Conscience and association / C4
Choosing a private group's members
The person runs a free, non-commercial online group for women. They refuse membership to anyone they judge to be male, including a transgender woman who applies. She complains.
What we score
What can the state, or the excluded applicant through the courts, do to the person?
Default assumptions: Unless a vignette says otherwise, the person is a 30-year-old citizen of sound mind with no criminal record, acting alone, on their own behalf and not for profit, in an ordinary residential area. Where subnational units (states, provinces, cantons, Länder) make their own law, each unit is scored and the result is weighted by population. 'The state' includes police, prosecutors, courts, regulators, tax authorities and anyone acting on their orders, including platforms obeying takedown orders.
Score anchors
Both the law score and the practice score use these anchors. Half points are used when a country sits between two of them.
| Score | What it means for this vignette |
|---|---|
| 10 | Nothing. Private associations choose their own members. |
| 8 | Membership rules are only regulated for businesses serving the public; a non-commercial group is free. |
| 6 | Exclusion on this ground is unlawful in principle, but a clear exemption (single-sex groups, private clubs) covers this case. |
| 4 | Unlawful; tribunal or court orders admission and compensation. |
| 3 | Unlawful, with fines or penalties beyond compensation. |
| 2 | Crime: fine or under 1 year. |
| 1 | Crime: 1 to 5 years. |
| 0 | Crime: over 5 years. |
Evidence used: Anti-discrimination and equality statutes, their coverage of clubs, associations and online services, and their exemptions; tribunal and court rulings on single-sex groups; damages awarded.
How each country scores
| Country | Law | Practice | Process | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 10 | 10 | 0 | 10.0 | No Swiss law regulates a private association's choice of members on grounds of sex or gender identity. The Gender Equality Act applies only to employment (Art. 2), and the criminal ban on refusing a public service (Criminal Code Art. 261bis) covers race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation, not sex or gender identity. Under the Civil Code, admission is the association's own decision (Arts. 65, 70), and members may even be excluded without reasons (Art. 72). We found no case in which a refused applicant obtained admission or damages from a non-commercial group. |
| Singapore | 10 | 10 | 0 | 10.0 | Singapore has no anti-discrimination law covering goods, services, clubs or associations; the only general discrimination statute, the Workplace Fairness Act 2025 (with its 2025 Dispute Resolution amendments creating a statutory tort), applies to employment decisions only. The equal-protection guarantee in Art. 12 of the Constitution binds the state, not private groups, and under the Societies Act a society's own rules set the 'qualifications for membership'. Gender identity is not a protected characteristic in any statute. An excluded applicant has no cause of action, and we found no case. |
| China | 10 | 10 | 0 | 10.0 | China has no law against gender-identity discrimination, and its equality provisions do not reach the membership of private, non-commercial groups. Nothing lets the state or the excluded applicant compel admission or claim damages. |
| Germany | 8 | 9 | 0 | 8.6 | The civil anti-discrimination rule (§ 19 AGG) covers only mass-market transactions, private insurance and (for race) other contracts. A free, non-commercial online group falls outside it, and § 18 AGG reaches only unions, employers' bodies and associations with a dominant social or economic position. The 2024 self-ID law says the right of owners to set house rules, freedom of contract and an association's right to set its own statutes are 'unaffected' by a change of legal gender (§ 6(2) SBGG). We found no ruling ordering a non-commercial group to admit a trans woman. |
| United States | 7.5 | 8.5 | 0 | 8.1 | Federal public-accommodation law (Title II) does not cover sex, and most state laws reach only businesses or places open to the public: California's Unruh Act covers 'business establishments', and private clubs that are distinctly private are exempt nearly everywhere (scored 8). A few states with very broad definitions, such as Minnesota and New Jersey, have applied their laws to unselective membership organisations (Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 1984, upheld forcing the Jaycees to admit women), so a free group open to all women could be ordered to admit a trans woman there (about 4). That order is subject to the First Amendment right of expressive association, which let the Boy Scouts exclude a gay leader despite New Jersey's law (Boy Scouts v. Dale, 2000). There are no reported cases against a free, non-commercial online women's group. |
| Czechia | 8 | 8 | 0 | 8.0 | The Anti-Discrimination Act 198/2009 § 1(1) covers membership only in trade unions, employer organisations and professional chambers, plus goods and services 'offered to the public'; it does not reach membership of a private association. Sex discrimination includes discrimination over gender identity (§ 2(4)), but §§ 6(6)-(7) exempt services in the sphere of private life and justified single-sex services. No ruling applying the Act to a non-commercial group was found, and the Ombudsman's findings are not binding. |
| New Zealand | 6 | 8 | 0 | 7.2 | Human Rights Act 1993 s44(1) bars anyone supplying goods, facilities or services 'to the public or to any section of the public' from refusing them on a prohibited ground, but s44(4) says the section does not apply to 'access to membership of a club', which covers a free members-only group. Section 21 lists 'sex' but not gender identity; whether sex covers transgender people is unsettled, and the Law Commission's September 2025 report recommended amending the Act to say so, which has not been enacted. A complaint would go to Human Rights Commission mediation and then the Human Rights Review Tribunal, which can award damages; no tribunal ruling against a women-only group over a transgender applicant was found. |
