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".)

There's a long thread about mammographers , who currently must be female in the UK.

The post shows the weaknesses of AI. I don't know if it's dramatically worse overall than the range of advice you get from lawyers - that post suggests it is - but I'm certain that it wouldn't be legally defensible to say you got your opinion from chatGPT.

In fact the comparator to a man without the PC of GR is not a woman without the PC of GR - it's a man that does have the PC of GR (so you keep their protected characteristic of sex the same, and just change the protected characteristic of GR to compare the two). If you treat those two differently, then it's discrimination on the basis of GR unless there's a proportionate reason to do so.

Eg. a group that was aimed at supporting men with the PC of GR (ie. transwomen) - I think most would say it's proportionate and reasonable to exclude men without the PC of GR. Both are men, but one group has a PC and the other does not.

A women's group that accepts men with the PC of GR (transwomen) - you'd have to find the commonality between the women in the group and the men with the PC of GR, that doesn't also include men without the PC of GR, to make the case that it's reasonable and proportionate to include the former and exclude the latter.

(PS Re-reading my comment, it makes it look like I'm arguing with you but I'm not, I'm agreeing with you!!)

And this is what protects women from idiots who will say 'this prison is for women AND this group of men because we're inclusive'. Or 'this changing room is for women AND this group of men because we're inclusive'.

You can't protect women unless you have this clear line. This was the whole point of the case.

Yes, it's sad and hard to see men upset. But this is to protect women. Sentiment has really got to be put to one side here. If it's a single sex thing for women there was a reason it needed to be single sex, and that means biological women only. If it doesn't need to be single sex, it can be for everyone. If it needs to meet the needs of people with the protected gender reassigment characteristic, it can be for people with that protected characteristic.

Women who want to believe in gender are very welcome to; they just cannot destroy other women and girls' protections and legal rights. And sadly, they really need to remember they themselves are only ever a day away from an incident that adds them to the ranks of women who need single sex provision.

Of course they can, have you been living under a rock?

Women (born female) nurses, carers, mammography technicians, rape centre staff, etc.

It is proportionate means to a legitimate aim to offer women only services for things like this, therefore they have to advertise the jobs as women only - otherwise how can they run the service if they aren't allowed to recruit the staff?

This. Always this. Transwoman or trans identified male.

I've encountered similar. A local "Women in [industry]" event, with a similar purpose to the group you mentioned now advertise all events as "open to all genders". I had the same thought as you, that opportunities meant to address inequality and promote involvement in the industry are being diluted. I avoid most industry events because they're so male dominated despite being open to everyone so the women's events had more appeal.

Just to be clear, you asked ChatGPT and that's the answer you got? I.e. one that doesn't follow the law as specified by the Supreme Court?

That wouldn't be surprising. I don't know too much about how AI works, but I'm supposing it takes elements of your question and finds them in a wide range internet resources, then constructs something resembling an answer based on what those sources say. Well, if some of the sources describe the legal position, but others which include the terms "Supreme Court", "UK", "woman" etc. are written by nutjobs on Reddit TRAs then the answer ChatGPT comes up with could include those as crazy opinions fact.

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!

The SC judgment protects women against this.

Yes, captured organisations who prioritise men and see women's legal protections as an unfair limiting of those men's freedoms, will probably do this.

However they will no longer be able to stop women only services and events being created, if necessary by private and outside providers on the grounds of them being discriminatory in being single sex. They will not be able to refuse them the right to meet in or hire public buildings, they will not be able to pressure organisations or building owners on the grounds of single sex being discriminatory. And if they do, the women running the group will have a slam dunk case in court, and insurers will not be happy.

It's going to take time, but the judgment means actual women's services can come back and stand up to the bullies who would not permit accessible services for all to run alongside each other.

I'm going to the breast clinic tomorrow and they said I may well be seen by a man. I think they changed it recently...not that I care for that particular role.

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 heard they’re recruiting for a governance lawyer, so hopefully they’re starting to realise that now!

Although several NHS trusts appear to have taken ‘female’ to include men with a GRC for mammography positions over the past few years.

Trying to steel-man this:

This group is open to anyone who declares they're a woman.

This group is open to anyone who plays the violin.

Not direct sex discrimination, because it's equally open to men and women providing they fulfil the condition. Failing to declare you're a woman is no more a protected characteristic than failing to play the violin.

But it would be indirect sex discrimination wouldn't it? Because most men don't declare they're women. And I don't think there's anything that says you can do /indirect/ sex discrimination as an exception.

You can discriminate on sex if it's a proportionate means to a legitimate end. You can discriminate on sex AND gender reassignment ditto - so you could exclude transmen from your rape crisis centre if it was felt their presence would cause women alarm. If you're a public service provider I think you'd have to show that you were also providing adequate provision for the needs of men, transmen and transwomen elsewhere, which might be in a mixed sex service, or specialist services for one of those groups.

I dont think you could make this argument if you’re bound by the Public Sector Equality Duty though, as it makes a mockery of the PC of being a woman and also arguably of transgender people, as it suggests that men who say they’re women are just as much women as male-bodied transsexuals are (I know, I know, but in the interests of steel-manning this..).

And what about gender critical women who refuse to declare they are women? Presumably they are excluded too because of their (protected) beliefs.

So it would potentially be a breach of the PSED to foster good relations between women and men and between transsexual people and non-transsexual people, as it generally pits people against each other, encourages men to mock transsexual people’s gender identity struggles (by saying “I’m a woman too, love”, as they do). IMO this would achieve precisely the opposite of all the things the PSED was designed for, especially in terms of women and transsexual people.

I can't tell if you are being serious because of the Hooters gag, but The Equality Act allows for some types of job to be only available to people with a protected characteristic, including sex:

787.This paragraph provides a general exception to what would otherwise be unlawful direct discrimination in relation to work. The exception applies where being of a particular sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation or age – or not being a transsexual person, married or a civil partner – is a requirement for the work
789 Examples; A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/26/1

ChatGPT is hallucinating in the post because it cited the SC decision as (2024) not (2025). It gets things wrong.

The judgment is clear. Anyone offering a single sex product or service can only provide it for that sex. Otherwise it is mixed sex.

But if for example a rape crisis centre is made available for mixed sexes it would be sex discrimination not to provide a single sex service for women.

Thank you. Yeah the hooters thing was meant to be a joke but the other bit was me being daft and not thinking of the many jobs where indeed they would be able to have it specified by sex.
You and others have pointed out lots of roles like that. So yeah, I stand educated!

I'm just wondering how I'll feel tomorrow if my breast surgeon/mammogram person is male? Hopefully they won't be but I guess I don't really mind at this point.

I've had two biopsies and a lumpectomy, both carried out by men and I didn't mind. I'd refuse a mammogram unless it was carried out by a woman, they aren't remotely the same.

Mammograms can only be conducted by women.