Steph Richards’ Speech at the Labour Party Conference.

On Tuesday, 30th September, our CEO, Steph Richards, spoke at a fringe event at the Labour Party Conference alongside some fifteen MPs and trade union general secretaries. It was warmly accepted – not for the first time, Steph got a standing ovation. This is what she said.

“Firstly, I want to thank Alex for inviting me to speak.

Let’s be honest: life is tough right now. For people of colour. For people of certain faiths. And for trans people. But we must not let the forces of hate win.

This country—our country—has long been built on the principles of welcome and acceptance. We’ve been known globally for our “live and let live” spirit. That legacy is worth defending.

I cannot speak for refugees. Nor am I persecuted for my faith. But I do know what it means to be trans in today’s Britain.

We are being othered.

Around half of my community is afraid to leave their homes. Many of us worry about something as basic as using a public toilet.

I transitioned to live as my true self. After fifty years of gender dysphoria, self-harm, and suicidal thoughts, I found peace. But in doing so, I also came face-to-face with transphobia.

I began my transition fifteen years ago. Like so many others, it took a decade to access gender-affirming surgery. Five years ago, I started a blog about my journey. The prejudice and discrimination I encountered were immediate—and I knew I had to act. That’s how TransLucent was born.

We started with just five people. We were the first to expose the EHRC as a gender-critical body, repurposed by Liz Truss to fuel a cruel culture war against trans people….just 0.5% of the population. A war our Labour Government has failed to understand.

In 2022, we won LGBT Organisation of the Year at the National Diversity Awards. Today, I’m proud to lead a team of twenty-five incredible colleagues—including trans man icon Professor Stephen Whittle OBE and trans barrister Robin Moira White. Our patron is Lord Michael Cashman, one of Stonewall’s founders.

Stephen tells me the last time a trans-led organisation exhibited at Labour Party Conference was in 1997. Today, TransLucent is here—at stand B2—speaking to politicians about real, positive action for trans equality. And we’re not just talking. We’re in court, fighting for fundamental human rights.

We are all volunteers. Our biggest challenge is day-to-day funding. We don’t have JK Rowling or access to American Christian Nationalist coffers. But we do have resolve.

Today, we see “freedom of speech” weaponised as a cloak for division.

Trans women are vilified by the gender-critical ideology movement and their media as dangers to women’s safety, dignity, and privacy.

We know these are lies.

We are proud of our country. Proud of our diversity. Proud of our flag. But not when it’s hijacked by the far-right to sow fear and exclusion.

Martin Niemöller, who stood against the Nazi regime, warned us of the cost of silence: “First they came for the socialists…” You know the rest.

That warning echoes through history—and it echoes now.

But we are not powerless.

Because when we rise up… speak out… and stand together… We become the antidote. We become the future.

Thank you so much.”

Steph Richards’ Speech at the Labour Party Conference.

The Cass Review Is Not Helping Trans Youth

The publication of the UK’s Independent Review of gender identity services for children and young people, widely known as the Cass Review, sent shockwaves through the trans community and gender healthcare professionals worldwide. Subsequently criticised by high-profile reports from Utah, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, Australia has now joined the chorus, saying the Cass Review is deeply flawed. Published in the Medical Journal of Australia today, the report is highly critical of Cass. 

Commissioned following increasing referrals to GIDS and legal cases like Bell v Tavistock, the Review’s final report is fundamentally flawed and fails to provide credible, evidence-based guidance for the care of transgender young people. Instead, its restrictive recommendations reflect a UK sociopolitical climate increasingly unsafe for trans people in the UK.

We must be clear: the Cass Review is a blueprint for withdrawing, not improving, person-centred care. Indeed, our own comprehensive report reflects the concerns raised by health professionals worldwide. 

