NEU defy the Supreme court

[ArabellaScott]

Womens conference to welcome males who identify as women.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/neu-says-its-national-womens-conference-will-welcome-trans-women

Be interesting to see.what the EHRC make of that.

I think this- nothing that’s a bunch of women talking, even about women’s issues, is by definition single sex. If my work has a women’s discussion , men (men who are comfortable that they are men) are welcome to come, presumably as allyship. Which is fine by me. You’d have to indicate there’s a reason for it to be women only in this. I cant see this event clearing that barrier tbh. I think the WI may be able to, rape, assault dv survivors definitely should, but not necessarily general work /industry/ professional discussions for women.

IANAL but look at it the other way. If you advertise a conference “for women” or “women’s conference” then to the average person that’s probably going to mean single sex. If someone bought a ticket on that basis and then found trans women admitted without this being made clear, then I think the organisers would be in trouble for miss-selling.

If you want a meeting to include Trans Women you’d need to make that more clear in the name “Inclusive Women’s Conference” or “Women & TransWomen’s Conference” etc. But if men or trans men wanted to come, then I think organisers couldn’t exclude them.

This is exactly why the Supreme Court ruled on sex. Anything else makes a mess

Or a 'womens issues ' conference.

Women and Transwomen conference...Can't see the TW liking that. What with Transwomen being Women and they feel there should be no distinction

Ah yes. Tricky then - to differentiate enough not to trigger the mid-selling of a single sex spaces in, while simultaneously making it mixed sex but trying to avoid men and trans men… I think @ArabellaScott‘s option might be best with some sort of “for those who identify as women” strapline?

Ah but then a conference for those who identify as women would exclude me because I don't identify as a woman, I simply am one.
Oh well, I'm sure they'll figure it out eventually

Yes I realise that- that's why I posted two distinct statements:

A service or event doesn't HAVE to be single sex (it can include males).

But it's not ALLOWED to be single gender (ie biological women and trans women only).

And it breaches the EA to have a 'people who identify as women' conference anyway, because gender isn't a protected characteristic with a single sex exemption: sex is.

The ruling was in regard to a case where the Scottish government was trying to include transwomen in a women only category. FWS challenged it on the basis that if they want it to be women only, that meant it had to be women only, not women and the few men who want to be women.

The Supreme Court has ruled in FWS’s favour. So I think it is must, not can.

This has just come through on an NEU women's Whatsapp group I am in
"NEU Trans and Non-Binary Network Statement on the Supreme Court ruling in the case of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers (“FWS2”)

The NEU Trans & Non-Binary Network was shocked to see the ruling of the Supreme Court in the FWS2 case which overruled the two previous court decisions, as well as how equality law has been understood for the last 15 years.

The judgment was made by cisgender judges who heard arguments from cisgender lawyers representing organisations run by cisgender people. This lack of involvement of trans people in decisions about our own lives and rights is sadly not a new problem."

It goes on - a lot!

"Not once, in the entire judgment, does the court refer to intersex people. This is a gaping hole in its reasoning, which rests entirely on the false assertion that sex is binary. At paragraph 173, the court states that “it makes no sense for conduct … to be regulated … by reference to categories that can only be ascertained by knowledge of who possesses a … certificate”. While the court was referring to GRCs, it is equally true that sex assigned at birth (what the court insisted on referring to as “biological sex”) can only be determined by reference to the original birth certificate. For intersex people, the birth certificate is often arbitrary based on a decision made by a doctor, and may bear very little relevance to a person’s later development. Again, the court’s judgment suggests that they were unaware of intersex people, who make up nearly 2% of the population."

