Nottingham Women’s centre

[FrenchOnionLentil]

Does anyone know if Nottingham Women’s Centre allow biological men, however they identify, to enter their premises and use their services - particularly now that the Supreme Court ruling has been made?

They definitely do!!

Our statement on the Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act
Nottingham Women’s Centre is proud to be a space where all women are welcome — and this includes trans women.
We know that the Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act is distressing for trans communities and has created uncertainty. We want to reassure you that trans women continue to be welcome at Nottingham Women’s Centre.
We believe in the importance of solidarity, shared experiences, and standing together across our differences. Our space has always enabled women to come together and find community, understanding each other better in the process. We will continue to be that space for all self-identifying women, where you can find support, belonging, and friendship.

Oh ffs. Surely that’s illegal now, after the SC ruling?

They are a registered charity no 1105837
There objects describe their beneficiaries as a service for women.

They go on to describe themselves as by women for women.

So yes they are in breach of the EQA and as with WI and GG they either need to seek to “lawfully” remove all references to women and change their governing document.

Which by the way they cannot do since funds they raise and hold would have to be transferred to a similar women's only agency.

If you are in Nottinghamshire @FrenchOnionLentil you can lodge a complaint to the charity commission, pm if help required.

Gonna post a thread for a call out to women to do a project on this issue in their own locality

It's name should be Nottingham Centre then.

Everyone seems to be fucking ignoring the SC ruling now and I’m so sick of it. Started with “ooh we’re going to have to wait for guidance because it’s so difficult to know what to do!” To “let’s just carry on as before. And, in fact, double down”

Just posted a new thread to broaden this out

Nottingham had a large Gay community, which no doubt has a lot of influence of the way things are framed there.

well presumably that gay community includes women who would like women only services

perhaps a Man Friday action would be in order, as I understand it with those 'rules' they can't lawfully exclude men who are not trans identified

This has been one of the its not fair to make us observe the Supreme Court ruling.

That if groups want to have a centre for women and trans women they need to change their aims and objectives and then they would be lawful.

But apparently even that isn't fair to ask them to do they tiny bit of admin work.

Not fortgetting that it also isn't fair that all those groups set up with a constitution about services to women have been cuckooed by TRAs.

Always the same. Never ever any thought for women.

But Nottingham women's centre is notorious for being trans inclusive and has been for years.

On their web site:

We exist to help all self-identifying women in Nottinghamshire reach their full potential, have their voices heard, and overcome barriers to create a better future for themselves and their children.

But suspect the original legal documents setting up the centre didn't talk about self-identitying women.

And whilst not excusing them, it is worth remembering how many people were Stonewalled into thinking it was legal to include trans women as "women".

Maybe all these groups could sure Stonewall and ask them to pay for having to get new legal documents drawn up. (As I doubt any wold go back to genuine women only as they know they would lose funding opportunities.)

They cant have a women and some men group.

They either are proper mixed sex or use the single sex exemption and be single sex

I know every one likes repeating this on FWR but if they aren't quoting the EA, that arguement is irrelevant.

And if it was relevant then loads of groups such as Nottingham Women's Centre would have been reported to the EHRC.

I posted up thread how NWC advertises itself.

Advice from the WRC https://www.wrc.org.uk/blog/sex-as-biological-and-the-impacts-on-the-womens-sector

Roz Adams won her case not because of the Equality Act but because she was asked to lie to potential service users. And bullied. She herself was in favour of supporting trans women, but did not accept not telling potential service users who are biological women that (some) services were trans inclusive.

I dont think per the charity commission the aims and objectives can be for women and some men.

There was a thread on a letter from the Charity Commission (cant find the thread) which I think said it would be looking at the founding documents for womens (only) orgs which allow men in. The CC were effecively going to give a grace period to regularise.

It said that the EA10 is within its remit for PC governance issues but not for actual direct PC discrimination against an individual.

So I am not sure if the exclusion of some men can be coded into the documents? But my memory /reading may be faulty.

Don't blame the LGB for this mess. Nottingham is by way of being its very own nexus of Gender Identitarianism. The University was the stamping ground of Professor Michael O'Flaherty, a former Irish Catholic priest who quit the priesthood for a life as an academic working on international human rights law. He was the main mover & shaker behind the imbecile Yogyakarta Principles & taught god knows how many students his new homophobic, misogynistic faith.
O'Flaherty has worked tirelessly to insert himself & his mad ideas into every national & international institution possible. www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/libe/dv/11_cv_oflaherty_2015_/11_cv_oflaherty_2015_en.pdf

Nottingham University saw how the winds of fashion were blowing & leaned into his guff, establishing the UK's then only Chair in "transhealth". Now Nottingham boasts herds of "gender specialists" inculcating students with luxury beliefs & abject fantasies. Of course the University medical school teaches nonsense & the impossible, all presented as if fact.