Recommendations Built on Restriction and Speculation

The Review’s central recommendations immediately raised concerns:

1. Puberty Suppression Ban: The report recommended that puberty suppression using gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHa) should only be accessible within a clinical trial. Following this, the UK Government prohibited the supply of GnRHa as Gender-Affirming Medical Treatment (GAMT) for minors, making this treatment unlawfully inaccessible for trans adolescents.
2. Hormone Restriction: The Review recommended restricting oestrogen and testosterone for 16- and 17-year-olds, prescribing them only with “extreme caution” following approval by a “national multidisciplinary team”. This increased restriction is alarming, especially considering the Review’s own audit found that hormonal treatments were already restricted to a minority, with only 22% of assessed patients receiving GAMT.
3. Pathologising Social Affirmation: Disturbingly, the Review conceptualised the social affirmation of trans children, such as using a chosen name or pronouns, as a potentially harmful intervention. This ignores strong observational evidence that supporting children to socially affirm their gender is associated with good mental health outcomes. Instead, the Review ignored the profound distress that occurs when a trans child’s identity is not respected.

Ignoring Evidence and Internal Contradictions

The Review is undermined by its striking internal contradictions and severe methodological weaknesses. While it acknowledged that some trans young people benefit from puberty suppression, its recommendations made it inaccessible to all. Furthermore, the Review found no evidence that psychological treatments improve gender dysphoria, yet still recommended expanding their use while withholding GAMT.

The Review achieved its restrictive goal by dismissing evidence of benefit from GAMT as “weak”. Yet, it imposed regulatory benchmarks almost unheard of in other areas of medicine. Crucially, the Review failed to evaluate the harms of withholding GAMT. It disregarded studies showing that adolescents who requested but were unable to access GAMT had poorer mental health outcomes compared to those who could access it. The underlying goal is to prevent regret at any cost, despite international data indicating that detransition and regret are relatively uncommon. Restriction only increases the predictable consequence of self-treatment without medical supervision.

The Review Ignored Its Own Commissioned Data

Perhaps the most damning indictment is that the Cass Review’s own commissioned systematic reviews contradicted its final recommendations. These reviews found:

• Moderate quality evidence of mental health benefits from masculinising and feminising GAMT.
• GnRHa and sex hormones are effective in achieving patients’ primary goals (suppressing puberty, inducing feminisation/masculinisation).
• No evidence of serious harm from GAMT or social transition sufficient to justify withholding care.

Despite this, the Review rejected the evidence, demonstrating a failure across the three pillars of evidence-based medicine: appraisal of research, real-world clinical expertise, and respect for individual patient values.

A Call for Person-Centred Care

The failures of the Cass Review stemmed partly from a team explicitly selected for their absence of experience in trans health care, with no trans people among the authors. This lack of lived and clinical expertise increased vulnerability to misinformation. Even after meeting with trans young people, reviewers failed to ask them if they found GAMT beneficial.

Trans youth deserve the high-quality care recognised elsewhere internationally as best practice – the gender-affirming model. This model is person- and family-centred, holistic, and supports trans young people in living authentically. It acknowledges that GAMT is essential, and potentially life-saving, for the minority who need and request it for relief from intolerable distress and to live more comfortably and safely.

In the face of these flawed recommendations, TransLucent stands firm: care must respect the voices, emerging autonomy, and dignity of young people. Better mental health for trans youth is associated with loving acceptance and timely access to GAMT where needed.

The Cass Review Is Not Helping Trans Youth

The Labour Party Conference and Trans Equality.

A blog from Steph Richards, our CEO.

At 9:00 AM on Sunday, 28 September 2025, TransLucent made history as the first trans advocacy organisation to exhibit this century at the Labour Conference 2025. Our team consisted of six people: four worked inside the exhibition hall and two were stationed outside. We would have been seven, but sadly, our director, Prof Stephen Whittle OBE, was unwell. 

Some will wonder why we went.

Because for sure this Labour Government, which basically promised to be “kind” to trans people in their manifesto, who pledged to detoxify the debate of our existence, has done nothing of the sort. Indeed, they have done the exact opposite, causing immense harm – a harm that will worsen if our gender-critical “human rights” body has its way.

Sadly, our Minister for Health and Social Care has denied trans kids puberty blockers (in fact, denied trans kids healthcare full stop) – succeeding only in getting an increase in trans youth “DIYing”, dramatically increasing the number of parents taking their trans children abroad for gender-affirming healthcare, with some moving abroad permanently.

Trans kids exist, and the reason the Minister took the action he did is not that he is “anti-trans” … it is because he is incredibly badly advised. 

TERF Island remains firmly “TERF” …. for now.

