Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
women only gyms
211 views
Skip to first unread message
SG
Jun 14, 2021, 3:42:48 PM6/14/21
to
Hi!
recently on a leading social media i've found a short video article about the women- only gym, how it is a safe space etc. Thing took place in the usa, but would thing like that (i.e. a private revenue that denies the service/access based on the sex of the customer) be legal in the UK?
if such service would be fine (again, in the uk)- would a denial of service based on the skin color be legal too (and, again, it's about a sweeping denial, not just for some poeple who happen to be male /or of color in the second scenario/).
While I do agree with some of the points made in that video, I think they are grossly overblown.
recently on a leading social media i've found a short video article about the women- only gym, how it is a safe space etc. Thing took place in the usa, but would thing like that (i.e. a private revenue that denies the service/access based on the sex of the customer) be legal in the UK?
if such service would be fine (again, in the uk)- would a denial of service based on the skin color be legal too (and, again, it's about a sweeping denial, not just for some poeple who happen to be male /or of color in the second scenario/).
While I do agree with some of the points made in that video, I think they are grossly overblown.
kat
Jun 14, 2021, 4:10:52 PM6/14/21
to
On 14/06/2021 19:08, SG wrote:
> Hi!
>
> recently on a leading social media i've found a short video article about the women- only gym, how it is a safe space etc. Thing took place in the usa, but would thing like that (i.e. a private revenue that denies the service/access based on the sex of the customer) be legal in the UK?
We have women only gyms, so it must be.
> Hi!
>
> recently on a leading social media i've found a short video article about the women- only gym, how it is a safe space etc. Thing took place in the usa, but would thing like that (i.e. a private revenue that denies the service/access based on the sex of the customer) be legal in the UK?
--
kat
>^..^<
Mark Goodge
Jun 14, 2021, 4:28:11 PM6/14/21
to
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 11:08:19 -0700 (PDT), SG <s.gru...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>recently on a leading social media i've found a short video article about
>the women- only gym, how it is a safe space etc. Thing took place in the usa,
>but would thing like that (i.e. a private revenue that denies the service/access
>based on the sex of the customer) be legal in the UK?
Yes, women-only gyms are both legal in the UK and exist in the UK.
>
>if such service would be fine (again, in the uk)- would a denial of service
>based on the skin color be legal too (and, again, it's about a sweeping denial,
>not just for some poeple who happen to be male /or of color in the second scenario/).
No, that would not be legal in the UK.
The reason for the difference is that while sex and race are both
protected characteristics in law, there is an explicit exception for
organisations which exist specifically to serve people who share a
prohibited characteristic. However, there is a further exception to the
exception which excludes skin colour from the permitted exceptions. So a
woman-only gym is fine, as are a men-only club, a Scotsmen's
association, an Englishmen's club and Catholic society. But a white
people's club, or a black people's club, would not be lawful.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/16
Mark
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>recently on a leading social media i've found a short video article about
>the women- only gym, how it is a safe space etc. Thing took place in the usa,
>but would thing like that (i.e. a private revenue that denies the service/access
>based on the sex of the customer) be legal in the UK?
>
>if such service would be fine (again, in the uk)- would a denial of service
>based on the skin color be legal too (and, again, it's about a sweeping denial,
>not just for some poeple who happen to be male /or of color in the second scenario/).
The reason for the difference is that while sex and race are both
protected characteristics in law, there is an explicit exception for
organisations which exist specifically to serve people who share a
prohibited characteristic. However, there is a further exception to the
exception which excludes skin colour from the permitted exceptions. So a
woman-only gym is fine, as are a men-only club, a Scotsmen's
association, an Englishmen's club and Catholic society. But a white
people's club, or a black people's club, would not be lawful.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/16
Mark
Les. Hayward
Jun 14, 2021, 5:12:49 PM6/14/21
to
am correct, how can that be so?
Fredxx
Jun 14, 2021, 6:13:05 PM6/14/21
to
linked to suggests you can restrict members to a protected
characteristic. White skin is a protected characteristic in exactly the
same way as black skin.
