Female organisation not only for females

[GrooveArmada]

I came across a professional organisation on LinkedIn which includes "Female" in its name and it's dedicated to female entrepreneurs. I opened the page description and read it's for "female and non-binary founders". Am I correct to think this isn't permitted? If they advertise themselves as female in the name, they should only be for women? Otherwise it is the case that a man holding himself as non-binary could join?

The issue I have with that is that this organisation is supposed to promote underrepresentated female founders in business and they advise on various associated grants etc. These should not go to men just because they choose to identify themselves as non-binary to gain access to support and funding that is there for women.

Should this be reported anywhere and if so, to whom?

It depends if they mean non binaria or non binario I guess

Exactly - and how would I know that?

If it's a female org then females who describe themselves as non binary and trans men should theoretically be able to join.

I would start with a simple question e.g. what do you mean by non-binary do you include trans identifying females?

Is it UK based? If so, yes it should be biological women however they identify.

Yes, UK based.

What is the website please?

it would have to be female and include both none binary and transmen identities in UK - can’t exclude transmen

I believe that the single sex ruling by the Supreme Court applied only to situations where women might be vulnerable or in a state of undress, not to groups.

That's not necessarily correct, we await the outcome of further cases which deal with issues other than privacy and dignity and engage issues such as competition, access to funding, grants, competition, opportunities, etc. However see the recent pool association case for an example (Harriet Haynes v EBPF)

The equality acts says you can have single sex groups as long as the discrimination they employ is a proportional means to a legitimate aim.

So exclusion of men has to be proportionate, and the aim has to be legitimate.

Obviously changing rooms and rape crisis centres are a gimme. As is sport.

And I don't think it would be difficult to prove that an organisation for female entrepreneurs needs to be female only, either.

Women are discriminated against in business and a female only organisation could easily be shown to be necessary.

See also Girl Guides and the Women's Institute.

As others have pointed out, the wording is ‘as long as the discrimination they employ is a proportional means to a legitimate aim’. So it’s sadly not a clear-cut, black and white issue if one was challenging an employer over a work-related group, say, or an online group.

It is usually young women using the 'Non Binary' label these days...but the problem is if you are saying 'Non binary' then you would also have to accept men who identified such, as well - otherwide they'd have a case for discrimination.

No, the ruling related to all categories which have been designated as 'Single Sex'. Women only short-lists, sporting categories, job descriptions and so on.

Once you have decided it conveys a legitimate aim then the designation of 'single sex' means that. It is not for third parties to decide what a 'legitimate aim' is.

Although this is a developing area, the SC ruling was clear about consistency of meanings in law across the board. Otherwise there’s confusion.

So while it will probably take a legal case to resolve/confirm this, I’d be very surprised if this organisation can allow males to become members and benefit from support for females - given that its purpose is to provide support which only permitted under the EA as positive action due to the legitimate aim of improving female representation and countering bias/discrimination against females.

By providing support to males who identify as women or non-binary, they are discriminating against all other males. So they could be pursued legally for discrimination on the basis of sex. And if someone did that then I’d expect them to win

Not at all. The case was brought about by board representation, where women are neither vulnerable nor undressed!

"This appeal arose in response to the definition of the term “woman” in the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 (“ASP 2018”) and associated statutory guidance. This legislation created gender representation targets to increase the proportion of women on public boards in Scotland."

The ruling, however, applies to the use of "woman", "man" and "sex" in all aspects of the Equality Act 2000.

"Additional provisions that require a biological interpretation of “sex” in order to function coherently include separate spaces and single sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services) "

supremecourt.uk/cases/press-summary/uksc-2024-0042

Yup, I’m completely wrong on this one. As others have pointed out, the wording is ‘as long as the discrimination they employ is a proportional means to a legitimate aim’. So it’s sadly not yet a clear-cut, black and white issue. And women (or men) who want to challenge an organisation or group will yet again have to raise the money to do that.

As I’ve already posted here (apologies), I’m completely wrong on this one. As others have pointed out, the wording is ‘as long as the discrimination they employ is a proportional means to a legitimate aim’. So it’s sadly not yet a clear-cut, black and white issue. And women (or men) who want to challenge an organisation or group will yet again have to raise the money to do that.

The point about transactivation is it wants things to be female only, but to then allow a certain subset of men in.

That's the thing that doesn't wash with the equality act.

If it's already established as female only, the equality act says that relates to biological women. Not biological men who identify as women.

Don't get me wrong, there are some spiteful transactivists, and some spineless organisations who would rather eliminate women only things altogether. The organisations, because it's the line of least resistance, and the activists because if they can't have it no one should.

But court cases are less about whether or not something should be female only, and more about whether, if it is, should men be allowed in it if they say they're women.

Single sex organisations for women are pretty easy to justify.

It's interesting that SmudgeHughes formed the opinion that the SC ruling 'applied only to situations where women might be vulnerable or in a state of undress'
[no disrespect, SmudgeHughes, you graciously said you had got it wrong, I'm just quoting you because it's relevant to what's been going on post SC ruling]

The trans response to the SC ruling - which as DuesToTheDirt pointed out was about 'gender' representation on public boards - has been obsessed with peeing. Peeing in the women's toilets. Peeing on statues. Peeing wherever they want. Legal challenges about where they should pee. Posting photos of where they are peeing. Always with the peeing🙄

So it's not surprising that people might form the opinion that the Supreme Court ruling was all about keeping trans identifying males out of women's toilets, because that's what the trans response has focused on.

I would message the organisation and ask them to edit as non-binary obvs can be any sex.
If they are female only org, that’s enough to say, as it’s definition of sex and will include all people of that sex no matter their gender identity.

Maybe because most of the guys doing the public protests are not board-level people.

Sorry didn't realise the thread has been revived. I'm still confused. The organisation is London-based, it's called Female Founders Rise. Here is its LinkedIn description.

Does anyone actually understand from this who can join it and who can benefit from its programmes, because I don't?

You know what I think is weird on here? When people hear trans or non binary, they think the person must be male. I can't see why anyone wouldn't assume they mean females who identify as non-binary of which there are many.

I should add - the organisation doesn't appear to be providing direct grants, but it has a fundraising accelerator programme which is something potentially of interest to me.