In essence, that is what “gender-critical ideology” is: to make it as hard as possible to transition, and for those who do, make life as unbearable as possible. 

Sadly, the decision makers – those in government- do not understand how or why trans people have had our existence politicised. They do not understand that the trans hostile organisations use pseudoscience and twist facts to limit our existence. 

But there is a difference between the “government” who are influenced by civil servants, think tanks and in some instances named hate groups such as SEGM, whose members participated in the Cass Review and the party members, local authority councillors and backbench MPs. These are the people we wanted to reach.

Trans Equality.

Trans equality will not arrive this week, next week, or next year, but in years to come.

Younger people are driving it, dynamic people and some older people with “skin in the game” or perhaps by having trans relatives, as is the case for some MPs.

Our fringe team (those who did not have passes inside the secure area) distributed thousands of leaflets promoting our “Trans Equality in Action” campaign, while also distributing leaflets highlighting the NION campaign, which now has over 55,000 female signatories, stating that the gender-critical ideology movement does not speak for them.

Our core demands for equality are:

• Targeted initiatives for workplace inclusion.
• Legal recognition of the non-binary community (X identification docs)
• Urgent correction of the Supreme Court judgment.
• Urgent improvements to healthcare access and quality.
• Concerted efforts to combat hate crimes and foster social acceptance.
• Enhanced support in housing and education.
• Proactive promotion of political representation and public office.

Our fringe team also distributed 1000s of leaflets highlighting our action regarding Hampstead Heath Ladies Pond. Inside the hall, we spoke to Peers, MPs, Councillors, and Labour Party members, all of whom were highly supportive.

A massive “shout-out” to Labour for Trans Rights, who worked closely with TransLucent, and put together a hugely successful trans rally where some fifteen or so MPs and trade union general secretaries spoke – as did an old trans woman (me).

Next year?

Of course, as many political party conferences as possible – bigger, better, bolder – until trans people have equality. 

Steph Richards, CEO TransLucent.Org.UK

The Labour Party Conference and Trans Equality.

Steph Richards National Diversity Awards Finalist

Congratulations to our own Steph Richards, who, along with Natasha Day MBE, Caz May, Daniella Maison, Hilda Kwoffie, Alex Knight, Delyth Pannett and Holly Hostettler-Davies, is a shortlisted finalist at tonight’s National Diversity Awards (NDA) in the Positive Role Model (Gender) category.

Steph’s NDA spotlight profile reads:

Steph Richards is a dedicated human rights activist with over two decades of campaigning across issues of pregnancy, infant loss, women’s rights, and trans rights.

As founder and CEO of Translucent.Org.UK, Steph has established the organisation as a leading voice for the trans community, regularly engaging with government ministers to influence policy and amplify trans visibility.

Her activism spans a wide range of causes, from leading the EveryThreeDays campaign remembering women killed by men to supporting Endometriosis South Coast and the Women’s Action Network Portsmouth. She also works with Stand Up to Racism to challenge far-right extremism and promotes mental health and inclusion through Engendering Change.

Despite facing significant transphobia, Steph continues to champion equality, diversity, and inclusion across intersecting causes. Her lifelong commitment to justice, resilience, and visibility makes her a powerful role model and an unwavering advocate for marginalised communities.

Steph joins our own Katie Neeves, who is shortlisted in the LGBT category – whatever the result, there is going to be a party tonight!

Steph Richards National Diversity Awards Finalist

Congratulations Katie Neeves National Diversity Awards 2025 Finalist.

Katie Neeves is a celebrated trans advocate, photographer, founder of Cool2BTrans and a TransLucent team member whose tireless work empowers transgender people.

Katie began her transition at the age of 48 and chose to share her journey openly through video and vlogging. Her trademark blend of humour and honesty has broken down barriers, challenged stigma, and educated audiences across the globe.

Now a dynamic speaker and trainer, Katie delivers trans awareness sessions internationally, renowned for her engaging and inspiring style. Her work has taken her onto major platforms including ITV, BBC, and Channel 5, while her influence has been recognised with honours such as British Diversity Awards Hero of the Year 2023, a place on the Global Diversity List 2023, and recognition among the Top 100 Influential People in the UK 2024.

