My letter FROM my MP regarding the UK Supreme Court’s ruling in FWS v Scottish Ministers

I have posted the reply I received from my MP in reply to my letter of the 12th of May. The below reply was received on the 4th of June 2025, which I think is within the expected reply times for MPs for most issues.

Firstly, I am happy with the tone she strikes, in particular rejecting the concept of a hierarchy of rights. Additionally I am pleased to see that she is unhappy with the interim EHRC guidance. Alarmingly though, the day after I received this reply, the Labour government have announced a known ‘gender critical’ adherent to replace Baroness Falkner as Chair of the EHRC. This is an overtly political decision for a supposedly neutral body.

I am also concerned that my questions regarding the Prime Minister and the Minister for Women and Equalities statements that support the interim EHRC guidance, and their potentially serious impact on the rights of trans people, gay people and women were simply ignored. Whether the Prime Minister is biologically illiterate or not (he is), it was not intended as a gotcha - his adherence to biological nonsense has serious implications for so many people across society, not only the trans community who he has decided throwing to the wolves as politically convenient.

Once you decide that one group of people’s human rights are negotiable, you open the door to all rights being on the chopping block whenever it is politically suitable to the government of the day.

Most importantly; trans women are women, trans men are men, and non-binary people are non-binary.

In solidarity,

Shaun

🏳️‍🌈🤝🏻🏳️‍⚧️

Dear Shaun,\

Thank you for getting in touch about this very important issue. \

The ruling by the Supreme Court on April 16th has understandably caused concern for many different groups. Everyone has the right to live a dignified life, grounded in respect and inclusion. \

The Equality Act 2010 contains no hierarchy of protected characteristics, and the rights and protections enshrined in this legislation remain in place. I do not believe that trans rights and women’s rights need to be in conflict. \

I understand that the Supreme Court’s decision has been deeply troubling. Before my election, I frequently referred to the Equality Act 2010 in my work representing UNISON members. My understanding of the judgment is that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that transgender people are protected under the characteristic of “gender reassignment.” While this terminology may now seem outdated and not reflective of current language, both the Equality Act and the Court’s judgment are clear in affirming that being transgender, at whatever stage of the journey a person is at, is a protected characteristic. \

It is essential that organisations and institutions clearly acknowledge this as they update their policies and guidance. Nuance, proportionality and sensitivity are vital when dealing with anyone’s human rights. I am concerned that the interim guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission does not seem to reflect this sensitivity. While the EHRC is an independent statutory body, I will continue to represent the views and experiences of my constituents to ensure that all protected characteristics are upheld. \

I hope that we can now begin to move away from the heated and toxic debates that make it harder for people to live safely and with support. \

What I am reminded of daily through my conversations with constituents is that the vast majority of people are kind and compassionate. If there is a particular service or issue that is causing you concern, please let me know. \

I would welcome the opportunity for you to contact my office to arrange a time to speak—whether at a surgery or in another setting. \

Best wishes,

Katrina Murray \

Member of Parliament for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch