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

The Supreme court ruling was about the Equality Act, which applies to much more than sports and public toilets.

You seem to be in the US with your talk of "bathrooms", so it won’t affect you unless you visit the UK.

Yes of course lesbians are women, but depending on the purpose of a group or whatever, some women may not be clear if as lesbians they are included. Or alternatively there may be a case for saying heterosexual women.

That's all.

Although in each instance the provider has to be able to say it is proporationate in terms of achieving a legitimate aim.

As I was only responding to question about 2 protected characteristics.

As Susan of FWS - anywhere there is segregation by sex for employment, services or associations the EA is invoked.

I think the issue of participation is obviously valid, what I am not clear about is something that is purely a social event.

There is a thread about how the L Community having been told they could have an event for lesbians to socialise at a sort of picnic have now been told they cant.

There is to an extent, because whether something is discriminatory on the basis of gender reassignment can be considered on a case by case basis and a GRC gives more weight, it’s seen as more serious (not including access to women’s spaces, but that was the implication and position of TRAs before the SC ruling). See R v Green in 2013, a male prisoner who was denied some female coded things he wanted because he didn’t have a GRC.

I am pointing out that in terms of the EA to put on an event, service that discriminates against others has to be proportionate to a legitimate aim.

I dont think (apart from toilets, sport and support services) there have been many cases that make out for instance that bird watching meets the same need.

Although of course I personally think women only events, learning etc., are all proporationate and legitimate.

I am just not certain that there have been any court cases about other areas of live.

On the tenth day of Christmas 😂

But does require evidence that you are progressing down the accepted pathway to get one.

So self iding isn't enough.

As has been said, and confirmed at the WEC at the moment this is less than 10,000 people.

The PC of gender reassignment does not require any evidence that you are planning to get a GRC. It’s completely unnecessary to have a GRC.

Self IDing is entirely enough.

I personally have no issue with “women and men who identify as women” social groups, I would just require that they are clearly labelled. “Women and trans women”, although I don’t use that term, would be fine.

Well please do tell Lady Falkner this because is this is true she lied to the WEC!

Presumably as gender reassignment is a protected characteristic you could have a group event just for them.

No she didn’t. She never said that a GRC was required to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, did she? They hardly mentioned the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, the conversation mainly revolved around the SC judgment on the protected characteristic of sex, no? I watched it all.

The EA says that positive action is Ok If it is for an under represented group - which is why white males cant use the EA to increase their representation via positive recruitment in an engineering firm, but possibly could in nursing. Or for the RSPB if they find their walks are male dominated compared to their membership profile (or they wanted to recruit more female members) then it’s ok to offer a women only walk to redress that balance

excellent. That means that they should seek some unbiased legal advice very quickly then.

Thanks. They would be foolish to not seek that legal opinion (and not from a transgender lobby group). You might find they are not laughing at all when they get that opinion and you saved them from an issue they overlooked.

Didn’t the answer to the question about women’s and males with transgender is identity’s hypothetical walking group end up being a not possible in the WEC hearing the other day?

Isn’t this the same application?

I have to go back and reread the transcript but isn’t this a similar scenario?

Yes - you are right.

Well the meeting I listened to live certainly included this reference.

And led to the comment why is it an issue if there are so few.

But nobody took up which has been raised elsewhere all those who think self iding has a legal status.

If it is a small group, ie under x number of people iirc (I could be wrong, 25 maybe), then this could be considered a ‘friendship group’ which is not subject to the ruling.

However, just because you believe your friends are not like other male people and you couldn’t tell they were not female, doesn’t mean that any other female couldn’t and would not be upset at their inclusion. I find that you might find other women find your friends to be just like other men upon interaction. And might then not join a group described as being just for women if they found your male friends present.

”but they don't tend to understand women's interests particularly well and tend to change the conversation topics. I didn't know my trans friends were trans for a good while so the only real difference is biology- and that tends not to affect arts and crafts or nature walking groups.”. This really is your opinion only. I happen to read this and think you have just applied some rather strong stereotyping there.

“However, just because you believe your friends are not like other male people and you couldn’t tell they were not female, doesn’t mean that any other female couldn’t and would not be upset at their inclusion. I find that you might find other women find your friends to be just like other men upon interaction”

Sorry. lots of typos and should have been

However, just because you believe your friends are not like other male people and you couldn’t tell they were not female, doesn’t mean that any other female person couldn’t and would not be upset at their inclusion. I think that you might find other women may find your friends to be just like other men upon interaction.

The requirements for a "group" to be considered an "Association" under the Equality Act 2010 are in the Explanatory Notes:

345. This section explains what is meant by terms used in Part 7 of the Act. It defines an association as a body with 25 or more members where access to membership is controlled by rules and involves a genuine selection process based on personal criteria. It gives a Minister of the Crown power to amend this definition so as to change the number of members required by the definition.

Examples

✅ Associations include: private members’ golf clubs and gentlemen’s clubs where applicants for membership are required to make a personal application, be sponsored by other members and go through some kind of selection process.

✅ Membership would cover full membership, associate membership, temporary membership and day membership.

❌ Casinos, nightclubs and gyms, where payment of the requisite “membership” fee is all that is required to secure admittance are not associations for the purposes of this Part. These are covered instead by the provisions in Part 3 concerning services provided to the public.

❌ A book club run by a group of friends which has no formal rules governing admittance or whose membership is less than 25 is not an association for the purposes of this Part.

----

The RSPB "Nature Walks for Women" (£5:50 - £6:50) are a SERVICE being offered by the RSPB,

In which case, the relevant part of the EA2010 would be for Services not Associations and the "under 25 rule" does not apply.

https://events.rspb.org.uk/events/96479

This is not an association; the RSPB as whole is an association. This is a service provided by the RSPB. To be lawful it would have to meet various conditions that (without going into a lot of detail about sections 26 and 27 of schedule 3 to the EA 2010) they might have trouble meeting.

There's no way on earth that it would be lawful to include trans identifying men from this service and exlude non trans identifying men.

Thanks. I thought it was 25. Just to clarify, my suggestion to the pp about doing things with their friends was what I was referring to in the post you quote.

I understand that the bird watching would fall under a service offered by that organisation. And that it is different to a group organising under a friendship group scenario to get together.

Yes, that's what I said. I agree. 👍

Apologies - I misunderstood! 🙏