Dr Dave
Jun 15, 2021, 4:33:35 AM6/15/21
to
Mark Goodge
Jun 15, 2021, 5:02:47 AM6/15/21
to
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 21:52:30 +0100, "Les. Hayward" <l...@nospam.com>
wrote:
it's simply an "interest group" within the Police Association. But, even
so, it has been widely criticised for breaking the spirity of the
Equality Act even if it manages to evade explicitly breaking the letter.
Mark
wrote:
>Interesting points - but is there not a black police association? If I
>am correct, how can that be so?
It sort of wriggles around it by not actually having any members per se.
>am correct, how can that be so?
it's simply an "interest group" within the Police Association. But, even
so, it has been widely criticised for breaking the spirity of the
Equality Act even if it manages to evade explicitly breaking the letter.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Jun 15, 2021, 5:13:49 AM6/15/21
to
(1) An association does not contravene section 101(1) by restricting
membership to persons who share a protected characteristic.
but then goes on to say
(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3), so far as relating to race, do not
apply in relation to colour.
So, while an enthnic minority association is acceptable, it's only
acceptable if framed in a way which does not segregate on colour. So a
hypothetical "African Students Association", for example, would have to
allow white Africans to join, even if most of its members are, as a
result of simple demographics, black.
The BPA skirts around that by not actually having members, but rather
existing as a pressure group aimed at promoting the interests of black
police officers. That's exactly the same reason why the "Black Lives
Matter" movement is not in contravention of the Equality Act, because it
isn't restricting membership to black people but simply aiming to
campaign on their behalf. Some may argue that this is nonetheless
discriminatory and in breach of the spirit of the law, and there may
well be some justification for that argument. But the letter of the law
is what counts when it comes to the law.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Jun 15, 2021, 5:33:28 AM6/15/21
to
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 16:53:51 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 21:28:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The reason for the difference is that while sex and race are both
>> protected characteristics in law, there is an explicit exception for
>> organisations which exist specifically to serve people who share a
>> prohibited characteristic. However, there is a further exception to the
>> exception which excludes skin colour from the permitted exceptions. So a
>> woman-only gym is fine, as are a men-only club, a Scotsmen's
>> association, an Englishmen's club and Catholic society. But a white
>> people's club, or a black people's club, would not be lawful.
>>
>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/16
>
>So a heterosexual-only facility, service or membership would be lawful?
You could have a "Straight People's Club" if you wanted, yes. But it
would have to be constituted as a membership organisation in order to
take advantage of Schedule 16. The reason why women-only gyms are
acceptable is because gyms commonly work on a membership basis - you can
only use them if you are a member. But you wouldn't be able to have a
women-only cafe that was open to the public[1], because that would be a
simple provision of service rather than an association.
There's no general exception to the Equality Act when it comes to the
supply of goods or services; if you supply to the general public (as
opposed to restricting supply to members of your organisation and their
guests) then you must supply to everybody without discriminating on the
basis of any protected characteristic.
[1] Things like women's shelters (eg, for those escaping domestic abuse)
are also a permitted exception, but they are not open to the public and
are not considered the supply of goods or services. Rather, they are the
provision of charitable or public service benefits, which are a separate
category of exemption - they can be targetted to any group which is in
particular need of them.
Mark
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 21:28:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The reason for the difference is that while sex and race are both
>> protected characteristics in law, there is an explicit exception for
>> organisations which exist specifically to serve people who share a
>> prohibited characteristic. However, there is a further exception to the
>> exception which excludes skin colour from the permitted exceptions. So a
>> woman-only gym is fine, as are a men-only club, a Scotsmen's
>> association, an Englishmen's club and Catholic society. But a white
>> people's club, or a black people's club, would not be lawful.
>>
>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/16
>
You could have a "Straight People's Club" if you wanted, yes. But it
would have to be constituted as a membership organisation in order to
take advantage of Schedule 16. The reason why women-only gyms are
acceptable is because gyms commonly work on a membership basis - you can
only use them if you are a member. But you wouldn't be able to have a
women-only cafe that was open to the public[1], because that would be a
simple provision of service rather than an association.
