A call to all wims to challenge registered charities who claim to be women’s services who include “transwomen”

[Hedgehogforshort]

Inspired by a post about Nottinghams Women’s Centre being trans inclusive, I think it is time we did something. Like pull the ruddy rug on them.

I don’t think it will need the extensive work of the NHS data thread.

There are hundreds of alleged women’s only services who are registered charities. They mostly have a governing document describing themselves as for women only but do not mention “transwomen” in their objects, but do in unlawful policy documents.

All charities have a beneficiary group, which they cannot stray from.

Also if they change their objectives to be “inclusive’”IMHO” the funds they hold on behalf of the original beneficiaries, must be handed back or ring fenced, which is why some of the major charities have conceded, ergo the WI and GG.

My idea is that we target our own localities and make a complaint to the charity commission, about the charity we are a potential beneficiary of.

what do you all think? Happy to coordinate this though i may need @knottyauty

meanwhile i am off to look at a few national bodies

Excellent idea

I'm a disabled person, and used to work in the charity sector, and would love to re-entere but I've found it very alarming how vulnerable disabled women are expected to work with and/or be cared for by trans identifying males.

I was going to apply for a job at United Response until I saw they had a social care manager who describes themselves as a post surgery trans woman. I think this person is pretty senior but cannot remember their name now. They were all over social media after the SC ruling but cannot find them now.

Disability Rights UK put out a statement against the SC ruling.

RSPB has a they/them 'queer' head of DEI

Outcomes Star has a application form where you 'must' declare your pronouns.

If these examples could be added / acted on by people on here better than me at this kind of thing, it would be great. Not sure charities can get FOI though but maybe the charity commission?

PS maybe involve Seen In Charity too?

Hiya gone through all that you have posted, and given it some thought, and a bit of searching charities as mentioned by posters. I note that SARAS say do not mention women and girls at all, and safe lives do not either.

And Thankyou for your efforts.

I think (but am open to opinion) that a long list as you described should be the first thing to produce.

With charity numbers included, which is always at the bottom of their website.

We can then sift through all the governing documents (on the Charity Commission website search register) to locate their objects, and delete those on the list whose scope is not women and girls, or women only.

So as with the above two charities if they only refer to people we can delete them from our list

We can then, look at

1. Who to scrutinise first depending on the size of the list

2 Then identify those that are in breach of their stated objectives.

3 Identify those which have funding that requires trans inclusion.

When we have done that we will have an “offenders” list.

Having taken on board all the posters comments I personally think we should not “pick” on individual charities, as I originally suggested.

I think we should take what we have found to the Charity Commission itself and demand they do something.

I am not very good at tech stuff and it would be of great help if you could lead on setting up templates and such like.

what do we all think?

Hi @Hedgehogforshort Where charities are supposed to support beneficiaries of both sexes they have to be doing this. So if they are excluding women from help (eg because they refuse to provide any female only rape support to women) they are not acting in accordance with their charitable objectives.

I know its often said around here but so bears repeating: this sector is famously incestuous and small, where essentially the same group people change seats every few years. So you have the ivory tower intact, as anyone with diverse views and life experiences is bumped out fairly quickly. It's like unions (and MPs), a very particular type of person tends to get into those positions, pulled in by other types of that person, and they fight actual diversity hard (while all performatively celebrating EDI) and have very little in touch or common with most people in the wider population.

The legal enforcement that there now must be single sex (actually meaning single sex) alongside mixed sex resources, services and provisions is going to help, but it's going to be done grudgingly and resentfully by those who are in essence activists themselves. And as we've seen with the WI, some of those people have the activist view of if the job now has to be about meeting the needs of actual women as a defined group if it's a women's service they will not only leave but burn everything down and destroy it on their way out so it doesn't survive at all. And punish women that way.

Tbh I doubt many like this are going to be retrievable. Even following legal action, look at Sarah Summers' situation. And who wants women's services run by those who are not passionate about the group they are there to serve, or who apparently don't see the point unless it's primarily about men? It's going to be a case of setting up again, from scratch, led by women who have that passion. With a lot of slow, patient repetition about this is not about destroying or removing services for anyone else, merely about wanting services too .

@Chariothorses I agree with you, but i think that if their objectives are wider in scope than just women, then it falls out of my proposed scope.

This would be sex discrimination and perhaps a wider scope could be brought in later. We would IMHO have no grounds for complaint to the Charity Commision if they do not promise SSS.

I have had a look at a few women's aid affiliated services, and the ones i looked at seem to offer a sign posting service to other agencies, for the T’s. So we need to watch out for that as i do not think that would be something we could object too.

It's always a good idea to check you've got your facts straight before posting - maybe that's just me because I don't like making an eejit of myself in public, maybe you don't mind, QuirkySquid

It's doubly a good idea to check your facts before you start throwing around smears like 'self-appointed moral guardian' - that makes you look like an ill-tempered eejit.

It is indeed possible to be 'too inclusive' - inclusivity necessarily excludes people who do not belong in the set of people the charity is supposed to work with, and which it gets grants/fundraises for.
So a group that is defined as being for women and girls is for people who are women and girls. That that means biological females.

Another suggested factcheck: the Supreme Court ruling which said that in cases like this, transwomen are men - the opposite of your 'men trans-women' 'fix'..

Mate, that ship is so far over the horizon it will be arriving in Sydney tomorrow.

LOL!

@Hedgehogforshort I think let's start with a list of 'offenders' - ones with very clear women-only beneficiaries, and who are allowing men in.

