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.

And yet that is what the recent ruling was all about. Certificated 'sex' does not over-rule or mean the same thing as actual biological sex - certainly not when it comes to anything designated 'women/female only', or to any single sex facility or category.

Certificated 'Sex' in the form of gender -re-assignment has its own protections, but it does not have the exact same protections as those afforded to women and girls.

The requirement for employers to provide single sex facilities for employers relates to biological sex...this is just common sense.

Best just to accept the protections afforded for those with the protected category of 'gender -re-assignment' and stop trying to forcefully colonise or appropriate the protections and provisions set aside for others.

Please do not derail this thread with never ending debates about how various pieces of legislation should/ do/ might interact with each other.
The OP asked for help in responding and these endless and repetitive he said/ she said discussions are not useful.

If you think that this issue needs to be considered then start a new thread.

Luckily the Op has her answer and is going to take her employer to task.

Thank you @Bannedontherun and @FlameoftheWest I have had to scroll on by the derailment as it is too much and unhelpful. As you say I have my answer.

Thank you to those who have helped

I am sorry that I contributed to the derailment but it is useful to recognise that there are posters who's sole intention is to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).

Oh, it only covers this; it doesn't apply to that; the Parliamentary principle of implicit repeal is paramount; etc.

Bollocks! Read the Judgement and it is as plain as the nose on your face that single sex facilities for employees are exactly that: Single Sex.

Full stop. The end.

If a PP wants to argue, I would suggest that she reads paras 101 to 104 of the judgement.

Don't apologise. I agree with you. I just couldn't get involved with it all, your posts were helpful.

I’d be pointing out that the recent SC judgement in FWS confirmed that women & girls have been discriminated against in breach of their rights enshrined in the Equality Act for 15 years now and they must start to comply with the law.

if they do not provide female employees with single sex toilets etc they will likely be both directly & indirectly discriminating against those women.

That's useful thank you

Even one of the men who voted for the GRA has come out with an 'Oh, yeah we were wrong, sorry'.

https://tomharris2.substack.com/p/mea-culpa-my-part-in-the-rise-of?r=3pf7p&triedRedirect=true

It certainly feels like you are being manipulated by someone who just cannot take no for an answer, and is continually trying to push the boundaries. Brings to mind the way that other individuals and 'organisations' tried to do the same back in the 70s and 80s.

Well done OP. This is the way to go isn't it. Find other women in the same organisation and start working on it quietly together. Good luck!

Re: Single-sex spaces; the SSEs of the EA do not apply to the Workplace Regulations

Re: para 101-104 of the judgment; it is not even necessary to disapply the GRA to the WR, in order to permit employers to operate 'trans-friendly' toilets and changing rooms.

The WR mandate separate provision 'for' men and women. As of Croft v Royal Mail, employers had a discretion, to allow certain men to use the women's facilities (despite still being legally male).

Obviously the WR have safety and privacy objectives. Obviously employers are required to protect employees from a hostile and degrading environment. Obviously mixed-sex provision discriminates against the more vulnerable sex.

If the employers fall down on any of the above, they could be said to be outwith the requirements of the WR and therefore not protected by the exemption at paragraph 1(1)(a) of Schedule 23 of Equality Act 2010 (which exempts employers from liability where they do anything “in pursuance of an enactment”). But that conversation has not yet happened.

OP will present the most sex-realist, pro-women's rights face of the debate, and rightly so. But there will be pushback. In which case, keep it simple. Keep pointing at the EHRC guidance. And ask what the insurance company will make of it all.

But don't think it's all over, because it isn't.

Having single sex toilets that are single sex will save lives and prevent assaults.

Where do you go when you are feeling ill?
11% of cardiac arrests happen on the toilet.
Single sex designs can have door gaps so you would be seen on the floor.

Why do assaults happen in public areas happen in private? Perpetrators aren’t keen on witnesses.

Why does drug deals or drug taking happen discretely? Where may that be? Why may it be that people end up overdosing in toilets? How can we prevent this and rescue them in time if it happens?

I agree it’s bad to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.

It’s experience, knowledge and statistics that are important.

Single sex toilets are safer for everyone.
If there’s any ambiguity, single sex toilets become private.

Sorry if I’m repeating a PP but this is a key point probably lost above - self ID is unlawful. And unisex can’t be used to solve the problem.

OP all the question marks and debate above only applies to the 8400ish people with GRCs in the whole of the UK.

Everyone else - all non GRC holders - are entitled to single sex facilities under Workplace Regs.

As discussed above there will probably be tribunals brought to deal with GRC holders whichever way employers decide to treat them.

But in the meantime you are very clearly entitled to single sex provision free from self ID trans people.

So your CEO at very least needs to clarify his comments about choosing loos are GRC only…

What he chooses to offer self ID people is up to him but should not result in a detriment to other employees.

And as I suggested above, include in any/all correspondence a note to say you’re making a protected disclosure.

good luck to you and your colleagues

.

Thank you, this is really helpful

Also this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgq7ldw3p0o
School based but it shows the direction of travel

Michael Foran (lecturer in public law) has produced a good article about how the SC judgment impacts the Workplace Regs:

https://knowingius.org/p/are-trans-inclusive-policies-lawful

Some highlights:

In FWS, the Supreme Court set out the legal test for when a Gender Recognition Certificate does not apply to sex-based legal rules. This test is not confined to the interpretation of the Equality Act and can be used to determine the meaning of sex-based rules in any other area of law. The default in our law is that sex means biological sex.

And:

It is therefore clear that the meaning of “men” and “women” in the 1992 Regulations also references biological sex as the test for disapplication of the GRA will be met for the same reasons that it has been met in relation to the Equality Act.

This means that employers must provide either communal facilities for changing, showering, and sanitary use on a separate bases for biological men and biological women or unisex facilities which are for individual use. There are no other options.

Thanks @SabrinaThwaite I just logged on to post this brilliantly helpful link and you beat me to it!

I don't always agree with Michael Foran but there's no doubt he knows his stuff when it comes to UK law. (Even the SC court judges commented on how helpful his contribution to the FWS case was- he really helps ordinary people understand).

Same! This is so beautifully clear, @VivaDixie should keep it at hand!

Sorry I have been quoting the number of GRCs wrong all weekend. Doh! Sorry

It’s not 8400ish but currently 9633.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/16/thousands-of-gender-recognition-certificates-granted/