There's no general exception to the Equality Act when it comes to the
supply of goods or services; if you supply to the general public (as
opposed to restricting supply to members of your organisation and their
guests) then you must supply to everybody without discriminating on the
basis of any protected characteristic.
[1] Things like women's shelters (eg, for those escaping domestic abuse)
are also a permitted exception, but they are not open to the public and
are not considered the supply of goods or services. Rather, they are the
provision of charitable or public service benefits, which are a separate
category of exemption - they can be targetted to any group which is in
particular need of them.
Mark
Roland Perry
Jun 15, 2021, 5:46:46 AM6/15/21
to
In message <d0rgcgts6md9h3bsu...@4ax.com>, at 10:02:44 on
Tue, 15 Jun 2021, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
There's also a Metropolitan Police Male Voice Choir.
--
Roland Perry
Tue, 15 Jun 2021, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
--
Roland Perry
Owain Lastname
Jun 15, 2021, 5:59:00 AM6/15/21
to
On Monday, 14 June 2021 at 22:12:49 UTC+1, Les. Hayward wrote:
> > or a black people's club, would not be lawful.
> > or a black people's club, would not be lawful.
> Interesting points - but is there not a black police association? If I
> am correct, how can that be so?
There are; I assumed that they would actually be open to a person of any race who agreed with the aims of the association, but
> am correct, how can that be so?
"Membership to the Association is available to all black staff employed by the Metropolitan Police Service."
https://www.metbpa.org.uk/membership/
"Membership is open to all Members of the Metropolitan Police Service who are of African, Afro Caribbean, Asian or mixed heritage deriving from the aforementioned origins."
https://www.metbpa.org.uk/membership-application-form/
The actual legslation is
(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3), so far as relating to race, do not apply in relation to colour.
So would people of White African heritage be eligible to join?
Owain
Svenne
Jun 15, 2021, 5:59:39 AM6/15/21
to
identities that are springing up like mushrooms on a damp Autumn morning
these days can identify as a woman on a whim and thereby gain entry it
makes the exclusionary rule quite pointless.
Peter
Jun 15, 2021, 6:45:18 AM6/15/21
to
Owain Lastname wrote:
> On Monday, 14 June 2021 at 22:12:49 UTC+1, Les. Hayward wrote:
>>> or a black people's club, would not be lawful.
>> Interesting points - but is there not a black police association? If I
>> am correct, how can that be so?
>
> There are; I assumed that they would actually be open to a person of any race who agreed with the aims of the association, but
> "Membership to the Association is available to all black staff employed by the Metropolitan Police Service."
> https://www.metbpa.org.uk/membership/
>
> "Membership is open to all Members of the Metropolitan Police Service who are of African, Afro Caribbean, Asian or mixed heritage deriving from the aforementioned origins."
Did we not all descend from forebears in the African rift valley? If
> On Monday, 14 June 2021 at 22:12:49 UTC+1, Les. Hayward wrote:
>>> or a black people's club, would not be lawful.
>> Interesting points - but is there not a black police association? If I
>> am correct, how can that be so?
>
> There are; I assumed that they would actually be open to a person of any race who agreed with the aims of the association, but
> "Membership to the Association is available to all black staff employed by the Metropolitan Police Service."
> https://www.metbpa.org.uk/membership/
>
> "Membership is open to all Members of the Metropolitan Police Service who are of African, Afro Caribbean, Asian or mixed heritage deriving from the aforementioned origins."
so, then we are all of mixed heritage deriving from the aforementioned
origins.
> https://www.metbpa.org.uk/membership-application-form/
>
> The actual legslation is
> (4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3), so far as relating to race, do not apply in relation to colour.
>
> So would people of White African heritage be eligible to join?
>
> Owain
>
--
> https://www.metbpa.org.uk/membership-application-form/
>
> The actual legslation is
> (4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3), so far as relating to race, do not apply in relation to colour.
>
> So would people of White African heritage be eligible to join?
