our women's network are organising a 'response'

[thelonelyones]

My organisation's womens network is inviting staff to discuss the SC ruling later today, with representatives from our women's network chairing the discussion and inviting staff to help formulate their response.
Much as I'd like to, I'm not going to speak up, to protect myself (there are talks of staff cuts so don't want to put myself literally in the firing line!), but equally if anything incorrect or insulting is said, I don't think it should be ignored either, so does anyone have any suggestions?
Its a very woke organisation. I love my job, but not so much the wokeness. I don't want to lose said job, but will report back here on what may be said.
(have name changed but I'm a FWR regular)

I get that it's a women's network and this should, in theory, matter to them, but I'm not sure what all this 'we must organise a response' thing from everybody and their socks is all about really. Is it announcing the policy party line which will either be 'we're for the law and equality' or 'we don't agree with a law we can't change so we're pouting'. Why is it relevant and who cares? What will happen as a result? Isn't this just going to split the group into two opposing sides to no purpose?

My cats are organising their response this afternoon. The hamster is currently keeping his cards close to his chest, but journalists stand by.

A lot of companies and organisations, museums, unions etc are putting out knee-jerk statements. In the last couple of days some of them are much more sensible, basically saying watch this space, that they are considering what it all means and taking advice. I think Unison had a remarkably reasonable statement (especially given their usual pronouncements).

Edited to add the link https://www.unison.org.uk/news/article/2025/04/the-supreme-court-judgment-and-unison/

Presumably unless your workplace also requires you to change clothes at work, the relevance is solely about toilets for staff and visitors. I would just say that if TW/TM are not comfortable using the toilets for their sex as per the SC judgment (and flagging that we are all colleagues here and attacks in loos are not a known issue in this firm but people should speak up if they are aware of this), they can use the disabled loo for now but ideally more gender neutral self-contained facilities would be on the cards and will management get the wheels in motion.

I'm like you OP - I love my job but the organisation is very woke. Prior to a HR announcement on the ruling that was very reasonable, my section sent around a management email that referenced 'the transphobic Supreme Court' and our community will always stand with all identities etc. Managers' social media accounts complete with job title and place of work were reposting social media calling JK Rowling and her friends as fascists. It's like everything has been unleashed. It's clear that GC staff aren't considered part of the work community.

There are job cuts on the way and I keep off social media and present as bland in work. I can't speak up at all.

You could say that surely it's great news that the court has clarified that women who identify as men still have the Eq Act protected characteristic of pregnancy/maternity that the Scottish government were trying to remove from them?

My door gap campaign is a perfect example about getting people to do equality and impact assessments for all protected characteristics.

I believe it’s disability discrimination to not have suitable toilets for those with invisible disabilities such as diabetes, epilepsy and heart conditions at work. Since the only toilet cubicles with door gaps are single sex designs it follows that it’s a very reasonable adjustment to have single sex loos with door gaps. It will enable anyone at their most vulnerable (heart attack, stroke, seizure) to have the best chance of being seen to be rescued in time.

There is also a major problem with sexual assaults in public toilets. I believe making toilets private and mixed sex increases the risk of it happening.

So mixed sex toilets are best for healthy males.

I think it's symptomatic of the social media generations. Everyone having a day and voicing their very important opinions. FFS. It's a legal ruling. Comply with it. That's it.

I'm feeling really sick of the world. It's likely menopause but the gobshites are really pissing me off over this.

My organisation sent out one of those "very upsetting - stand in solidarity" things today.

However in our building we already have male, female and gender neutral loos It's never been said clearly what counts as male and female so will continue to be "unsaid" I imagine.

*having a say not day!

Maybe you can say that the Supreme Court is not politically affiliated and the legal suit was if the Scottish government was keeping to the law by counting transwomen as women in womens affirmative actions. The Scottish government lost. That doesn’t mean the Supreme Court is bigoted or wrong, it means the law doesn’t say what some people want the law to say.

campaign to get the law changed. But accept the fact you might not have the arguments to get the law changed. And stop insulting people who agree with the law as it stands. It is undemocratic to do otherwise.

exactly
I'd be querying why they didn't need to "organise a response" when there was significant news coverage of anti-immigrant protests and riots last year, or recent announcement of cuts/stricter entitlement for carers allowance or disability related benefits - statistically a far higher proportion of the workforce are going to be disabled/carers/immigrants than trans people and might have been worried and/or in need of additional support, so why are they picking and choosing which causes need formal "responses" to?

I suspect the network leaders want to draft their response by committee (which, let’s face it, never ends well) because some members have pressured them to say something, and they want to absolve themselves of the responsibility for whatever statement they feel under pressure to issue.