Signed off

"NEU Trans and Non-Binary Network
18 April 2025
Joined by:
Add your name to this list: https://forms.gle/CA5zeTRZmG1X5csH8
NEU Aro/Ace Spectrum Network
NEU Black LGBT+ Educators’ Network
NEU Disabled (incl. Neurodivergent) LGBT+ Network
NEU LGBT+ Women's Network"
NEU LGBT+ OF Cymru
NEU Bi+ Network
NEU Organising Forum Wales
NEU Kingston upon Thames District
NEU Hull District
NEU Leeds District and Branch
NEU Devon District
NEU Hounslow District
NEU Brighton and Hove District
NEU West Sussex Branch and District
NEU Bristol District
NEU North Kent District
NEU Birmingham District
NEU Sheffield District
NEU Southwark District

Pus lots of individuals names which I'm choosing not to share

Also

"We hope that we can count on your support moving forwards, and hope to see those of you who are able to attend at the demonstration in Parliament Square, London on Saturday 19th April at 1pm. "

So angry with my union :-(

The use of the vile intersex argument seems to be growing

Not once, in the entire judgment, does the court refer to intersex people. This is a gaping hole in its reasoning, which rests entirely on the false assertion that sex is binary. At paragraph 173, the court states that “it makes no sense for conduct … to be regulated … by reference to categories that can only be ascertained by knowledge of who possesses a … certificate”. While the court was referring to GRCs, it is equally true that sex assigned at birth (what the court insisted on referring to as “biological sex”) can only be determined by reference to the original birth certificate. For intersex people, the birth certificate is often arbitrary based on a decision made by a doctor, and may bear very little relevance to a person’s later development. Again, the court’s judgment suggests that they were unaware of intersex people, who make up nearly 2% of the population

So much utter drivel in one paragraph.

Sex is binary and determined at conception
DSDs are not trans
all DSDs are male or female
babies are karotyped if external genitals are indistinct
and those ones are about 1 in 20,000 births

Is excluding transwomen from the conference a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim? Gender reassignment is still a protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act. The change is the protected characteristic of sex is only for biological sex. Am I right about this? The organisers of the women’s conference aren’t compelled to exclude transwomen.

That is one epic clown statement! 🤡🤡🤡

Again, they can be female only, using the single sex exemption. They would have to argue it was proportionate but if the conference included e.g. groups coming together to talk about issues that affect women at work thatd be straightforward to do. e.g. menopause (a massive issue for teachers who often don't have the luxury of a toilet break during the day even if flooding during peri).

It can be mixed sex, and a conference ABOUT women at work that men can attend.

What it can't be is single GENDER I.e. People who identify as women. Because there is no exemption for gender.

You're wrong in your penultimate sentence- it's always been biological sex. This is just a clarification because so many orgs had it very very wrong.

Oh wow!

I really hope that people challenge the NEU Trans and non binary network (and all the other organizations spouting the same lies) about their ridiculous and incorrect statements about 'intersex' (ffs).

And this waffle about no trans people being represented. The Scottish Government represented them!!

Just to be clear.

The SSE were not about whether a service could be women only, but about the fact that (as Labour intended) "for all purposes" men with a GRC would be a "legal woman". So the SSE were written to say the one time they weren't a "woman". (Just another example of how demented and determined Labour was to get society to accept TW as having changed their sex. (nut jobs the lot of them)

However the provision of services only for one sex is a completely different sex of guidelines.

See this section from the EHRC guidelines, ie in the first instance you want to provide single sex services you need to meet this criteria:

When you can provide a separate or single-sex service
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

ie long before you (in the past) applied the SSE you had to show it was proportionate ie justifiable to be single sex in the first place.

This would apply to both men only and women only.

Once you have those in place then (in the past) you would not only advertise that they were Single Sex Services, but also add a reminder that single sex services excluded anyone with a GRC.

So presumably in the future any service provided as single sex that can show it is a justifiable means of achieving a legitmate aim, doesn't even need to refer to the SSE as they no longer have an relevance because the Supreme Court has ruled that if the word sex is used, ie single sex service, then it means biological sex.

So jobs, events etc., will no longer be advertised under the SSE but under the SSS provisions as outlined in the link above.

(But who gets to decide what is proportionate?!)

EDITED TO ADD: this was meant to quote napody's post You can't have a 'women & transwomen only' event because the exemption allowed is for sex not gender

I'm not sure on this point.

