Please help me send an email to our Chief Exec who has announced they are ignoring the Supreme Court

[VivaDixie]

I feel I have to do something about this - even just a carefully worded email.

Background: I work in a large well known, well respected white collar organisation. Historically it was very stuffy and male, but in recent decades it has become more inclusive.

This may be v outing but yesterday the very stuffy male Chief Exec announced in an all organisation Teams meeting that - basically - they are ignoring the SC ruling and said that trans colleagues can use whatever toilet and changing room they want. He had all the #bekind #beinclusive vibes. He reminded us all we have to be inclusive for all, clearly women don't come under that umbrella. Made lots of noises about 'we will all have different views on this as its a sensitive subject' bla bla

He made some waffle about how they are reviewing the matter and haven't made any final decisions, but - and this is crucial - that they have already taken external legal advice. I believe the crux of it is that they don't want to change the toilets and want to be seen to be inclusive.

This was one of those teams meetings where you can't put your hand up but there is an anonymous Q&A at the end - I didn't get a chance to put a Q in as I was blindsided and didn't know what to ask without sounding like an idiot.

So I intend to email the Chief Exec office and need to think about what to say. I want to keep it brief but I am thinking of getting the following in:

1. They say they have sought independent legal advice. How has this legal advice aligned with the SC ruling in terms of the fact that allowing trans colleagues to use whatever loo (and more crucially changing rooms) they like has always been but is now confirmed as unlawful
2. They say they are inclusive of all - how does this protect women's rights to safe spaces
3. The toilets are not self contained - in that they have floor to ceiling cubicles but the sinks are outside the cubicles. (Mumsnet - am I right that if you are essentially making these mixed sex then that set up is now unlawful?)

My questions are clunky but I am going to think over the weekend how to articulate this. If anyone has any ideas that would be much appreciated.

Even the GRA doesn’t believe that a person with a GRC has changed sex ´for all purposes’. In Section 16 it is careful to state that a GRC does not change entitlements to peerages: women can’t inherit their father’s title and men can’t forgo their father’s title. Funny that.

16 Peerages etc.
The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act—
(a)does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour

If you have not seen it already gave a look at this thread.
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5325646-anyone-else-work-at-a-uni?page=1

Wes Streeting told Darlington NHS to get men out of women's spaces. So it seems this government, at least, agrees with us.

If you genuinely believe that any government, is now going to reverse ferret and say actually, that's wrong, there's no such thing as a single sex female space, good luck with that.

I would keep the response simple and purely based on the law that it is, and always has been unlawful to allow males to access places that are for women & girls only.

Template I’ve recently used:

« I am wondering when your organisation will comply with the Equality Act 2010 and restrict female tennis, at all levels, to women and girls only. Currently, if you are not aware, you have divided your female tennis competitions to female-only in 'Specified Competitions', but you still allow males to play against women and girls in female-only events outside of that made-up category.

This is against the law, namely the Equality Act 2010, which was confirmed in the Supreme Court's ruling on April 16' 2025, clarifying that the meaning of 'woman' is biological in basis, and that neither self ID nor a gender recognition certificate overrides this definition. This means that all sport, including tennis, which offers a category for women and girls only, means exactly that: it's for women and girls only.

I look forward to you announcing the scrapping of all policies that violate the law in regards to the safety and fairness for women and girls in tennis events covered by the LTA. With the Wimbledon tennis tournament coming up at the end of the month, it would be a shame for any part of the event to be overshadowed by either public protests (à la Imane Khelif/Lin Yu-Ting at the Olympics) or for you to be faced with litigation for sex discrimination from your female members.

Please respond ASAP with either 1) a public announcement that you are ending unfairness for your female members in every way and at every level or 2) the legal advice you have received as to why you believe the law applies only to
'Specified Competitions' and not 'Non-Specified Competitions'.

If you need a template, please see the Football Association's announcement on 1 May 2025.

regards etc

@VivaDixie i will dm you, if I either figure out how to do it on my phone. If not when I can log on to my laptop.

It's ok i have DM'd you - so it should be in your inbox - no rush 🙂

I mean that is clearly what Parliament legislated for.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that's not what the law says.

Except that in the case of the Workplace Regs, it is the GRA that is the second act. Parliament could have chosen to clarify the Workplace Regs. It could have exempted the workplace regs from 'all purposes'.

But it chose not to do that.

The point I've made from the start here is that people claiming with certainty that failing to provide toilets segregated by biological sex is unlawful are spoofing.

Might the courts find that in the future? Sure. They might also find the opposite. Those claiming that the matter is settled in law are wrong.

Even Governments don't get to repeal legislation without Parliament agreeing.

Precisely. Parliament knew in 2004 that they wanted to make some exceptions to the 'all purposes' provision. But the Workplace Regulations were not one of the exceptions they chose to make.

Given that it is undeniable that female-bodied people have different physical and social challenges to male-bodied people, why is it so important to you that female people not be allowed to have sex-specific rights, spaces and protections?

Obvs because they're really inconvenient to men.

