RSPB women only walks including men

[SirChenjins]

I emailed them to complain that their women only walks were nothing of the sort (I used my bigger words of course), and got the following standard guff back. Any ideas re how I should respond?

We are aware of the Supreme Court ruling and like many organisations, we are awaiting the updated Code of Practice and formal guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Once published, we will take time to review the Code and formal guidance carefully, ensuring we fully understand its implications for our charitable activities.

Our goal is always to ensure that everyone feels welcome, included and safe when engaging with nature and our work.

Ye gods

Write back and tell them the Supreme Court clarification is almost a year old, the EA2010 over 25 years old and they really don't need any more bloody guidance.

If they sell/advertise it as women only then itbis only for women

And yes, like many others I would be prepared to make them publicly admit they are fuckwits

Thanks @SamphiretheTervosaur . Is misrepresenting their walks by claiming they're women only in breach of any law?

I would point out that women from some religious communities ( who are hugely in a minority of people who access the countryside) would not be able to be included in mixed sex groups without a male chaperone. I would also point out that many women, and men , access the countryside for its healing nature and women who think they are joining an all female group to heal in nature would not feel welcomed or included but anxious, gaslit and unsafe with male bodies included.

There's already a thread on this but I don't know how to link to it?

I wrote a detailed complaint, cancelled my RSPB membership and I'm now paying my money to another local, uncaptured, wildlife charity.

@samantha9 those are good suggestions, thank you

@PassTheHanky I'll have a look for it, thanks for the heads up. What did you cover in your complaint?

I'm so angry that this nonsense is allowed to continue.

It can't be anything other than deliberate. What are women only things for? Religious or safety reasons. They know TWAM, they're obviously hoping for some to attend the women's walks because they have a DEI person who is instigating this. Why not just have walks to look at birds, why do they specify they're for women when they know they are not? There's a whiff of the pied piper about it.

I emailed them a couple of times, my key points were:

• you're breaking the 2010 Equality law by allowing men into a woman only space' and the Supreme Court made it clear you shouldn't wait for guidance;
• It's not inclusive or welcoming to surreptitiously invite men to join a walk you have designed as a safe walk for vulnerable women;
• Remember that your charitable aim is the protection of birds not the promotion of Trans ideology.
• vulnerable women who deliberately choose a women's only walk because they're scared of men could feel very threatened by walking around the open countryside with men;
• it's discriminatory to only allow men who 'identify' as women and not to allow men who don't;
• Are your volunteers really female or do they also just identify as female?

Hopefully this link goes to the existing thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5474612-rspb-again?page=4&reply=149906893

Thanks so much - and will post over on the other thread 😊

Remind them that by delaying they are knowingly continuing a situation where female people's legal rights are being denied.

The law exists as it does because many female people often do not feel safe, welcome and included.

Choosing to delay is a clear message to female people that even in women-only contexts, this organisation will put the feelings and needs of male people ahead of those of female people.

Our goal is always to ensure that everyone feels welcome, included and safe when engaging with nature and our work.

#fail then.

You can only 'include' men in 'women only activities' by making them mixed sex, and excluding some women while making others feel unwelcome and unsafe.

If you have no fucks to give about women unless there are special men there, then they're mixed sex, so call them mixed sex. Just have mixed sex groups.
If they're T focused, call them T focused. Great. Meet the needs.
If they're women only, because you see a need for walks that are women only, then that's the group you're supposed to be focused on and able to care about, and that involves 'inclusiveness' and 'welcome' on a sexed basis.

Apart from the breaking of the law and prejudice against women, I hate this whole thing of women are too boring to care about unless men are there.

This is about a free public walk in nature. We're not talking toilets or anything.

Wholly irrelevant.

What is the point of a 'women only' walk?

If it's been made women only, for a reason, then yes, adding men ends it being women only. It becomes a dishonesty. And it excludes women who would go to a women only event for its safety and women-only environment - who should have been the intended target group.

If the target group is trans identified men, and the women are merely the backdrop to his experience, call it a trans walk. Job done.

In that case it shouldn't be difficult for trans identifying men to stay away from it. They are presumably capable of going for a walk in nature without women there to "validate" their nonsense.

tell me you’re a bloke without telling me you’re a bloke…

Look kid, it's not exactly hard.