>
> Owain
>
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg
Fredxx
Jun 15, 2021, 7:37:00 AM6/15/21
to
> So, while an enthnic minority association is acceptable, it's only
> acceptable if framed in a way which does not segregate on colour. So a
> hypothetical "African Students Association", for example, would have to
> allow white Africans to join, even if most of its members are, as a
> result of simple demographics, black.
BTW Caucasian is a race.
Fredxx
Jun 15, 2021, 7:42:14 AM6/15/21
to
https://www.metpolicechoir.co.uk/
"The MPC have been singing together since June 2016, having previously
been performing as the Metropolitan Police Male Voice Choir for a number
of years."
Other instances of male choirs being disbanded:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/04/police-force-kicks-all-male-choir-refuses-accept-female-singers/
Mark Goodge
Jun 15, 2021, 9:19:33 AM6/15/21
to
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 22:04:54 -0000 (UTC), Svenne <sve...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
No, they can't, because sex and gender identity are different things in
English law.
Mark
wrote:
English law.
Mark
Svenne
Jun 15, 2021, 4:57:55 PM6/15/21
to
On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:19:29 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 22:04:54 -0000 (UTC), Svenne <sve...@nowhere.com>
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 22:04:54 -0000 (UTC), Svenne <sve...@nowhere.com>
>>Since any one of the dozens of sexes, non-sexes and diverse gender
>>identities that are springing up like mushrooms on a damp Autumn morning
>>these days can identify as a woman on a whim and thereby gain entry it
>>makes the exclusionary rule quite pointless.
> No, they can't, because sex and gender identity are different things in
> English law.
Do you mean a transwoman is not really a woman and should be denied
>>identities that are springing up like mushrooms on a damp Autumn morning
>>these days can identify as a woman on a whim and thereby gain entry it
>>makes the exclusionary rule quite pointless.
> No, they can't, because sex and gender identity are different things in
> English law.
access to women's spaces?
Roland Perry
Jun 16, 2021, 3:16:50 AM6/16/21
to
In message <sac79s$3lb$3...@dont-email.me>, at 06:55:56 on Wed, 16 Jun
2021, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>Not according to some training material I've had to complete on the
>Equality act ...
If only all training materials were perfect. I saw some GDPR training a
couple of years ago where a couple of the answers in the quiz at the end
were 'plain wrong'. [eg one question was "is the following activity OK",
and the correct answer, not listed, would have been "we don't know,
because it relies upon examining ICO guidance, which they haven't
published yet"]
--
Roland Perry
2021, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>Equality act ...
If only all training materials were perfect. I saw some GDPR training a
couple of years ago where a couple of the answers in the quiz at the end
were 'plain wrong'. [eg one question was "is the following activity OK",
and the correct answer, not listed, would have been "we don't know,
because it relies upon examining ICO guidance, which they haven't
published yet"]
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
Jun 16, 2021, 4:45:08 AM6/16/21
to
On 2021-06-16, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:33:25 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> [1] Things like women's shelters (eg, for those escaping domestic abuse)
>> are also a permitted exception, but they are not open to the public and
>> are not considered the supply of goods or services. Rather, they are the
>> provision of charitable or public service benefits, which are a separate
>> category of exemption - they can be targetted to any group which is in
>> particular need of them.
>
> Also "women" has been taken to mean "anyone who identifies as one" - so
> men included.
>
> The FWB board on Mumsnet highlights such cases daily.
"Friends with benefits"?
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:33:25 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> [1] Things like women's shelters (eg, for those escaping domestic abuse)
>> are also a permitted exception, but they are not open to the public and
>> are not considered the supply of goods or services. Rather, they are the
>> provision of charitable or public service benefits, which are a separate
>> category of exemption - they can be targetted to any group which is in
>> particular need of them.
>
> men included.
>
> The FWB board on Mumsnet highlights such cases daily.
"Friends with benefits"?
Mark Goodge
Jun 16, 2021, 5:04:27 AM6/16/21
to
On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 16:23:45 -0000 (UTC), Svenne <sve...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Once someone has obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate, they are
entitled to be treated as their acquired gender for all legal purposes,
with a few, specific, exceptions. Until they have a GRC, they are not
entitled to that, but they are still entitled not to be discriminated
against because of their gender identity.
