SSE or not.

If you remember this was the core of the case that led to Roz Adams going to court. That she was told she shouldn't tell a potential user that part of the provision of services could be by a trans woman.

No, this ruling is clear that the EA2010 always meant biological sex, that this was the intention of the act all along (thus, any rulings made on a different interpretation should now be appealable).

It's also not necessary to explicitly state that you are using the SSEs under the act (though I believe it is necessary to state for job adverts where there is an occupational requirement).

My understanding is that organisations working on the previous misinterpretations of the EA were not acting lawfully, even though they didn't know at the time. I don't know whether the fact the courts were getting the law wrong too will be a defence against claims of discrimination as a result. I presume not, otherwise case law would never develop.

@IamSarah

Just to let you know that Rape Crisis England and Wales has referred to your case in their response to the Suprememe Court ruling.

Their statement is here https://rapecrisis.org.uk/news/rape-crisis-responds-to-the-supreme-court-judgement/ and the reference to your case is in their longer statement with link in that statement.

I must admit I didn't thinks Survivors Network was part of the RCEW.

But as one of the things they say about their members is that they have to advertise their services clearly in relation to sex, that might be something to look at.

Thank you for sharing @IwantToRetire! It’s good of them to link to my allotment in the full statement.

Hello again @IamSarah !

Just a quick note to say your case is mentioned in this article which I started a thread about partly because it is confusing to read.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5324687-domestic-violence-shelters-defy-trans-court-ruling-telegraph-article

Just so that you know.

No the Supreme Court said it has always been that sex means biological sex. So as of 2010

from what I have read Sarah this is now a Sam dunk case as the service was not truthful to you when they said it was a women only group …. End of really

100% behind you Sarah, the entire concept so simple and logical - let’s hope the Court agrees!

I am of course hoping Sarah will win, and I am sure they will given the grounds on which they using. But:

No the Supreme Court said it has always been that sex means biological sex. So as of 2010

They may have said that but the problem is that up until the point they said that it had been widely interpreted legally and acted on that in some instance a man with a GRC was a "legal woman". Which is why the act included the single sex exemptions to allow for genuinely women only services. Which is why it was assumed you had to advertised services as being operated under the SSE.

Now though since the ruling, the court has clarified that in using the word sex whatever service it is means a biological fact.

Not sure that you can retrospectively apply a clarification of a law if up until the date of the clarification it was thought to be something else.

So prior to the clarification the issue was were services advertised correctly as being under the SSE. And separately, with the law as it was, was it discriminatory not to provide women only (biological) services and if they weren't whose is responsible for that. The actual service provider or those who contracted the service, the funders. And I sure other more legally intricate arguements.

In order to help ensure this gets funded properly, I will personally match all donations through the end of the Bank Holiday weekend, up to £2,500.

In order to do this without requiring any sort of interaction or response from anyone, I will just watch the total on the Crowdfunder. The current total is £102,748 (with a fundraising target of £150,000). If the total reaches £105,248 or more by the end of Monday, then I will personally donate £2,500, If the total is less, I will match whatever increase there has been over and above £102,748.

in some instance a man with a GRC was a "legal woman". Which is why the act included the single sex exemptions to allow for genuinely women only services.

As has been explained several times, that's not what the SSEs are. They allow single sex rather than mixed sex provision. 'Mixed' not being 'women plus men with a GRC', not 'women plus men who say they are women', but 'women plus all men'.

The default is 'all men' plus 'all women'. The SSE allows exclusion of one of those 2 categories.

Not sure that you can retrospectively apply a clarification of a law if up until the date of the clarification it was thought to be something else.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

@NoBinturongsHereMate Spot on