Nottingham's gender clinic point-blank refused Cass access to their records, helping to prevent the data linkage study element of the Cass Report that was intended to report on outcomes for former Tavistock GIDS patients. The clinic is entirely the creature of WPATH, I can't find a single clinician there who is not a WPATH member. WPATH is an activist organisation that has for years successfully passed itself off as a medical organisation. What kind of medical organisation would elect Stephen Whittles as its President?

Nottingham's gender clinic boasts Prof Emeritus Jon Arcelus, former holder of the Chair I mentioned,who was also a co-Chair in the development of WPATH's misleadingly-named Standards of Care 8, the one with the chapter on "Eunuch Gender" & no lower age limits for surgeries. He's a fan of expanding surgeries for the meaningless category "non-binary" https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/12/nhs-trangender-doctor-jonathan-arcelus-male-female-genitals/

Another perhaps familiar face at Nottingham's gender clinic is the psychiatrist & former WPATH President, Walter Pierre Bouman, a man of such remarkable medical ethics that he still has a parental paen to Helen Webberly reposted on his LinkedIn account. Bouman is so impeccably collegiate & emotionally regulated that his response to Cass was a long, rambling post that advanced no new or better evidence, but instead relied on questioning her expertise & indulging in adolescent ad hominems, eg; "there is a fine line between naivety, narcissism and psychopathy”.

Nottingham is also where poor, puddled Nadia Whittome has her constituency.

Allison Bailey is doing her utmost to establish that Stonewall are liable for the effects of the "advice" they've been giving to businesses, institutions, etc.

What do you mean “if they aren’t quoting the EA”? There is nothing in the EA that says you can use the single sex exceptions but let in a few men.

There’s very little point “reporting to the EHRC”. Anyone wanting to challenge would have to bring a legal case, which is obviously stressful and expensive.

And she did win her case because of the Equality Act, that’s what the tribunal decision was based on.

The Equality Act protects an individual’s right to certain beliefs through the mechanism of ‘protected characteristics’ and it is important for employers to understand that gender-critical views are protected in the same way as trans-rights support as long as they are not ‘unworthy of respect in a democratic society’. Ms Adams’ beliefs here were nuanced and came from a position of looking to support victims of abuse in the best way possible. The tribunal ruled these views were not inherently hateful, despite what senior management at the centre may have believed.

https://www.partnerslaw.co.uk/news/legal-update-women-s-crisis-centre-worker-with-gender-critical-beliefs-receives-70-000-in-compensation-following-unfair-dismissal

A better reporting route might be the Charity Commision, breaching a Governing Document threatens salaries rather more than does the EHRC.
See also; Girl Guiding.

Yes, agreed.

"But suspect the original legal documents setting up the centre didn't talk about self-identitying women."

No, indeed: the original centre was set up in the 70s as part of the grassroots women's lib movement establishing women's shelters and centres across the country (and the world). The aims of the women who set it up were betrayed when it was co-opted by the "queer" movement in the 90s. It's been thoroughly post-modern and pro-trans ever since.

They're on thin ice; all it would take is one legal challenge to bring their wishy-washy, legally untenable nonsense crashing to the ground. It's pathetic that a well-established charity can't seem to get any decent legal advice. I think they're just hoping to continue this way as long as they can...

I volunteer there. I'm torn, because it's a lovely place, and they do so much to help real and often needy women, most of whom probably don't know or care about any of this nonsense.

Thank you all for replies.

I've been advised that Charity Commission so low in staffing and time that whilst it is worth registering a complaint with them, they are unlikely to do their job, and have little power really. I will do so though, and thought I should copy in the relevant Nottingham council staff / reps who commission the 'women's' centre.

I hear you McSkilson, I know they provide important services, but on the other hand, at a charity where I work, some of those we serve are women of faiths where coming across men would be extremely uncomfortable, and would mean they did not use the important services of the centre again (some of them have used so called women's centre, but I dread them coming across blokes in frocks).

So, I will get organised in writing to Charity commission next week. Please DM me if you would like to co-sign.

Re replies on Uni of Nottingham, unfortunately, almost all universities are non compliant with the SC FWS ruling. It is blooming depressing.

Lawfare including taking so-called women's centre to court - v stressful and expensive, which is what universities, hospitals etc are relying on at the moment I guess.