Need guidance on how to reply to a newsletter please

[Needausernameasap]

I've name changed for this as my workplace is very much still captured.

My union have published a newsletter today that is right out of a TRA handbook. Stating they stand with the challenges to the SC ruling. That the SC ruling isn't law, and that the EHRC has confused matters and it's not true it has to be followed and that we should all write to our MPs to support transrights etc.

I'm fuming and reached out to someone I trust in the union and they were very much on the back foot thinking what had been published was fact, and they want me to give them a more factual view so they can counteract what has been said so far.

I follow these pages all the time, I'm just nervous I'll blunder my one shot at replying and getting some information out there.

Can anyone advise on how to structure and reply and key parts to quote please.

I'll be back this evening to respond, but obviously can't name my union or employer as I really am nervous about doing that.

Thanks so much.

Would anything Akua Reindorf or Sex Matters have written be useful?

Baroness Falkner https://www.politicshome.com/opinion/article/supreme-court-ruling-equality-act-cause-no-confusion-judgment-model-clarity

Akua Reindorff https://x.com/akuareindorf/status/1918389949919052129?t=oAtnVhMqusLiz4jlnnVDRg&s=19

Reem Alsalem https://x.com/UNSRVAW/status/1918307286910730434?t=HXtdurKrzfUqYjzUsZdVkQ&s=19

And Scott Wort ley (Scottish law lecturer) Check out this thread at Thread Reader App. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1918408027348103227.html

This is probablynthe key section of Wortley's thread, for your purposes, backed up by quotes from all the others saying "it is the law".

"the law in this case is found in the Equality Act 2010. The authoritative determination of the meaning of the language relating to sex, woman, and man in the 2010 Act is the decision of the supreme court in For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish ministers [2025] UKSC 16
When a court reaches a decision on a question of law (such as on the meaning of legislation) the effect of that determination is retroactive. This follows from the declaratory theory of judicial law making whereby a judicial decision clarifies what the law is. The declaratory
theory is the normal approach in relation to judicial decision making, see for example Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln Council [1999] 2 A.C. 349 where the principle is explained in the speech of Lord Goff.
(d) cumulatively this means that disregarding the legal determination which is retroactive but has clearly applied since the date of the decision in FWS, pending a new code of practice, leaves a duty holder that does so at risk of legal action where they do not comply
This will be relevant, for example, to those duty holders who have public liability or other insurance which covers potential liabilities."

How the hell is a Union who advises members on the law, sending stuff like this out without reading and understanding the law??!

In exactly what way is a ruling by the highest court in the land, the supreme court, not the law?

Answers on a postcard to the amateur columnist.

The supreme court ruled that for all purposes sex means biological sex. Otherwise the law makes no sense. Sex has to mean biological sex otherwise lesbians and gay men have no legal definition and therefore way to define their rights as homosexuals. The same, ironically, applies to trans people just as much as women.

The idea that the ruling is unlawful is hilarious.

What does the writer think the purpose of the Supreme Court is? For gathering public opinion? For grandstanding?

Someone keeps telling me that the supreme Court doesn't supersede the the ECHR and that therefore the judgment is illegal. Can someone explain to me why that's crap?

Can someone explain to me why that's crap?

In terms they're likely to understand? You might need a picture book.

Because there is no identified breech of the UKs human rights obligations here.

The supreme court takes precedence UNLESS a case is raised which is then sent to the ECHR for a ruling and the ECHR only then overules ONCE it has made an explicit ruling on that breech.

The UK courts are sovereign and there isn't a higher court unless someone brings a claim and the UK courts are SHOWN to have breeched our own legal obligations.

In this case, this ruling has NOT been questioned. The Scottish government were given leave to appeal if they wanted, but they chose not to.

Not is there any legal case in progress to take this to the SC in action. Someone who have to bring a case and it would have to go through the UK courts and THEN be given leave to be referred to the ECHR. So several stages before a case would even be eligible for a ECHR hearing. Which might well be rejected as not for the ECHR to pass judgement on as there were insufficient grounds to bring the case.

And even if there were such a legal case in progress, the SC ruling would remain LAW until such time as a ruling by the ECHR either agreed with the SC or ruled that it was wrong.

You don't get to say, "oh well I don't like the ruling so I'm going to ignore it until the ECHR says differentlu, because frankly that might never happen!

Once again this is people trying it on and trying to 'go ahead of the law' which has never been lawfully agreed, written or approved in any way shape or form.

Anyone saying differently is just legally illiterate or trying to deliberately mislead you.

This is the law - picture of a judge
This is not the law - picture of a trans celebrity

even if there were such a legal case in progress, the SC ruling would remain LAW until such time as a ruling by the ECHR either agreed with the SC or ruled that it was wrong.

And even if the ECtHR ruled there was a breech, the EA would still remain law unless and until the UK parliament decided to revise it. The ECtHR cannot make national laws, cannot override existing national laws, and cannot compel a government to fix a breech of international human rights law - it can only advise that there has been a breech and recommend sorting it out.