It's much easier for men to use and abuse women if women don't have bloody inconvenient rights.

They don’t need to make a comprehensive list of rules and regulations it applies/doesn’t apply to. It’s nonsensical to include men in the definition of women when providing single-sex facilities as they exist to protect women from men. Cry harder.

According to normal constitutional law interpretation that’s precisely what they need to do.

That is why the consequential amendments sections of some legislation is the longest and most detail parts. Because the interaction between old legislation and new legislation is complex. And where Parliament doesn’t expressly disapply elements of new legislation to accommodate old legislation, the new legislation is assumed to be the more definitive and most recent expression of the sovereignty of Parliament.

It doesn't matter which act came first or second. The only way for the workplace regulations not to be nonsense are to be understood to be included in the exemptions to the GRA in 9(3), therefore that is what the courts will say Parliament will have intended. FWS is a SC judgement laying out the reasoning, so it will have to be followed by any lower court.

You asked:

But how do courts get around the fact that Parliament passed a law that said that a trans woman with a GRC is 'for all purposes' a woman, and a trans man with a GRC is 'for all purposes' a man;

That question has been answered by several people, based on the judgement of the SC decision in FWS. You can accept that that same reasoning will be applied to the workplace toilet regulations, in which case you'll also be "sure" as we are, that those regulations refer to biological sex. If you don't accept that same reasoning, then it would be interesting to hear why you think those regulations are distinguishable and why a court would hold otherwise.

I’ve already explained at length why I think they are distinguishable. Also I’m afraid if you think it doesn’t matter which legislation came first then you’re not very familiar with statutory interpretation.

Also I’ve made no claims about what the courts will find in the future. I’ve merely pointed out that those claiming the law is settled are wrong.

@PlanetJanette “The new legislation is assumed to be the most definitive and the most recent expression of parliament”

Well that was in part the reasoning of the SC ruling since the EQA was well after the GRA.

You arguments are very confused.

@PlanetJanette oh and i guess you are a Lawyer of the barrack room variety.

The order doesn't matter, as far as the reasoning goes:

The EA came after the GRA: the only way for the EA to make sense is for 9(3) of the GRA to apply, so Parliament must have intended, when it passed the EA, to include it in 9(3) of the GRA.

The Workplace Regulations came before the GRA: The only way for the Workplace Regulations to make sense is for 9(3) of the GRA to apply, so Parliament must have intended, when it passed the GRA, to include the Workplace Regulations in 9(3) of it.

The same argument applies, regardless of the order the legislation was created.

Did you have another reason to believe that the Workplace Regulations must have some other meaning of men and women than based on biological sex?

@MyAmpleSheep Excellently put

@PlanetJanette If you really think that a court will find that getting a GRC means someone can switch toilets that are provided under the workplace regulations, then try to construct a reasoned argument how that works. Bear in mind that the provision of seperate sex toilets is for reasons of decency and propriety of those using them.

Can you explain why a male-bodied person entering a women's toilet would be any less offending to a woman's decency and propriety when that male-bodied person holds a GRC about which the woman is not entitled to know?

It may be worth pointing out that this argument is only about trans people who hold GRC's. There's never been any legal doubt about which toilet a trans person who doesn't hold a GRC should use - it has always been that they must use the toilet of their biological sex.

@PlanetJanette
The Supreme Court interpreted the term 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 only. It did not interpret the reference in the 1992 regulations.

I disagree and so does the Supreme Court.

The SC didn’t need to interpret the Workplace Regs because it’s the segregation by sex that invokes the Equality Act.

The workplace regs couldn’t specify single sex facilities without the exceptions permitted by the Equality Act (or its 1975 predecessor)

The EA applies wherever segregation is proposed for any of the protected characteristics by employers, service providers and associations.

This is another good argument. It would be ridiculous for Parliament to have intended for one law (the workplace regulations) to require pseudo-single-sex provision of toilets that are facially discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010. A court will need to find a way out of that bind, and the obvious one is to presume that 9(3) of the GRA applies to the Workplace Regulations. Can you think of a different solution?

Please re-read my original post.

unfortunately, many years ago I studied Law and there were numerous examples of poorly drafted or ill considered Statutes that then required case law to clarify what was intended or how to deal with situations which had not been considered when the original Statute was drafted.

In my opinion, as someone who holds GC beliefs, the GRA is a illogical and ill conceived piece of legislation. It attempts to blur the boundaries between biological sex and gender.
Drafted by a “captured” Civil Service under the watchful eye of Stonewall.

”fag packet, lunch break, teenagers”

FYI: I have worked in the field of criminal justice for a long time, including working for a “Stonewall Champion”. I have worked with numerous “ trans identifying” and gay clients. Unfortunately, the gay clients were often the victims of discrimination and violence. But the biggest problem that the “trans identifying “ clients faced was that other people refused to acknowledge their reality.

I can't take the credit for this clarity - it was Susan Smith of FWS on a webinar earlier this week. It's much easier once you think of it this way around - anywhere you need or want to consider segregation, the EA is invoked.