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.

But they haven’t actually changed sex. There are legal exceptions and it’s not physically possible. It’s an unconvincing legal fiction.

Getting a bit of paper from the government does not mean you have changed sex. It’s a lie. You could say a bit of paper from the government made you a gnu or Julius Caesar if such a law was passed. It still wouldn’t be true.

The point is, to indulge some loud, pushy men and a tiny number of women a really fucking stupid law was passed in 2004. It was always going to be unworkable. Now we are dealing with the consequences. Repeal the GRA.

I believe your position is:

• that the 2004 GRA 9(1) “acquired gender for all purposes” applies across all past laws unless specifically excluded.
• that the 1992 Regulations arent in any way covered by the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act.
• therefore because the Workplace Regulations 1992 weren’t a specific exclusion in the GRA 9(3) that their single sex facility definition includes GRC holders.

Accurate summary?

Actually I disagree. In countries without a GRA equivalent they are way behind the UK in sorting out all these muddles. So I think we need it for a while yet…

i do want to understand your position: Is your argument one of the following, or some different permutation:

1. there is no obligation to provide single sex facilities, just that employers have the option to do and that if they do then they are free to define ´female’ as biological females who agree that they are female, males who think they are female without a GRC and males who have a GRC to say they are female.
2. there IS an obligation to provide single sex facilities and the definition of the female sex is biological females and males with a GRC to say they are Female, excluding males without a GRC.

I find the legal aspect of all this quite dense, but does this address the issue?

Taken from a thread discussing the WESC questioning of Baroness Falkner (GallantKumquat · Yesterday 23:23)

#2 (law outside the EA) Was not raised by anyone, interestingly, which i think shows the lack of preparation and understanding by the committee, especially the TRA faction. But Falkner did indirectly speak to it ( i.e. the EA is an evolution of sex-rights-based law and it would be incoherent to apply different definitions of sex to different laws):
"As I tried to explain to miss Taylor, that the Equality Act in fact, if you want to go back to the Sex Discrimination of 1975, the Equality Act building on that has always had exemptions for separate and single sex spaces."

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5351674-wec-to-question-the-ehrc-chair-and-chief-executive-11-june-2025-220pm?page=2

Confirm if the same applies to trans males using the loos.
Cunning plan here.
Bring the boss coffee. Juice . Soda.
Free samples of any liquid .
At lunchtime get a group of the girls together and go use the loo the boss uses.
for 20 mins in relay. One in the loo. One washing hands so no man can use the urinals. Air freshener sprayed around, pretty scented ones.
Make it so they are the ones inconvenienced for a change.

I have PMd you 👍

@KnottyAuty you have watched Akua Reindorf on the GRA, at a guess. Her position is it actually saved the day because unlike other countries the UK did not put gender reassignment in existing sex discrimination law.

Such as Australia an New Zealand.

As the GRA has now been put back in the box it is (as it always was) an Act about the relationship between the state and transexuals. And rights to go about there lives without the incumbrance of discrimination.

I think. It will just now wither away.

I don't keep missing the point that you're making. You've said it a dozen times, and nobody here is an idiot. I don't see anyone using the word "settled". We do however see that the law is clear, for reasons stated.

Do you want to provide a cogent counterargument and say why applying the GRA to the Workplace Regulations doesn't create contradictions in the way that I and others have outlined?

Cany you explain how it meet any possible legislative intent of Parliament to interpret the words "separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women" as intended to mean "separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for biological men, trans men without a GRC and trans women with a GRC together, and on the other hand women, trans men without a GRC and trans women with a GRC all together on the other" especially since a GRC is a confidential document?

Given that there's a clear interpretive path to including the Workplace Regulations in 9(3) of the GRA, are you really saying you think a court will not take that route?

Thank you @VivaDixie

I don't see why there can't be different definitions of sex under different laws. There are different meanings of "employee" and "resident" for things like tax law, immigration, health and safety, pensions and other things after all.

Are we not always being told that "sex is more simple than just male and female"? Well, so be it. A person can be male or female for their private interactions with the state per their gender recognition certificate, if they have one, (as the GRA intended - so therefore marriage, pension etc.) and the opposite sex - their biological sex - for when that is clearly the legislative intent of Parliament, like the EA and the Workplace Regulations.

What problems will that cause? I'm ready to be schooled.

There's a problem with this, and I think that PlanetJanette, unbelievably rude though they are, may have a point.

The Act sets out explicit rules for excusing certain single-sex situations (Positive Action, Service Providers, Clubs and Associations) from the general ban on sex-discrimination. Here, sex means sex.

But the mechanism for excusing the Workplace Regulations is different. It consists of a statement that employers are spared any liability, for what would otherwise be illegal discrimination of any sort, if they are doing an act mandated by law.

So, following the Regulations is not illegal, nor is it even necessary to analyse what would be illegal about it, absent the above statement.

But what does it mean to follow the Regulations? Whether they are read as sex means sex; sex means acquired gender; or sex means certificate: all three possibilities imply various forms of discrimination to be excused, but there's no clue as to which it's to be.

Of course it would be neat and tidy to fall in line with the Act, but it's not inevitable. I can even, off the top of my head, think of a colourable case for making it different, which is that employers, unlike service providers or clubs, have access to lots of information about employees and can decide whether they have made 'enough effort' to justify allowing them to use opposite-sex toilets (following Croft v Royal Mail).

Gender critical views are also protected characteristics.

Just as well we’re talking about the law here then isn’t it.

No, not quite.

Go back and read again. My position is that this has not been tested and resolved legally and those claiming it has are wrong.

My core position is that this has not been tested or resolved by the courts, and those pretending it has are wrong.

But in terms of what I think the courts could find, and the interpretation that I think is most consistent with UK constitutional law, is option No 2. I say could because I’m not stupid enough to think I can predict with certainly what side of a legal argument a court will come down on.

Please could I ask, if you think you know the organisation please could you contact me directly. We need to keep anonymity 🙂

Many thanks

[The workplace regulation] consists of a statement that employers are spared any liability, for what would otherwise be illegal discrimination of any sort, if they are doing an act mandated by law.

It absolutely doesn't consist of this at all. It says (among other things) that separate toilets shall be provided for men and women. It doesn't mention discrimination or liability anywhere. To the extent that separating men from women is otherwise unlawful, the EA explicitly allows for (biological) sex segregation if it's a reasonable means of achieving a legitimate purpose, which complying with a regulation would obviously be.

To separate men and GRC-holding trans women on the one hand from women and GRC-holding trans women on the other is a) clearly discriminatory as discussed at length and b) not excused by any "legitimate purpose" provision of the EA at all.

And as you acknowledge there are exceptions which don’t apply to actual members of the female sex, but do to men with GRCs. Because they haven’t actually changed sex in any meaningful way, it’s a pretence.

I think it highly unlikely that a court would find that although Bob has to use the men’s toilets in Wetherspoons, he should use the female changing room in his workplace, against the wishes of his female colleagues, as per Sandie Peggie and the Darlington nurses.

I just went back to the judgement and it is pretty clear that Janet is on a different planet to most of us.

I suspect it is the same planet as the judge, RMW and JM.

All have, or have had, bollocks in their possesion.

The statement about employer liability is from the EA not the Workplace Regulations. The Act doesn't provide a universal exemption for sex-segregation, only the specific situations covered by S158, Sch3 and Sch16.