If it's justifiable for something to be for women only, then it's female only.

If "just a walk" does not justify being female-only, then it does not justify being "women" only either.

Why do you hate female people so much that you want to stop us having our own spaces, our own rights and even our own name?

I know there's already a thread but I'm glad someone has started a new one because I've been emailing them and I don't want my usual username, posting history linked with the name and email I've been using with them.

I sent an initial email and got the stock non-answer. So I emailed them again

I do have a follow up question. I don't have access to a car and public transport would take hours. A male friend would be willing to drive me. It wouldn't be practicable for him to drive home, then back to collect me and he doesn't want to hang round by himself. He does however have a gender neutral name and his hair is longer than mine, which is quite short. When out in the country we dress quite similarly; jeans and sweaters or band t-shirts depending on the weather. He's willing to identify as a woman for the duration of the walk or even for the whole day. None of the other 'women' on the walk would know he isn't also a 'woman'. I assume as gender is fluid and, it seems, you operate some system of self id this would be okay?

If it isn't could you please let me know and clarify why not?

TIA.

This is actual true, except for my hair length although his is still longer.

Much to my surprise (I expected them to ignore me) this is the reply I received

Good afternoon

Thank you for your further email and query regarding the RSPB’s inclusive approach for events.

As noted previously, events organised by the RSPB and advertised as for women or women only are open to anybody who identifies as a woman unless otherwise stated in the event information. We also welcome non-binary people who feel comfortable in a women-only space and our goal is always to ensure that everyone feels welcome, included and safe when engaging with nature and our work, and we expect everyone to be respected on our reserves and when attending events. Our reserves can also hold events open to all or with a specific interest in mind, and these are organised in response to demand and seasonality.

Everyone deserves to feel safe and respected when connecting with nature and as such some of our events, like the women’s walks, are designed to support those who may not otherwise feel safe or confident accessing nature.

To find events available at RSPB reserves, please visit our website: events.rspb.org.uk/.

I'm taking this to mean yes, even though I'd been quite clear in my previous email that my male friend was just identifying as a woman so he could accompany my on this 'women' only walk. Just to be sure, and utterly aghast, I've emailed them again

So, just to clarify, my male friend can attend if he is willing to identify as a woman for the duration of the event?

Please advise if this is the case.

They've not replied yet. I'm not sure I've been communicating with a person or if these replies are AI generated. I'm going to give it a few more days then follow up if I haven't received an answer.

By law if they are letting some men in they have to let all men in, otherwise it's sex discrimination.

Slow news day? Is there really nothing else to do but harass a wildlife charity offering to take people out on nature walks?

And if some men are allowed in, the other men don't even have to got to the trouble of identifying as anything. My friend is just being a bit extra and demonstrating how farcical it is as well as insulting to women and, I think, trans identifying men too.

Good question - if my DH comes with me and identifies as a women for the purpose of the walk, then by their own marketing they wouldn't be able to turn him away.

How baby birds are made must absolutely baffle them.

@WTFRSPB just turn up with your friend say his name is Jeremy and he’s identifying as a woman for this walk.

Im not sure why they are doing a walk ‘for women’ if there are a load of men there, what a pointless exercise in pretending to cater to minorities. Why not do a walk for parents and children and let a load of random lone men turn up to that too?

The RSPB are a job lot of cowards who can’t say no to entitled men.

Not ‘people’ no one would be confused about that. It’s the ‘women and some sorts of men but not all the sorts of men, some sorts of men are not allowed, unless they pretend to be the sort of men who are allowed’ which is confusing.
@Christinapple

Whilst these are all valid points about why this is unlawful discrimination, the only point I would be making is that they are breaching the Equality Act and that the EHRC has stated that organisations should be taking legal advice and acting upon it now to ensure that they are compliant with the existing law. Waiting for statutory guidance to follow existing laws will not be a defence to unlawful discrimination.

The argument here is about complying with existing law, which they are not. If they won't even engage with the basic provision that woman means biological woman then any argument about the disadvantage caused to women will be wasted on them.

It will probably require someone to commence legal action against them before they yield.