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

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/compliance-and-enforcement-policy.pdf

could try this route?

"Self-ID refers to self-certification of a legal change of gender, not a trans declaration. That's what Baroness Falkner is talking about - no self-declared legal change of gender."

I agree with the rest of your post but I don't think Baroness Falkner was saying anything about "Self-ID" in the extract from the transcript from the WESC that I posted above.

Were you referring to my post or to something else?

My point is not that they changed the law, but that even under an alternative TWAW understanding of the law, this would not be legal because some non binary men are included.

I was referring to another poster.

ETA: In fact it was a general remark - there is a lot of confusion about what self-ID means and it has come up in other contexts with BF. My original draft said "PSA" - as in "public service announcement", but I deleted that because I thought it sounded patronising.

It's illegal. It discriminates against men who ID as men i.e. are not TiMs or NB.

I have read the whole thing. It discriminates against men who are not trans or NB. Thus it's unlawful - and always has been.

I find the EHRC website very confusing about how it deals with reports from individuals about discriminatory practices under EA2010, ie. rather than notification of court cases.

It says that it wants to know about instances of discriminatory pracrices but it is not clear what happens when it receives a report.

If someone reports the RSPB to the EHRC it would be helpful to know how the EHRC responds.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/about-us/contact-us

Thank you for explaining 🙏

What does "BF" stand for?

This might be a good thing to add into any consultation response?

Well, now I am out of my depth. I thought associations could only be 25 people tops?

An association for the purposes of the Equality Act is a group of 25 or more people. Groups with less than 25 people are not covered by the Equality Act provisions

But also pp correctly pointed out that this is a service provided by the RSPB, so associations not relevant to this situation.

Baroness Falkner.

Already done that - I also found the consultation document itself frustratingly confusing. There are "explanatory" paragraphs that they say they do not want you to comment on. However, some of them are virtually unintelligible or self-contradictory. I have commented on them anyway.

Trans women are men. It’s not an overreach.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this - I didn't see, if they have - but even a "biological women only" bird walk is close to the edge, in terms of equality law. The exclusion of men from a service needs careful justification. That's the point of equality law. I see a lot of people describing this as an "inclusive" event because it aims to include trans-identifying men with women, but the wider picture it's that it's an exclusionary service by excluding men.

Whether that's legal depends on things like whether a men-only bird walk is offered (i.e. a separate sex service - what is the justification for offering seperate sex services?) or not (a single sex service).

I'm not saying that there aren't good answers to these questions and hopefully RSPB legal has them all figured out in advance but I do think "this is an inclusive event" is the wrong lens through which to look at it.

I am amazed at how something really simple has been made so complex. The limited scope of the SC judgement is being made far more complicated than it really is. This is in part due to the widespread misrepresentation of what the EA2010 actually meant and the no debate stance from TRAs.

The RSPB is a service provider and if they want a women’s walk they can do this. Women means biological sex as observed and recorded at birth. It includes trans men (TIF) and non-binary (observed female at birth).

If RSPB want an inclusive walk then they advertise a “walk” everyone welcome.

I think this is an interesting point as there are effectively two issues which, to me, seem to be getting conflated on the thread

1. should a bird nature walk be single sex in the first place- ie does it meet the threshold to benefit from the single sex exemption. I understand that the use of an exemption must be a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. Don’t know the answer to whether it does or not but appears that would be the test
2. if it does then meet the single sex exemption test, is it lawful to exclude some men but not all. it’s already been said on the thread several times, but my understanding is it would not be lawful as it’s not single sex because some men (who identify as women) have been permitted and therefore it’s not women only so would be unlawful sex discrimination to exclude some men (who identify as men) but permit others

don’t have the answers but it’s an interesting point.

@MyAmpleSheep
As a long term RSPB member
there is a HUGE need for female walks away from the big lens mansplainers.

I most hides 3/4 of the people are men.
It is NOT a friendly pursuit for single women.
THerefore trying to reverse that inequality is entirely appropriate

If RSPB want an inclusive walk then they advertise a “walk” everyone welcome

💯

My guess is that people who have been happy with 'inclusive' womens groups and opportunities are going to question the need for womens groups and opportunities as the realities of the ruling dawns on them.

The thread is about discrimination law… not about trans. You are not the centre of everything. The event in question discriminates against men who don’t claim a special identity.

No, it's not legal, it's discriminatory.

Think of one of those posh men's clubs in London, biological men only, no biological women allowed to join.

Then imagine if they said they also welcomed 'individuals who feel comfortable in a men-only space'. And allowed biological women who 'identify' as biological men to join.

This would discriminate against biological women who don't 'identify' as men.

In law, there is only biological sex, male or female, - and 'identifying' as the opposite sex is sheer fantasy and wishful thinking.

Know what's ironic? On this board there's a thread claiming trans people are "attacking a bunny rescue" yet this thread is attacking a wildlife bird charity over what is literally a walk in the park they have no obligation to provide.

It's been picked up by Maya F too receiving 90.7K views so far and Women's Equality Watch Scotland (I haven't seen wor Jo tweet it yet though) have now claimed to write to the RSPB over this also with 90K views. Out of everything, this is what people are spending time and energy on. Other countries must be laughing at us.

I don't believe the RSPB has been attacked.
They announced publicly an event for women only then added in at the end, and some men too, is pointing out this is incorrect/wrong/a breach of EA attacking them?