Is it legally possible to now advertise jobs or events as trans inclusive?

[IwantToRetire]

Many of the women's groups who are meant to represent women service providers have all lamented the Supreme Court ruling as being anti trans. And go on to advise their groups to use the now legally clarified (!!) word woman as only meaning biological sex. But should continue to provide trans inclusive service so long as they list them honestly.

But none of them have provided guidance on this. So I asked ChatGPT how it could be done. I dont think it has grasped the implications of words woman and female as being only to be used legally in relation to biological.

According to ChatGPT:

Inclusive Language Guidance for Jobs and Events (UK Equality Act Context – May 2025)

This document provides legally cautious, inclusive example language for advertising job roles or hosting events that include both biological women and trans individuals. It is written in alignment with:

• The UK Supreme Court ruling (2024) that defines “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 as biological sex
• Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) guidance on inclusive practices

🔷 Scenario 1: For Biological Women + Trans Women with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)

Who can apply / attend:

This opportunity is open to individuals who were born female and to individuals who hold a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) confirming a female gender identity.

We recognise the legal definition of “sex” as biological sex under the Equality Act 2010. Although GRC holders are not considered female for all legal purposes under the Act, we have chosen to adopt an inclusive approach for this role/event.

If you are unsure whether this applies to you, or would like a confidential discussion, please get in touch.

🟩 Scenario 2: For Biological Women + Individuals Who Self-Identify as Female / Feminine / Woman-Aligned

Who can apply / attend:

This role/event is intended for individuals who were born female, and for individuals who identify as women, female, feminine, or woman-aligned, regardless of legal status.

We understand that under the Equality Act 2010, “sex” refers to biological sex. However, we are committed to fostering an inclusive environment that recognises and respects gender diversity. This role/event is therefore open to participants of all legal sexes who share the lived experience or identity of womanhood or femininity.

If you're unsure whether this description applies to you, please contact us confidentially.

⚠️ Language and Framing Notes

Avoid using legally loaded or misleading terms, unless used with clear legal justification:

🚫 Avoid in isolation:

• “Women-only”
• “Female-only”
• “Open to all women”

✅ Use instead:

• “Open to those born female and others who identify as...”
• “Inclusive of GRC holders and self-identifying individuals”
• “This is not a legally restricted single-sex event”

These alternatives help you stay within the law while showing clear trans inclusion as an intentional policy choice.
---

Surely if the word woman has been clarified to mean biological you cant then for instance use it in another way, eg indentify as a woman?

(Realise many on FWR wont really care about women's groups wanting to do this, but have been thinking how useless all those groups who are set up and funded to represent women's groups are as none of them has actually been able or willing to help the groups they say they represent. ie they have posted statements of sympathy with groups wanting to be trans inclusive post Supreme Court ruling but dont offer advice on how to do this legally. They just say "be honest".)

How many jobs need to specifically hire women or trans women anyway? Very few. If you are needing to specify that you need a woman for the role it should be a person with XX chromosomes otherwise simply hire a human, a person then it doesn’t matter.

They would need to drop women or any of that waffle entirely, just advertise the job and hire the best person. If they do want just women then advertise for women. Seriously, men don't have to be included in everything even though it makes them sad.

Yes in FWR world 2 PP would apply.

But like it not, any number of services and jobs, etc have been advertised as being for both biological women and men who identify as women.

Because, like it or not, that is what some people, including women, believe.

I am talking about the reality of the world we live in and acknowledge the fact that no everyone thinks the same.

So my question still is, if the Supreme Court has said the word woman mean biological, can you then use the word woman in the often used phrase "trans woman"?

Use transwoman, all one word, not trans woman with a space . That makes it look like a subset of women such as blonde women, left handed women. They are not, they are male.

Transwoman as one word avoids that.

Yeah, here’s an organisation called “STEM Women” who put on events to encourage women into STEM - a sector where women are massively underrepresented. And yet this is what it says on their website:

“We run graduate careers events and promote jobs aimed at university students and recent graduates who identify as women or non-binary, and study a STEM related subject; science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. The events and roles cover locations across the UK, Europe and Australia.”

Although promotion for one of their upcoming events says:
”Targeting students who identify as female and non-binary, but open to all regardless of gender.”

I fear all the opportunities which have been created to help women are going to disappear into “for all” events, because we can’t possibly have women’s events that don’t include men who identify as women!

I know of an event whose title does not include the word woman (or female) but says it is open to women and those who identify as women or non-binary. That is reasonable in my opinion.