Mark
wrote:
entitled to be treated as their acquired gender for all legal purposes,
with a few, specific, exceptions. Until they have a GRC, they are not
entitled to that, but they are still entitled not to be discriminated
against because of their gender identity.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Jun 16, 2021, 5:11:45 AM6/16/21
to
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 06:55:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
particularly accurate.
Mark
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>Not according to some training material I've had to complete on the
>Equality act ...
Unfortunately, there's a lot of training material out there that is not
>Equality act ...
particularly accurate.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Jun 16, 2021, 5:43:13 AM6/16/21
to
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 09:35:42 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
I think he means FWR (Feminism and Women's Rights). FWB was probably a
Freudian slip :-)
Mark
wrote:
Freudian slip :-)
Mark
Jon Ribbens
Jun 16, 2021, 5:54:25 AM6/16/21
to
On 2021-06-16, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:33:25 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:33:25 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> [1] Things like women's shelters (eg, for those escaping domestic abuse)
>> are also a permitted exception, but they are not open to the public and
>> are not considered the supply of goods or services. Rather, they are the
>> provision of charitable or public service benefits, which are a separate
>> category of exemption - they can be targetted to any group which is in
>> particular need of them.
>
>> are also a permitted exception, but they are not open to the public and
>> are not considered the supply of goods or services. Rather, they are the
>> provision of charitable or public service benefits, which are a separate
>> category of exemption - they can be targetted to any group which is in
>> particular need of them.
>
> Also "women" has been taken to mean "anyone who identifies as one" - so
> men included.
>
> The FWB board on Mumsnet highlights such cases daily.
Mumsnet is not a source of reliable legal advice - even less so than
> men included.
>
> The FWB board on Mumsnet highlights such cases daily.
this newsgroup!
Adam Funk
Jun 16, 2021, 12:30:16 PM6/16/21
to
I just googled 'fwb mumsnet' because I'm not really familiar with
mumsnet, and that's what I got.
tim...
Jun 16, 2021, 1:19:40 PM6/16/21
to
"Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
news:5pkpphx...@news.ducksburg.com...
vociferously, if you were familiar with them
Les. Hayward
Jun 16, 2021, 5:38:57 PM6/16/21
to
'Other ranks".
jon
Jun 16, 2021, 5:39:19 PM6/16/21
to
On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 06:58:42 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:33:25 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:33:25 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> [1] Things like women's shelters (eg, for those escaping domestic
>> abuse)
>> are also a permitted exception, but they are not open to the public and
>> are not considered the supply of goods or services. Rather, they are
>> the provision of charitable or public service benefits, which are a
>> separate category of exemption - they can be targetted to any group
>> which is in particular need of them.
>
>> abuse)
>> are also a permitted exception, but they are not open to the public and
>> are not considered the supply of goods or services. Rather, they are
>> the provision of charitable or public service benefits, which are a
>> separate category of exemption - they can be targetted to any group
>> which is in particular need of them.
>
> Also "women" has been taken to mean "anyone who identifies as one" - so
> men included.
>
> The FWB board on Mumsnet highlights such cases daily.
Surely, only people born with a womb.
> men included.
>
> The FWB board on Mumsnet highlights such cases daily.
Fredxx
Jun 16, 2021, 5:48:02 PM6/16/21
to
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/woman-who-genetically-man-gives-5075269
"A woman told she was genetically a man with no reproductive organs
when she was 19 has given birth to twin girls."
or:
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/news/a36344/man-discovers-he-has-a-working-womb-and-uterus/
And born without a uterus:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29485996
Jon Ribbens
Jun 16, 2021, 6:52:20 PM6/16/21
to
On 2021-06-16, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>
> But it *is* a good source of what's happening on the streets, in womens
> shelters and workplaces and schools.
It isn't any of those things either.
> All of which have decided that gender is a protected characteristic
> (it isn't) and that sex is a matter of choice, not biology.
>
> At which point they all come crashing up against the law.
They do?
Svenne
Jun 16, 2021, 7:22:10 PM6/16/21
to
0 new messages