OK here's what is written on the page I linked to
It is generally against the law to discriminate against someone because of a protected characteristic. However, there are certain circumstances when services can be provided either:
exclusively to one sex, or
differently to each sex or
separately to each sex.
Service providers must meet a number of conditions to lawfully establish a separate or single-sex service. These conditions are set out under exceptions relating to sex in the Act.
There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can exclude, modify or limit access to their service for trans people. This is allowed under provisions relating to gender reassignment in the Act.
Last updated: 05 May 2022
I've underlined the information which apparently isn't there
Yes, but there were no changes to the text you quote made in May 2022, were there? Where is the bit about women 'only having to say' that they won't attend something being needed to make cancellation (or keeping it to a single-sex event) legal? That's the bit that isn't there.
A definition of verbal imagery
What is verbal imagery in psychology?
It's called verbal imagery. Simply put, certain words create a clear picture in peoples' minds. It does this because your brain has associated that word with a very specific mental image, which is brought to the forefront when triggered by reading or hearing that word.
I am fully aware of what verbal imagery is. It applies in literature as well as psychology.
I think you are quite aware of the words which have been used the image this was meant to create and the problem with linking that to all transwomen. So you are quibbling over words.
You are wriggling again. What you posted was that the organiser used the images (whether verbal, as you now claim, or graphical) in order to cancel the event. She didn't. She was interviewed after the cancellation and explained why by using examples of her previous experience when the (regular) event had been crashed by TRAs.
This is what you said:
The organiser sadly tried to achieve something using unacceptable methods, which is why she has been called transphobic.
Had she merely asked for ,or arranged an event without transwomen she would have been legally entitled to. However in the course of doing this she used two images which are unacceptable to the transcommunity, one the person in lycra and the other an assault by a transwoman in the loo. (And yes I know they were both real). She used the worse stereotypes to justify her request, so indicating that this is how transwomen generally behave. It was transphobic to do so.
No, it wasn't. The examples she gave were in explanation after the event - they were not used as an excuse to cancel the event, and it is fallacious to suggest otherwise.
The first bit of that quoted post is in direct conflict with one you posted earlier on this very thread, too. At that point you were still insisting that it was only when women said they wouldn't attend if transwomen were going that an event could be cancelled. You even claimed that had the organiser 'used the law' you would have supported her 100%, and that your lack of support was because she had not 'used the proper legal process', as 'no one, whatever their circumstances should be allowed to circumvent the law, and followed this up with a guess at the reasons why she didn't 'use the law' (because in your opinion there would have been potential attendees who wanted to meet transwomen at a lesbian dating event), and a lecture about how people should prove their point through 'due legal process'. 'Sadly', however, there is no such law to back up your claim, and as far as we can tell there never has been. This is what you said:
The law is absolutely clear. Any event for women can be designated as being only for natal women if the women attending that event would not attend if transwomen attend.
The problem is that instead of using the law the woman organising the event took it upon herself to attempt to stop transwomen attending without using the proper legal process. I have no idea why she did so. But no one whatever their circumstances should be able to circumvent the law.
Had she pursued the legal process I would be 100% behind her.
Of course one reason she may not have used the legal process may be because some attendees would not want to ban transwomen.
You don't prove your point by making comments on social media you prove your point through due legal process.
.