I agree about transwomen as one word.

IANAL, but I think you're right - as far as the EA is concerned, a trans male is a man with the PC of GR. According to the SC, woman means only a biological female.
So all these women's organisations can't use women to mean women+MCW, they can't exclude other men by saying Women + those who identify/have a GRC, etc etc. All of those phrasings you list are unlawfully discriminatory, IMO because they can't rely on the single sex exception.

What they are doing is essentially what the Scottish government and the Welsh Senedd tried to do. But the first FWS case said that they couldn't redefine woman as woman + self-ID male, and the SC judgement said that they can't redefine woman as women + male with GRC, either.

It's not reasonable, it's Sex discrimination.

It wouldnt seem reasonable to a man who would like to attend but cant because he doesnt have the PC of GR, even though women without the PC of GR can attend.

Would it not be discrimination against other men if they say they'll include some men but not others?

Well if they are like all the women's officer posts given to males, we won't miss them!
But seriously, some of these initiatives are legacies, some are funded by local authorities, sports governing bodies, the Lottery, etc, and are meant to be for women, so what are they going to do? They have to put on the programmes or they'll be out of a job, or misusing their funds, or indirectly discriminating against women.

So even though I'm sure you're right about the reaction - Parkrun comes to mind - I think they will have to operate within the law at some stage.

I suppose they need to make it open, but focused on topics which concern women and transwomen.

It is hard to find a case where is proportionate to allow men with trans gender identity and discriminate against men without trans gender identity

Both scenarios cut across protected characteristics. The SC judgement said this is not allowed.

It can be single sex (regardless of gender reassignment - so including transmen but not transwomen). Or it can be for people in the gender reassignment category (of either sex). Or it can be for women with gender reassignment (excluding other women).

But you can't mix part of 1 group with part of another group. Everyone in the group has to share all the characteristics.

I reject the use of 'transwoman' in any form to describe a man. They are not women. People who are not aware of the situation parse both 'transwoman' and 'trans woman' to mean a woman who is trans, ie identifies as a man.

What they are is not what women are, so they can create a different made up name for their LARPing.

How on earth is that reasonable? So India Willoughby and Eddie Izzard can attend this event for women, but Graham Linehan can't? That's the whole point of the SC ruling: women can only refer to biology; if some men are allowed to enter women's spaces, but other men are not, then that is discrimination against those men.

Why oh why would you trust Chat-gpt to give a legal analysis? It can put together coherent sentences but it is not a lawyer and doesn’t understand the details. There are important issues to discuss here and we really don’t need AI making a muddle of it.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about what the Supreme Court ruling actually did.

It didnt provide a detailed legal definition of the term woman that universally applies is any or all contexts. In the UK we do not have any regulatory bodies that determine what particular words mean in common parlance.

What it did do is clarify what woman meant in the context of statutory requirements for single sex provision.

If it helps, think of it as colours. Purple is used by many people to refer to somethings that everyone would agree on, but also some areas around the edge where you get a range of opinions on what is or using purple. Court case defines that where there’s a legislative requirement for things to be purple it’s RGB 128,0,128. That doesn’t mean that organisations not subject to the government requirements to do things in purple can’t continue to use the term
purple for other things. It just means that if it’s a statutory requirement for purple then it’s the one the court specified.

I'd rather they did, but it's better than trans woman.

Another word, and I'm struggling for a polite one, would be preferable, for sure.

I don't think there are any jobs where they can say application is only open to one sex.
Except maybe Hooters waitress but I think they went bust recently!?

Use plain English: men who claim they are women. It’s not one word, but is entirely clear what is meant. If you want a single word, you can invent one, if you like. Just ensure it doesn’t include the word women in any way as that causes widespread confusion..

The most obvious would be for jobs in services that serve only women, because those women need it.

That would include those working in women only DV services, rape-crisis counsellors for women-only groups and (in an ideal world) prison officers in women’s prisons.

'bust' snorts

There's an exception called the Genuine Occupational Requirement (GOQ) which means you can restrict recruitment to people with a PC which is crucial to the job. For Sex, it could be a job like head of a RCC, intimate carer, therapy group leader, changing room attendant - that sort of thing.
ETA: And mammographers!

You can use the GOQ exception for any of the other PCs (except pregnancy and maternity).

How about 'transwman' - the 'w' is silent.

Oh yeah that's true. Apart from that I don't think they're allowed. I think that women's prisons can be staffed by men though?