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

Do you think bird watchers are less inclined to misogynistic behaviour than other men? There’s a reason women enjoy women only activities.

We’re not tearing their plans apart, we are pointing out that they are acting unlawfully.

Women have had enough.

I for one will be calling it out every time I see it.

Time for organisations to get the memo that woman = adult human female.

That's a misunderstanding of what 'legitimate' and 'proportionate' mean in terms of the act.

It doesn't mean 'can you justify why this one particular activity is really important?'. It isn't case by case. It simply means, has a decision been made that this activity should be offered as a single sex one rather than open to all as would usually be the case.

If the decision has been made that yes, it is needed or beneficial as a single sex activity to meet the needs of that sex, then it IS legitimate to exclude the opposite sex, and it is proportionate to do so. And that means you are legally able to discriminate by excluding those not of that sex.

If you want to keep that legal protection of being allowed to exclude the opposite sex, then they all have to be excluded. If you permit any, you have to permit them all, or your discrimination ceases to be legal.

Again, very important to think wider than 'just a walk'.

If single sex does not always have a definite, fixed meaning that cannot be blurred, it ends the legal protections of women, of homosexual people and of women with trans identities for pregnancy and maternity. That is the consequence of thoughtless 'aww bless it does not harm in this one thing', it's a lot bigger than just one thing.

All organisations need to shift to understand the law in order for the protections within the law to work (including for trans people) and that means being careful with language.

Otherwise 'it's just a walk' equals no women's rape crisis service and men strip searching women if they identify a particular way today. (I am not joking.) To protect those groups' equalities there cannot be well meaning fluffing of this, it's too important and the cost too large. Women and homosexual people are not able to have groups of their own and set boundaries at all without this law being clear.

It's such a weird grouping. If I'm going to hang out in a mixed sex group, I don't want every single male there to be one who believes that biological sex is irrelevant. What a horrible power imbalance that would be.

What's wrong with "women and transmen"?

You are right that near the bottom of the listing they have said it is an inclusive event for anyone who identifies as a woman. But that is not clear in the title or in the first few lines. So it is a bit misleading because most people would expect the basics to be covered by the headlines.

Under the Equality Act it is only legal to have a segregated group if everyone shares the same protected one or two or maybe three protected characteristics and wants to be in the group. You can't force people to be segregated as that would be discrimination.

So for an event advertised/headlined as "women only" that could be trans-inclusive by having women and trans men(bio women) attend = lawful

But if the RSPB want to include transwomen (bio males) then they can't call it a "Nature Walks for Women" event because as soon as one male is included, it is a mixed sex group. So by allowing TW and refusing other males, they would be discriminating against the males who don't have a feminine gender identity = unlawful

They would also run into trouble if they had a "Trans Women Gender Reassignment Walk" and allowed self-ID transwomen to join because for that to be lawful, the participants would all have to be male sex with a GRC (and self ID people don't have a GRC). And also illegal if bio women (including Trans Men) joined because they are neither male nor GRC holders.

It is not a criminal offence, but it is a breach of the Equality Act and members of the RSPB will be able to make a complaint about this walk. And potentially escalate to a civil case (although I have no idea what tribunal would cover this).

Any clearer @ToKittyornottoKitty ?

I agree - I’ve been a member of the RSPB for almost 50 years and would welcome more “women only” events as men can sometimes dominate spaces at reserves etc. I hate walking into a viewing hide and finding I’m the only woman there - it just feels a little unsafe.

Further down the page it states

These events are welcoming of any adults who identify as women. We also welcome non-binary individuals who feel comfortable in a women’s only space to these sessions.

Therefore it is not women only, men are entitled to attend

Well, yes, you can in effect, when you are describing the service that you offer. You simply have to demonstrate that there's a proportionate reason for the decisions you have taken.

Because the description of the event clearly sets out who can attend. No-one booking can reasonably say they thought transwomen and non-binary people would be banned.

Not if it is contrary to the law.

For those of us old enough to remember "no blacks, no dogs, no Irish"

Service providers CANNOT contradict the law
which is what the RSPB are doing

Transwomen are men
as stated by the Supreme Court
so its not a women's event

Non Binary has no legal meaning

Where does the Act say you cannot discriminate in favour of two separate protected characteristics?

@cryptide Have you read the Supreme Court judgment in the For Women Scotland Case? Or even any of the commentary around it?

Genuine question.

But people proposing to go through, or in the process of going through, or who have gone through gender reassignment are listed as having protected characteristics.

Please get up to date. The Supreme Court has made this quite clear. I think you might be confused.

And a walk just for those people would be fine.

What you seem to be missing here is that men are being discriminated against. The only group who could bring a discrimination claim in this case is a man because he is being treated differently to women and to men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment without a legitimate reason.

cryptide

”Where does the Act say you cannot discriminate in favour of two separate protected characteristics”

Akua Reindorf KC has clarified this.

Starts between 34-35 minutes in, but the entire session is good with Naomi Cunningham, Akua Reindorf, Ben Cooper and Sarah Vine.

Either way this is the transcript that I tidied up, although there could be typos.

This is the bit about associations and whether there can be an association with women and males who identify as female.

"But everybody has to have ALL the protected characteristics in question."

And then

"What you can’t have is a group for people with two separate [protected characteristics] …where some people have one protected characteristic and others have a different one".

"Because then let's say you have a group for lesbians or women and men who identify as women, trans women, it's not a… it doesn't satisfy the condition of being a single sex association. A single protected characteristic association for women because not everybody is a woman. It doesn't satisfy the condition for being um a single characteristic association for people who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment because not everybody has that protected characteristic ."

"So you can't have that kind of an association. So you can't have a so-called trans-inclusive association. I mean as Maya says, you can always have two associations that join up and do things together. There are ways around it. But fundamentally, what we have started to call sumptions law is wrong both for services and for associations. um "

"Of course, if it was possible to have a self ID service or association, For Women Scotland simply would not have won the case. Because this is what the Scottish government wanted to do. They wanted to have transidentified males in a quota for women."

I think I will listen to Akua Reindorf KC on this. She kind of has specific experience and relevance in getting the interpretation of the law clear. You know, being part of the EHRC and all.

Equality Act 2010, Part 11, Ch2 158(1)

I think it is because they are saying men can’t go (it’s for women) so they are making it discriminatory on the basis of the protected characteristic of sex in the equality act (which is allowed if the aim is reasonable eg. women sharing a walk without men taking up all the oxygen in the room). Except actually, some men can come along, as long as they think they are female, or “identify” as female.

So it claims to be single sex (use of “women” in the context of permitted discrimination) but at the same time saying it isn’t just for women, but for males who think they are women or want to join a women’s group for validation.

In general, discrimination is not legal. But exceptions in the equality act include on the grounds of sex. A group can be defined by any of the protected characteristics eg sex being one of them, that all the group
must share.

That definitely is not what section 158(1) says.

But you can equally have one walk for both categories. If there's no legitimate reason for favouring gender reassignment candidates, then there would equally be no legitimate reason for a women-one walk. It really isn't hard to work out what legitimate reason would be motivating the RSPB here.

158Positive action: general
(1)This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—
(a)persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic,
(b)persons who share a protected characteristic have needs that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it, or
(c)participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.

They have to share the same protected characteristic - not that they both have different ones

You absolutely can have a walk which is inclusive of women and transwomen - but you can't advertise it as a "Women's Walk". You would need to call it something else. AND you wouldn't be able to stop any old regular male joining in too

Then it's not a womans only event so they are lying to state it is.

If I gave you £5 and told you it was a £20 would that be ok?