ChatGPT can do much of this work, and I'm happy to double-check its results.

Shall we start of with, say, 20, targets?

I am not convinced that a single letter to the Charity Commission will work. It seems likely they'll have already had complaints (does anyone know whether they are captured?)

But, to be discussed. List of culprits first.

Yes i dont have ChatGPT are you gonna do it x

Yes I will do it, tomorrow night (out all day tomorrow)

I am open to writing a template for offenders, we have the GLP judicial review under our belt as well.

@Hedgehogforshort also, just asked about who the Charity Commission is accountable to, and it's independent, can only be challenged by parliament, select committee, judicial review.

BTW i have checked out Womens Aid England who are on thin ice.

ChatGPT can write the template - not purely by itself but it's very good if you give it a draft of your own to tweak.

Yes i know, but they can be taken to a charity tribunal for failure to enforce something. There are strict time limits and we would have to go through a complaint process first. But can lodge an appeal to stay within time limits.

but as long as we do not write to them to seek their position the clock does not tick.

upthread someone said that they were giving charities time to respond to FWS ruling i will give our strategy regarding what next with the offenders list some thought.

my expertise is charity law, accounting, tendering funding all that rammel as i worked in the sector for years in leadership roles.

Okay, shortlist tomorrow, and take it from there. Examine shortlist.

I am of a mind to draft an e mail letter to Women’s Aid and post it on here for approval tomorrow.

Yeah do! I wrote to sarsas following the ruling saying I was pleased about it. And got a very wishy washy response back. I’m up for doing more

@AmbiguityIsKey Oh thanks i think once this evolves there will be plenty to do.

@Hedgehogforshort

Initial Triage: Women/Girls Charities for Case-by-Case
Examination
This document is an initial regulatory-risk triage list. Inclusion here does not assert wrongdoing. Each entry
requires case-by-case examination of charitable objects versus operational practice.
● Rape Crisis England & Wales: Support for women and girls affected by rape and sexual violence;
publicly stated inclusion policies broaden eligibility.
● Women's Aid: Ending domestic abuse against women and children; sector-leading umbrella body
with inclusion statements.
● Refuge: Protection of women and children from domestic violence; high-profile service provision with
inclusion policies.
● Solace Women’s Aid: London-based domestic abuse services for women; public eligibility
statements broaden beneficiaries.
● Women & Girls Network: Support for women and girls affected by violence; front-line services with
inclusion statements.
● Imkaan: Support for Black and minoritised women facing violence; inclusion language broadens
scope.
● Rights of Women: Free legal advice for women; eligibility statements include trans-identifying males.
● Fawcett Society: Advancement of women’s equality; campaigning body with inclusive definitions.
● Young Women’s Trust: Economic justice for young women; public statements broaden beneficiary
definition.
● The Girls’ Network: Mentoring for girls from disadvantaged backgrounds; inclusion policies broaden
eligibility.
● The Survivors Trust: Umbrella body for sexual violence services; influential guidance with inclusive framing.

@Hedgehogforshort I asked for a few more. Got this.

Additional Candidates: Women/Girls Charities for
Case-by-Case Examination
This document is an initial regulatory-risk triage list. Inclusion here does not assert wrongdoing. Each entry
requires case-by-case examination of charitable objects versus operational practice.
● Women in Prison: Support for women affected by the criminal justice system; sex-segregated
context.
● Nia: Ending violence against women and girls; front-line sexual violence services.
● Southall Black Sisters: Advocacy and support for Black and minority ethnic women; inclusion
language creates tension with sex-based objects.
● Eaves: Support for women facing homelessness, exploitation and abuse; safeguarding-intensive
context.
● Forward UK: African women and girls’ health and rights; sex-linked cultural harms.
● Women for Refugee Women: Support for refugee women; explicitly women-only framing with
inclusion statements.
● Bloody Good Period: Menstrual health support for women and girls; biological function central to
purpose.

@Hedgehogforshort Every single one needs to be checked IRL first. ChatGPT's first list included Girl Guides, who have changed their policy.

@Hedgehogforshort ChatGPT's suggested draft letter:

Dear Trustees,
I am writing to you as a member of the public with an interest in charity law and regulatory compliance, to seek clarification regarding your charity’s stated beneficiary eligibility criteria.
According to your governing document, the charitable objects of [Charity name] are directed towards the benefit of women and/or girls. As you will be aware, following the UK Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers (2024), it is now established in law that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, “sex” means biological sex.
In light of this, I am seeking clarification as to how your charity reconciles its current published policies and/or service-eligibility statements — which appear to include biological males who identify as female — with its legally binding charitable objects.
As trustees, you will be aware of your duties under charity law to ensure that the charity operates strictly within its stated objects, and that charitable funds and services are applied only for the purposes for which the charity is established. Where a charity’s activities extend beyond, or are inconsistent with, its objects, this may constitute ultra vires activity and expose the charity to regulatory risk.
I would therefore be grateful if you could confirm one or more of the following:

1. That your charity’s services and benefits are in fact restricted to biological women and/or girls, in accordance with your objects and the current legal definition of sex; or
2. That your governing document has been formally amended to redefine the beneficiary class, and that such amendment has been properly authorised and registered; or
3. That your published policies or guidance are being reviewed and brought into alignment with your charitable objects and the current legal position.

I raise this matter in the interests of clarity, good governance, and regulatory compliance, and would appreciate your response setting out the charity’s position. Yours sincerely,