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

No worries. Looking back I don’t think I was very clear and it could well be taken that I was referring to the bird watching. But alas, I was poorly attempting to provide them with a scenario where they could meet up with their friends in a women and male people with a gender identity group.

You can see the note I am giving you is a £5 note yet I am telling you it's a £20, I never said they lied I said they contradict themselves.

How can an event claim to be woman only yet also state males will have access? Why claim to be a womans only event in the first place?

Ahh yes, the "women only" part of their description was crystal clear that it's not just for women 😶

Gosh. Are women allowed to convene without males present or not?

Who cares why the rspb want to have a women's only walk? Maybe women want a women's only walk? Can women have that? I can't believe we are harping on about the legality of it. Not allowing women to meet without a male being potentially permitted should be indefensible.

This sounds like the asterisk's text in real life:
This walk is for women* only.
* women means women and some special men and some special women. And the little star means I am adding meaning to the law despite knowing the law says the definition of women is biological. My little star absolves me of all wrong doing as you are now openly aware of my deceit.

Sorry I have been quoting the number of GRCs wrong all weekend. Doh! Sorry

It’s not 8400ish but currently 9633.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/16/thousands-of-gender-recognition-certificates-granted/

The meeting was discussing the Supreme Court ruling which was about the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act. The decision was that sex in the EA means biological sex so a man with a GRC is not a woman. They weren't discussing the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment.

Men without a GRC are men, however they identify. The Supreme Court ruling clarified that men with a GRC are still men for the purposes of the protected characteristic of sex in the EA. Baroness Falkner mentioned that the ruling applied to fewer than 10,000 people, which is the number of GRCs issued to date.

Also you need to consider that to have an event for Gender Reassignment only via the EA it would only cover the 8400ish GRC holders in the entire UK as self-ID is not the law here.

You don't need a GRC to possess the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. In fact we do have de facto self ID & the GRC is all but irrelevant now. Self ID isn't an issue now as it only means you ID as "trans" as the Supreme Court clarified that males cannot become females.

For example RMW does not have a GRC but does have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment so should not be treated less favourably than another male who does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

People need to get some perspective, and stop using silly examples.The Supreme Court ruling relates to facilities ansd categories which have been officially or formally declared to be for one sex or the other.

A local birdwatching group can invite anyone they like...but why bother to call it 'a women's' group if you want to invite men as well? People can play these silly games as much as they like........in their own small friendship groups and tribal gatherings...but when it comes to the general public you have to be a lot more spoecific and if you have membership rules that you are advertising, then you really need to abide by them.

Your friends might pass completely but here’s the problem- one of these clearly make people identifies as a man, one as a woman and one as non binary. 2 are eligible to join this “women only” event

You can attend any group to which you are invited and which you wish to attend......but why bother to call something 'women's' if it is really open to men as well? That is the true over-reach. It is just silly game playing and political point scoring in which everything one does is to signal one's virtue or conformity with the tribe.

Yes, it could have transwomen and transmen but not normal men/women and not non binary people.
There would have to be a proportionate reason why you would exclude non-gender change people though. To exclude someone on the basis of a PC you would have to have a fair reason, like to discuss specific issues around gender change which they would not feel comfortable discussing with non gender change people. Or to increase the bird watching uptake of gender change people who are uncomfortable around non gender change people, feel judged etc.
i don’t think you can just exclude someone based on a PC without a good reason.

You can do a super inclusive bird watching walk for people who are super inclusive and want to celebrate diversity while looking at birds and it could be an interest group I guess, but you can’t exclude anyone on the basis of a PC like sex or gender change or age or whatever. Or you could do a private friends guided walk of whoever you like.

IANAL and this is just my understanding. Happy to be wrong.

Please quote this reference exactly. It has never been a requirement to be working towards a GRC to claim the protected characteristic of gender reassignment so you are misunderstanding/misremembering. It is not the same as the protected characteristic of sex, as we all know.

I agree. Have your “inclusive walk”, just don’t pretend it’s for women only when it isn’t.

Exactly.

The whole thing is one big pretence. An entire movement predicated on social signalling rather than on prgamatic reality.

Here's the tweet from RSPBTheLodge advertising the event:

https://x.com/RSPBTheLodge/status/1934309933987909664

Only a few spots left on our Nature Walk for Women this Tuesday 17th June. The theme is Wildflowers, and there is plenty to see right now here at The Lodge.

I also get confused about this. I think it’s for the GRC application itself that you have to show meaningful steps. There’s a section on the form where an applicant has to explain what steps they’ve taken and if they haven’t taken hormones or had surgery then why not?

I looked this up on Saturday because after the thread about the 17 year old who got a diagnosis with a fairly light case history assessment I wondered if I could potentially tick all the boxes (without actually applying). I concluded that I probably could show enough male tendencies over my whole life (inc childhood photos and career choice etc) and it would probably just come down to being able to pay for the 2 doctors letters. Assuming they didn’t ever ask friends and family for evidence obvs.

ETA I mean if there are late male transitioners then why not females?!

You cannot say 'I'd still like to go to casual events aimed at women including trans women and non binary folks [aka men or women] without men being included by some legal necessity' as YOU already included men in the 'non-binary folks' and 'trans women' categories. It makes no sense whatsoever. So you only want to exclude men who know they are male?

Are there other EA protected characteristics where you get complaints that you should be able to include friends who ok, aren't .....(insert protected characteristic) but they're really nice people?

Yes, that’s right. There has never been a requirement to have a GRC or take steps towards one to be covered by the PC of gender reassignment though.

Oh like a supported living retirement block of flats, but Keith age 35 can live there because he feels like an old soul and likes custard creams.

They want to keep up the pretence that some men are women.

Nature Walks for Women then it says for women only, then it goes on to say nbs or those who identify as women are welcome.
Then it’s not “women only” it’s mixed because they say men who dress as women can attend. So not clear.

You are supposed to be skilled at reading the sub-text - which presumes that anyone who may well be interested in your group is going to be a like believer. It is totally disingenuous and virtue signalling.

You are wrong. If they are using the single sex exemption under the equality act to say it’s “women only” then they can’t include some men.

thr test of being a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” is when they decide to invoke the exception - if it meets that threshold then all male people must by definition be excluded. That’s exactly what the Supreme Court were ruling on