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.

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

If the women's boxing event is mixed sex then it would include all men and therefore there would be no need to specify that it includes trans women.
And if it's mixed sex, how could you call it a women's boxing event anyway?

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.

I just see them as heterosexual men. I also find the notion of a lesbian with a penis utterly repulsive and ridiculous. I also wouldn't fight for a family member who's views and behaviour I found disrespectful, they'd be on their own
But I understand others feel differently

TM are biologically female but taking testosterone. Very rarely have surgery to create a non-functioning penis.
TW are biologically male. These are the people most often found calling themselves lesbians and intruding into lesbian spaces.
I am a bit confused by the above post.

Oh gosh I read that as TW. It makes complete sense now. I should probably get some sleep and come back to this later..Thanks for pointing that out

If they want to exclude men, they also have to exclude transwomen.

Re: Lord Sumption's comment

An organisation has to justify holding a single sex event. As gender isn't defined, and the PC of GR includes people proposing to undergo gender reassignment, how would it be possible to complete any assessment that include women, people who are covered by GR and exclude men not protected by GR?

The orginal assessment would need to based on sex, so why then ignore sex and include some men?

Would that be possible for any other protected characteristic - all women and religious men but excluding men who are atheists?

Edit: i suppose events can be for women and children, so include boys but exclude adult men?

I still see no issue with having a group or activity that is labelled as open to women and TW (NB and all the rest of it) - yes it does in fact mean it's women and any men who want to be there, that was the point made in the judgement. You can't start separating the sex class of men out into groups for practical points, and that is what we had before as 'women' - women AND any men that fancied walking in on any agenda.

But if that's clearly labelled as a mixed sex group/activity AND women can clearly label that another group is women only and be left in peace, what's the problem? It will come down to the consent of the membership and that's largely what this is about - that men do not get to trump and override women's consent and needs. I agree it's going to be tricky for groups like WI and Guides to go on saying they're single sex/women only when they're not in practice: they're going to have to be honest about their brief.

I suspect the guidance will help a lot with making sense of all this in practical terms when it emerges.

Actually having gone back and read the judgment again this morning, scratch that, I think pps above have it right and I don't.

There is specific mention, as those pps have said, that if something is defined as for women for the reason of it being needed as something specific for women, to meet women's needs, then once any group of males (certificate or not) have entry, it is not reasonable to then keep it single sex because you cannot refuse other groups of men.

Sumption got the name of the legislation wrong.
Shows how much he knows

You're definitely not the only one. I really think the communication needs honing on this as it's a big enough adjustment in thinking for people who want to understand, let alone those who don't! But everyone needs to get their heads round it pretty quickly if they're looking at clarifying policies!

How about 'Your choices are single sex or mixed sex. You can't specify an event or service is open to some genders and not others, as there is no 'single gender exemption' its a 'single SEX exemption '.

Your typo has given me an answer?
Woman = biological women / single sex (includes women and sometimes trans men if not using that SC clause)
Womxn = inclusive group for those who identify as women (which might include women, trans women, non binary women and sometimes trans men)
Clear as mud

This tweet links to a video of an NEU rep giving a speech at the pee for me protest in London today.

https://x.com/jonnywsbell/status/1913591538623410201?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

Unison is the tweet above

Full live broadcast
https://www.youtube.com/live/W9FCBsUDELs?si=1LWhWJEgT1NmsGcE

It's easier if you forget about the emotive gender reassignment protected characteristic & substitute that of being married or in a civil partnership.

You cannot organise an event that is open to all women & married men but excludes unmarried men. Likewise you cannot organise an event that is open to all women & men with the PC of gender reassignment but excludes men not undergoing a process of gender reassignment

Is ... is 'pee for me' satirical? It's not really what they're calling it, is it? Was Toilet Duck there again?

In both cases could you not go ahead if the discrimination was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim? So for example if your event was to discuss issues faced by married women, but where the presence of husbands of married women might be useful.

OK. Let's try another PC.
You cannot organise an event that is open to all women & men over 65 but excludes men under 65. Likewise you cannot organise an event that is open to all women & men with the PC of gender reassignment but excludes men not undergoing a process of gender reassignment.
So called "trans" women are not women so it is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to exclude men without the PC of GR.

There are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, including sex and gender reassignment ( also pregnancy and maternity, which I assume will also be female only). The EA protects those particular groups against discrimination, including not being able to exclude or discrimiate against someone on the grounds of any of the 9 protected characteristics. But it also says that same sex facilities are not a breach of the Act if they can be justified, so single sex changing rooms, rape crisis centres, prisons etc would not be a breach of the EA, even though they don't allow members of the opposite sex.
Trans activists wanted the single sex exemption to include trans women, so stating that 'sex' meant 'gender', not biological sex and separately argued that 'people are who they say they are', meaning that if you said you were a woman you could use single sex facilities. This meant that no one could provide single sex facilities, because any single sex facility could have males in who said they were women, so were basically then open to all men. Of course it also works the other way round, but funnily enough transmen don't fancy competing against men in sporting competitions or being housed in male prisons. Now the Supreme court has said that sex means biological sex. So basically, if you want to provide mixed sex facilities and gender neutral toilets, then you can. But in certain situations you also have to provide single sex facilities. Also people who provide single sex facilities can exclude men. Which was what the EA and its predecessor the Sec Discrimination Act was about in the first place.

As ever, I’m a bit confused. Solstice works in an “Alternative Provision”. That’s possibly a PRU or a temporary placement after school placement breakdown. A said the kids there were there as an act of protest (?) but I’ve never heard of anyone going to the PRU related to peaceful protest regarding belief or trans status. If they’ve been excluded from school for more than 15 days then it’s usually for breaking the rules regarding staff/pupil safety (edited to add or problems attending at all due to MH). Also the SC judgement doesnt have any different effect on school pupils than it did last Monday. Does anyone understand what they are talking about?

Oh dear - if you’re going to protest and be visible then you need to make it big - or don’t bother.

There were more people in Parliament Square for the unveiling of Millicent Fawcett’s statue in 2018 than can be seen on this film.

The Pee for Me protest may not have the impact they hope for

I'm grateful for that for more reasons than one.

But we're back at the same point - that discrimination (against non-trans-identifying men) is lawful if it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Presumably the legitimate aim would be the safety (and dignity?) of women and trans-identifying men in that changing room. The proportionality of that looks like another piece of litigation to me unfortunately.

I think that in that situation ironically the "victims" would be the non-trans-identifying men who are suffering the discrimination by being excluded. They won't give two hoots, and for them the proportionality threshold would be low because the interference with their rights is minimal because they're quite happy in their own changing room.

Sorry, I've just realised I've transposed the scenario from an event to changing rooms, but I don't think it makes a lot of difference. I think there may be an argument that discriminating on the basis of gender reassignment can be justified. The SC judgment only answers a limited range of questions.

Following up on another thread I've just listened to David Sumption's Radio 4 interview from yesterday, and I think he's right.

What is the legitimate aim of only including men who dress up as women? They aren’t women. They don’t have special women’s interests like periods & pregnancy so what could be the legitimate aim for excluding men who don’t dress up as women?