is this legal

[javyd]

is it legal for the RSPB to advertise this women only walk and then say it’s for anyone who identifies as a woman or anyone who is non binary? So basically a mixed sex walk:

https://events.rspb.org.uk/events/96479?fbclid=IwQ0xDSwK78EFleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHuuR3UtdrATGnTTt5ySxJ2WYamEz4NDR_kaGslT5fzD6KXb0R73aBSl4iXxp_aem_Tl1LwIsISF5qJxKMiI80Bg

Some of the boards on here are restricted and you have to be a member for a certain amount of time, there is probably a list somewhere, maybe, so I would think this board would be one of those.

It would be illegal as the Equality act currently allows single sex spaces but not single gender.

Again, try readying the whole thing. Or report to the police if you really think a law has been broken.

It is discriminatory against non deluded men
to allow deluded men
into a women's space or event

Thus that RSPB advert is discriminatory
and misleading

You could try reporting it to ask mumsnet to move it to the relevant board? Not sure if it would work but you could try it.

You have to have been a member for a day in order to post I think.

I have read it and it contradicts itself.

As suggested I have sent an email highlighting their error so they will hopefully remove the woman only claim or remove the part why they say males are also welcome.

It’s not a criminal matter so the police won’t do anything.

But it is unlawful and I would send a formal complaint to RSPB.

I will also start a thread on the feminism board on your behalf and ask some women to write.

Here you go @javyd

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5355496-who-wants-to-write-a-complaint-letter

Does a walk around an RSPB nature reserve need to comply with the Equality Act definition of a woman though?

Does it really matter if woman and people who identify as woman go on the walk. They aren't advertising the walk as a single sex safe space so I can't see why they are legally required to comply with the Equality Act definition of a woman.

That sounds like a rational thing to do. I disagree it’s illegal, but I also wouldn’t have posted if this was in the feminism board. Hopefully OP is able to report the thread and get this moved to the right place if they allow that for new members.

I never said its illegal I said it was a contradiction.

Chat is as good as place as any to chat about things, I don't believe there is a list of acceptable chat topics attached so I don't see why it should be moved.

on my basic understanding it’s not illegal, but if a male who identifies as a male wanted to join and they were refused, then it would be discrimination to exclude him just because he’s a man. This is because they can’t rely on the single sex exemption because it is not a single sex event (as biological males identifying as women can attend and they aren’t women based on the Supreme Court judgement). Therefore if men who identify as men are excluded then I think that would be unlawful sex discrimination - that’s just my basic understanding though and accept I could be wrong .

Of course it has to comply with equality law.

They are calling it a women only safe space
but letting some men in.

That is misleading and discriminatory against other men.

Either make it women only
or make it mixed

It's discrimination - you can't have a women-only walk which includes some men but not others.

They should just remove the women-only bit, then it's fine.

The (provisional) guidance covers this - you can have a combination of 2 protected characteristics - eg. woman and lesbian - ie an AND situation - if you are a woman AND lesbian then that's legal, but you can't have an OR situation - ie you could not have muslims OR disabled people (but you can have a group for muslim disabled people)

I think you have to question if it is proportionate to exclude a group based on a PC, ie is it reasonable to exclude men from this group. If it is, ie, are single women more likely to go on the walk if there were no men, survivors of domestic violence, religious backgrounds etc, then why are some men included?
If you want to exclude normal men, you have to state why, and I can’t think of a reason why you would exclude normal men, that would make trans identifying men acceptable.

wel yes, I think it should.
For example, I know a woman who was threatened by a man whilst out in the woods walking her dog. She won’t walk out in nature or woodland now as a result. If a woman is a survivor of DV, sexual assault or rape, she would appreciate a woman only walk like this.

Of course they haven't been 'banned for existing'.

By law, (which is what it's always been, the supreme court just confirmed it) if you want to use the legal sex discrimination of saying something is women only, or men only, you can, and exclude all who do not belong to that group. But that means that it is only that group, and you cannot then start permitting some members of the opposite sex in and not others without losing your legal protection. In this case, you cannot exclude some men and not others, it's discrimination.

When you (general you) start messing with this, you take away the boundaries that permit women to have women only refuges (obviously alongside lots of nice accessible options for all men), and women only changing rooms (obviously alongside lots of nice accessible options for men, it's ok, no one wants men to suffer), and women only rape crisis services (obvs men too, they won't suffer by women having accessible provision), and women only HCPs and strip searches and other things. You can't have it all ways. The term 'women only' has to mean what it says. And otherwise women are excluded (and banned for existing, as they have been when they cannot access mixed sex services being called 'womens'). This is inclusion: groups meaning what they say, and services being able to exist along side so that everyone has access equally.

There is nothing to stop anyone announcing it's an activity likely to be of interest to men and vegans and spot welders and nail bar professionals, it's fine. But you can't then invoke any legal right to exclude anyone, and you lay yourself open to legal action. In this case, non trans men who could claim discrimination as some men can do this but they can't, and possibly women who can claim for lack of actual sex based provision when they can't access a mixed sex group labelled for women.

Purely because OP was quite keen to have it on the feminism board board, I was aiming to be helpful to her, not sure why you’ve taken issue with OPs want now as well as everything I say. The whole thread is about whether or not it’s illegal - glad you agree it’s not illegal.

It can either be ‘women only’ OR ‘women and some men’. It cannot be both. So they need to remove the ‘women only’, because they don’t intend it to be ‘women only’.

They may need to justify why it’s only some men.

I’m ok with the thread staying here in Chat.

The OP later clarified that posting in chat was actually a good thing as maybe there would be a wider audience.

On reflection it seems it could be illegal given the points others have made which is that some males are excluded but not all so isn't that discrimination?

Fair enough, i agree it’s as good a place as any. I wasn’t trying to be difficult by suggesting a potential way to get it moved. Based on your comments and questions about posting on the feminism board I thought you wanted it there, was trying to help with that one.

Worth thinking as well - the judgment confirmed, if something was regarded as important enough to make single sex, as opposed to open to all, it was for a proportionate, legitimate reason. No one needs explanation on why some events may be women only.

If advertised as that, and intended as that, then it does have to be women only. Otherwise the purpose of the group and its benefits becomes unjustifiable. Either it's single sex (and important enough to be so) or it isn't.

It discriminates against men without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment without a legitimate or proportionate reason so yes, it is discrimination under the equality act.