Also, be aware there are two bodies with similar acronyms that people often get confused: the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The first is the UK body that is handing down guidance (that everyone seems to think they can ignore) on how to implement the SC ruling. The second is a European court of law.

Even more confusingly, ECHR is often used for both the Convention (the treaty setting out the rights) and the Court (the actual decision making body when a case is brought). Which is why I (and some others) use ECtHR for the latter.

Michael Foran's explainer should also help. Particularly:

The opening explanation that the law on the meaning of 'sex' was established in the 1970s and has never been changed by the GRA, EA, or any other subsequent legislation.

The bit explaining that self ID has never applied, and the supreme court was looking only at people with a GRC, because all sides already agreed that people without a GRC should always be counted as being of their birth sex.

And the section on single sex services and what case-by-case means.

https://knowingius.org/p/sex-has-always-meant-biological-sex?hideintropopup=true

they want me to give them a more factual view so they can counteract what has been said so far

I mean, the most factual view of what the SC ruled is contained in the judgment itself, which they really should be familiarising themselves before they rubbish it, rather than asking you as a member to summarise it for them - they work for you, so they shouldn’t be making your life harder by using you as a free resource in this way - you already pay for the legal advice they have direct access to.

It shouldn’t be the case that the only way to get them to stop actively discriminating against women is to do hours of work in your spare time to compose a dossier of why they need to follow the law - this is madness, OP.

I appreciate that orgs like Stonewall were misinforming people that the SC ruling isn’t law, but if they don’t understand how case law affects the advice they’re giving, they probably shouldn’t be advising their members on the law at all.

Surely they deal with lots of employment tribunals that involve legal precedents?

I don’t understand how they can not understand this, given their background in workers’ rights. Why would this one case work differently from all the others?

@Needausernameasap cut and paste what it says here for us to see

@TangenitalContrivences im really not confident in doing that, it will be really obvious where it's come from if it was to be seen by someone where I work.
And I'm the only person who has challenged it.

In summary though it states that they're disappointed about the SC ruling. It's important to note it's not law yet, it adds confusion and isn't clear and leaves trans women unable to use the bathrooms. The interim guidance from EHRC also doesn't help and makes everything very unclear.

That they welcome the challenge from good law project (I think that's what it said) and judge Macloud on taking the ruling to the European Court of Human Rights.

Ok -well I can tell you what I would do and where I would do it in that case? (although, if it's union, surely everyone gets the newsletter and its likely on their website?)

Go to ChatGPT.

Type in something along the lines of:

I received this email from my union. Please write me an email from a gender critical perspective that challenges the untrue statements that the SC ruling isn't law, and that the EHRC has confused matters and it's not true it has to be followed and that we should all write to our MPs to support transrights

Focus on the law being the law, on female rights, on the rights and opinions of the majority, include information such as no rights have been taken from anyone, etc etc.

Remain polite, forceful and on keeping everyone safe.

Also include any other points you think are important.

The entire emails said: "CUT AND PASTE ENTIRE COINTENTS IN HERE"

@TangenitalContrivences thank you. I'll look at that today.

This is a branch of a union. Rather than coming from HQ union if that makes sense. I did ask what the official view from the union was, but I was told they've not looked into that.

Ah I get it, yeah totally. Hope this method works, I am sure it will, I have used it a lot recently, makes a huge difference to how messages are received the other end

Thank you all for your help so far.

I'm looking at the info you've sent.

Interestingly the main union published position is apologetic to trans colleagues who may be feeling upset right now, but clarifies they will be looking in detail at the ruling and will make sure it's followed. And that it won't be publishing anything in the interim. Seems our branch jumped the gun significantly.

they want me to give them a more factual view
Why you? Just because you recognised that what was put out was wrong doesn't mean it's your job to set them right, is it?

I'd say something like that, perhaps more polite, and attach this 'which may be helpful'
An interim update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment | EHRC

Because at the moment, they believed everything that has been published by someone. So me saying that's not true leaves it on me to show it's not true. But that's a fair point!

@MarieDeGournay fair point though. Maybe I should just say what you've published is really incorrect. Here's the resources to find out more information and then send an updated newsletter out.

My worry is there is no way they will retract it.

It's important to emphasise that there was no new law or change to the law by the SC.

The SC ruling was to clarify the existing law. Nothing has changed in that respect.

The problem is that the law has been broken many times.

Companies have been sued because of it and have lost. If your workplace does not want to be sued, they need to comply with this existing law. It has not changed. They have a legal obligation and have always had that legal obligation. If they break it, they will lose.

It has nothing to do with the EHRC. If someone feels they have been discriminated against, they can make a case to the EHRC. But they will have to prove how they have been discriminated against, not just that they wanted to ignore the Equality Act.

Your workplace legal team should be advising them as to the actual law as it exists today, not the law that some members of society would like it to be.

The Supreme Court, the highest court in the country, has confirmed that the law is there. It has always been there. It has not changed. No rights have been taken away from anyone.

It's important to note it's not law yet, it adds confusion and isn't clear and leaves trans women unable to use the bathrooms.

That's incorrect. It is law and men should never have been using the female facilities.