| Israel | 6 | 8 | 0 | 7.2 | The anti-discrimination law covers anyone providing a public service, including culture or entertainment services offered to the public, whether or not for profit or for a fee (s.3(b)). It forbids discrimination on grounds that include sex and sexual orientation, but not gender identity (s.3(a)). It is not discrimination when a non-profit organisation or club acts to promote the special needs of its members' group (s.3(d)(2)), which covers a free women-only group. Discrimination is a civil wrong with damages of up to NIS 50,000 without proof of loss (s.5) and a fine-only offence (s.9). We found no case brought against a women's group. |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 7.5 | 0 | 6.9 | Under the Equality Act 2010 an association (at least 25 members, with admission by a selection process, s107) must not discriminate in admitting members (s101). Schedule 16 para 1 lets it restrict membership to people who share a protected characteristic, such as being women. Since For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16, 'sex' means biological sex, and the Court said that women-only and lesbian clubs can therefore exclude trans women (para 207). The EHRC Code of Practice in force since 5 August 2026 gives this exact example as lawful (Example 12.68). A smaller, non-selective group falls under the services rules (s29), where the single-sex exception needs a proportionate justification. We found no case ordering a free women's group to admit a trans woman. |
| Netherlands | 5 | 6 | 0 | 5.6 | The Equal Treatment Act (AWGB) defines sex discrimination to include gender identity (art. 1(2)), and art. 7(1)(d) extends the ban on discrimination in offering goods or services even to private individuals not acting commercially, if the offer is made publicly, which an openly advertised online group arguably is. Art. 7(3) exempts relationships of a private character where a sex-based distinction serves a legitimate aim, and art. 2(2) exempts cases where sex is 'determinative' or which concern 'the protection of women', but the College voor de Rechten van de Mens held in opinion 2018-101 that a women-only gym (Curves) discriminated by refusing a legally female trans woman. The only remedies are a College opinion, which is not binding, and a civil suit (the College may also sue under art. 13 of its Act); there are no fines. No case against a non-commercial online group was found. |
| Australia | 6 | 5.5 | −0.5 | 5.2 | The Sex Discrimination Act bans gender-identity discrimination in providing services 'whether for payment or not'. In Tickle v Giggle the Full Federal Court held that excluding a trans woman from a women-only app was unlawful direct discrimination and raised damages to $20,000 ([2026] FCAFC 64), and the High Court refused special leave on 10 Sept 2026. But s 39 exempts a 'voluntary body' (a not-for-profit association) when it decides who to admit as members, and the court in Lesbian Action Group v AHRC [2026] FCA 432 accepted that such a group is likely covered for membership, though not for public events; NSW's Anti-Discrimination Act s 57 has a similar exception. A free, non-commercial group should fall in the exemption, but a group run by one person may be argued not to be a 'body', and defending an AHRC complaint is costly. |
| Ireland | 4.5 | 5.5 | 0 | 5.1 | The Equal Status Act 2000 s5 bans discrimination in providing a 'service', defined in s2 to include a facility provided by a club 'whether or not' registered, free or paid, if available to the public or a section of it, so an open online women's group is probably covered. A trans woman with a gender recognition certificate is legally female 'for all purposes' (Gender Recognition Act 2015 s18), so refusing her is gender-ground discrimination. Exemptions in s5(2)(g) (privacy), s5(2)(h) (services promoting the special interests of a category, where reasonably necessary) and s5(2)(l) (services suitable only to certain persons) may cover a women's group but are untested for this case, hence the half point above anchor 4. The remedy is a WRC order for compensation, capped at the District Court contract limit (€15,000, s27), and a specified course of action; there is no criminal penalty. I found no reported WRC decision on a women-only group excluding a trans woman. |
| Mexico | 3 | 5 | 0 | 4.2 | The federal anti-discrimination law reaches private persons and lists 'impedir la participación en condiciones equitativas en asociaciones civiles, políticas o de cualquier otra índole' as discrimination (LFPED art. 9 VIII), on grounds including sex and gender (art. 1 III). It has no single-sex exemption beyond the general rule that only a distinction that is not 'objetiva, racional ni proporcional' counts as discrimination. CONAPRED can order readmission, compensation, a public admonition, an apology and a poster or public notice of the finding (arts. 83-83 Bis), but no fines; Mexico City's own law names gender identity and has the same association clause (LPED CDMX art. 6 VIII). In Mexico City (about 7% of the population) 'excluir' a person on grounds of sex or any other ground affecting dignity is also a crime with 1-3 years, on complaint (Penal Code art. 206 III). No CONAPRED resolution or prosecution involving a women-only group was found; weighting: about 93% scored 3.5 and 7% scored 1. |
| Denmark | 2.5 | 5 | 0 | 4.0 | Ligestillingsloven § 1 a and § 2 forbid discrimination by gender identity by 'all persons' who provide goods and services available to the public outside private and family life. The 2021 bill notes treat private associations as covered. There is a single-sex exception only where it is justified by a legitimate aim and is proportionate (§ 3 a), and the remedy is compensation ordered by the Ligebehandlingsnævnet (§§ 3 c-3 d). Since 2022 the race-discrimination act § 1(1) also makes it a crime (fine or up to 6 months) to refuse someone service on equal terms because of gender identity 'in commercial or non-profit activity' offered to the public. Whether a free online group falls under that act is untested, hence the half point. I found no reported case on a women-only group excluding a trans woman; in KEN 9383/2016 the Nævnet accepted that a swimming hall could send a trans woman to a separate changing room. |