It seems clear that if you run an event advertised as for women, it must be for women categorised by sex.

But does it stop events being run for "women and those who identify as women"?

You can run events for groups who are not defined by protected characteristics e.g. groups for people who like yoga, or reading, or want to lose weight or whatever.

So, as long as the organiser is clear who the event is for, could they still go ahead on that basis?

Would it depend on whether men were discriminated against? And is that as simple as not being invited or is it more complicated than that?

But does it stop events being run for "women and those who identify as women"?

Surely if you're including men who identify as women, but excluding others who don't, that would be discriminatory against men under their protected sex characteristic.

It would be a mixed sex event but exclude certain people of one of those sexes

This may end up going back to the courts. Lord Sumption among others has indicated that women + TW groupings are legal.

The logic for this is that trans discrimination protection only operates one way, ie it is legal to discriminate against a man for not being trans. So if a non-trans male wanted to attend a women + TW group, that group could say, we are discriminating against non-trans men not because they are male but because they are not trans, which we are allowed to do.

The question is whether the SSE can operate in this way, allowing non-trans men and non-trans women to be treated differently while also allowing transwomen to participate, and the EHRC may already be commissioning expensive legal advice on this.

However it may be a while, if ever, before this issue actually comes to court, as the optics are complicated and arguing it will involve arguing that men should have access to a womxn group, which as PP have pointed out most people will find uncomfortable.

Interestingly I can’t see any grounds for excluding transmen from a group of women. This is as it should be I think, and the transmen I know have always wanted more of a dual nationality approach to identity rather than a simple TMAM.

Speaking as a lesbian I don’t particularly like having TM in my spaces. I don’t like being around the testosterone, I find their regressive gender ideology often translates into overt sexist behaviour, plus their ideology is disrespectful to the non-trans masculine women who are the bedrock of our community. But if they are attracted to women, they are still part of the family. When they want to be with the rest of us I welcome them like any other family member you disagree with but would nonetheless fight to protect.

Surely you can have a Woman’s Conference but anyone can attend. Just that issues will be female based.
Same as you could have a Disability Rights Conference but non- disabled people can go.
if you had a Woman’s Conference and strictly only allowed women attendees then yes that would be biological sex.
up to the organisers I guess?

isn’t lord Sumption making the point that Boxing could run boxing events where it was made clear the woman’s event was mixed sex and included trans women ( and then would presumably be responsible for the risk of death to the female boxers!) but Boxing couldn’t run a woman’s event that purported to be Women only but allowed TW.
in other words make it clear to everyone what the event is or who the facilities are for - so mixed sex loos perfectly legal as long as you make it clear they are mixed and not single sex.

The judgment was clear that there is no way - in the Equality Act terms - to make a group of women and men (who may or may not have certificates) while the law remained coherent. Or to permit women's and other groups' rights to stay protected. Men just cannot have what they want on this.

I would think the point is that any group that wants can make it clear they are holding an event or group for women AND TW and NB and whichever else groups, and crack on, there's nothing in the judgment to say this is banned and it would be ridiculous. But a lesbian group who wished to specify that the group was women only would be able to refuse all entry to any men, certificates or not, and not be hammered, bullied and legally threatened for it. And a single sex provision or resource for women is equally able to hold that for women only on a sexed basis.

Women need this legal protection to be able to say no to 'men who want to be with them'. It's not all and only about the men. Many womens groups have been destroyed, driven underground, women excluded, because the men who joined them made it unusable or destroyed its original purpose, often aggressively. Groups were targeted and destroyed by activists merely for saying no to men. This is not ok because 'those men are family' - a non reciprocal relationship based on a man taking and a woman having no rights and having to provide for him is not 'family', it's abusive.

And if it is forced back to be that enormous confused muddle that basically means 'women' means 'men first', it will entirely fuck up the law for everyone else. And fix the destruction of women's rights and equalities in law. Sadly many would have absolutely no problem with that so long as no men have to cope with the word 'no'.