My instinct is that the leaders probably didn’t want to put out a statement, otherwise they would have just drafted one and sent it, but also that they didn’t have the backbone to push back and say “no, we’re not getting political as that goes against company policy, etc”. They’re probably hoping that by doing it this way, enough women will speak up.

I would turn up and counter any blatant misinformation, and would suggest they stick to the ‘we welcome the clarity’ line, and point out that it could be risky to get too political and that they Dont want to make any promises that run counter to what HR might be legally obliged to do.

I would also point out that, given the current climate, there are probably many women in the room who are scared to voice their feelings on the matter, and so it’s not really a fair discussion to be had in the workplace as gender critical women are worried about workplace discrimination (which is exactly why they had to be protected in law by Forstater).

These kinds of discussions necessarily discriminate against GC women by silencing them, which is exactly how we got to this point in the first place.

Sorry only just seen this and suspect you will have had, been at the meeting.

As this is a workplace, rather than respond now they (and other employers) should really wait for the guidelines that the EHRC are having to re-write and see what they say.

I suspect that for many workplaces it wont change much.

And unless you work place is some sort of campaign group, why do they need to make a response.

Nothing to stop employees out of work hours to join any group or campaign they feel represents how they feel.

so instead of a meeting, they changed tack and said that they would instead put information on the intranet and invite comments. The information on the intranet was a simple short message along the lines of "the company women's network invites colleagues to share their thoughts on the SC ruling" with a link to a BBC article. As yet lots of people have viewed, but no one has responded.
Interesting, however, that it went from wanting to meet to collate a response to a short intranet post. Wonder if someone from HR or whatnot stepped in.
I'll report back if anyone does respond!

Thanks for the update, OP!

Yes, it sounds like someone sensible heard about it and said “erm, why the hell would you invite that situation? We’re trying to run a business here.”

I still think it’s bizarre to invite comments on a court ruling on the intranet, as if it’s up for debate, too, but at least you know there’s someone applying a little bit of common sense behind the scenes!

Thanks, @Arran2024 That is astoundingly sane and measured for Unison. And actually mentions women - first, not even as an afterthought.

Maybe. But from another thread we see them speak out of the other side of their mouth in that that they are letting a biological male contest a seat for ‘Disabled Members, Female’. They even state in their rules that only candidates belonging to specified categories (eg. Female) can run in such contests.

So, a biological male is still on the Unison ballot for the female seat, despite the recent SC.

No they cannot 'use the disabled loo for now'! The disabled loo is for disabled people who need to have adapted facilities. Being trans is not a disability.

I said on some other thread [it's hard to keep track!] that we need to be very vigilant at the moment because obviously the accessible toilets are vulnerable to being co-opted by able-bodied trans people who have no right to use them.

Just as women have to rely on men to be trustworthy enough not to use the women's toilets, disabled people have to trust able-bodied people to respect their spaces - which are not a choice, they are physically necessary for disabled people.
Able-bodied trans people, on the other hand, are not physically incapable of using the toilets they are supposed to use, they just choose not to use them.

Disabled toilets are for disabled people. They are not a consolation prize for transwomen who can no longer use the women's toilet, and disabled people are not responsible for transpeople's comfort levels.

Sorry for the rant, but 'they can use the disabled toilet' keeps cropping up, and I think it's shocking how quickly disabled people's hard-won rights to their own accessible toilets are being sidelined in order to #bekind to transpeople.

I am sorry for the rant, but I'll probably do it all over again next time 'they can use the disabled toilet' is suggested!

What are they planning to do with people’s thoughts on the matter?
What difference could it possibly make??

If it were me I'd be tempted to be the first to post a comment, and I'd say something benign like

"I'm sure the SC judgement has come as a surprise to some people but it has clarified the law." and leave it at that.

The first comments seem to set the tone. I wouldn't go in saying"brilliant " or anything like that 😆 but you'd get in before the "how tragic and hateful" comments.
You might be pleasantly surprised by other people?

Trans women tend not to want to use third party spaces. Look at Hampstead Open Air pools, where there is a mixed pool but they insist on using the ladies, or US Swimming's trans category which no one entered.

That's my party line if I'm honest

Yes, especially because, looking at the discussion of this in the SC judgment, transmen wouldn’t have been able to receive fertility treatment to even get pregnant after transition had they been declared legally male, as fertility treatment isn’t licensed to inseminate men.

If people are being invited to comment, can they do so anonymously, and if that's offered, would users believe that messages truly are anonymous? Because there might be quite different responses to "we invite colleagues to share their thoughts" depending on whether the sharing has to be done under an open identity, or not.