A tireless campaigner,  despite a huge amount of online hate, Katie continues to combat misinformation, hold media and politicians to account, and offer hope and visibility to the trans community. Blending positivity with activism, she has built a career rooted in storytelling, education, and inclusion, proving that representation truly changes lives.

Find out more.

• Katie Neeves – 2025 Shortlisted Nominee – Entrepreneur of Excellence Award – National Diversity Awards 2025
• TransLucent – About Us – Meet the Team

Hampstead Heath Ladies Pond and Transphobia. 

It isn’t about privacy, dignity or safety. It is about prejudice, discrimination and hate. Not my words, but from people who have contacted me, since we made it clear that TransLucent will undertake legal action to defend trans inclusion at the Ladies’ and not to be forgotten, Men’s pond.

Because what that ruling did, according to the purveyors of transphobia in the gender-critical ideology movement, is that trans people should, nay, must be excluded from both the Ladies’ and Men’s ponds based on their birth sex and consequent gender reassignment. Trans men with beards and deep voices, excluded from the Men’s pond because of their birth sex, excluded from the Ladies pond because they look like men. 

No blacks, no Irish, no trans seems a useful metaphor in the circumstances – helped along by the UK’s “independent” Equality and Human Rights Commission, ironically charged to advocate for inclusion of minority groups in society.

The reality is, they have done everything but.

Nor has democracy been adhered to – a democratic vote by women users clearly wants trans inclusion. When the “gender critical lost the vote, they barricaded the entrance to stop women users from entering. 

One message from a pond user read:

“I saw your post about the KLPA. I swim regularly at the pond and am keen that it remains inclusive. I have not experienced nor am I aware of any issues from trans swimmers at the ladies’ pond. My only negative experience is from the extremely aggressive anti trans protestors”.

Another read:

“I am horrified that Sex Matters wants to disrupt the peace, tranquillity and inclusiveness of our beloved Ladies Pond. I have been swimming there most weeks for the last 10 years. This perceived threat/danger of theirs is completely unfounded. I can’t bear that these people who claim to be pond swimmers but so often aren’t, are trying to use our sacred space as a political football. Having been to the KLPA meeting with the nasty women stamping their feet, braying at other women and standing on chairs and shouting, it is them I fear. Not trans women.”

Another read:

“I have never once had any issue caused by the pond being inclusive to trans women. On the contrary, the pond has always felt like a safe and welcoming space for all women, and I have supported its continued promise to be inclusive of trans women. Trans women are women, and it deeply saddens me that the question of whether the pond should ‘allow’ them access is even being posed“.

Another read:

I am a regular year-round swimmer and season ticket holder at the Kenwood Ladies Pond on Hampstead Heath. I am aware that some TERF groups want to try and ban trans women from accessing the pond, and I am totally against this. The pond is an inclusive space for all women, and trans women should be (and currently are!! welcomed).

Trans women do not pose a threat to cis women at the pond, and gender policing harms us all by imposing ever more rigid and narrow definitions of what a ‘real’ woman is. An attempt to ban trans women will only result in bigotry and harassment of anyone who doesn’t look ‘gender conforming enough’ .

There are masculine presenting women, women with body and facial hair caused by PCOS and other conditions, women who have had mastectomies who swim at the pond – who will decide who is ‘women enough’ to swim?? We must stand in solidarity with our trans, non-binary and gender non conforming kin, and resist this narrow mindedness and hatred with all that we have.”

The fact that trans men are also affected gets no attention in the press, but James (not his actual name) contacted me, saying how his trans man friend was devastated that he could lose access to the Men’s Pond.  He transitioned a decade ago.

His mental health improved immensely after transition …and now this.

No blacks, no Irish, no trans – transphobia stinks.

Hampstead Heath Ladies Pond and Transphobia – authored by Steph 

Urgent Concerns Mount Over EHRC Guidance: A Step Back for Equality?

A new guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), following the Supreme Court hearing of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers, has sparked significant concern and controversy. If, as rumoured, this guidance aligns with earlier interim and draft versions, it could potentially have a devastating effect on the rights and well-being of trans people and other women who do not fit stereotypical presentations.

This isn’t just a minor tweak; it’s a serious erosion of protections and a misinterpretation of the law itself.

Numerous organisations and individuals have raised grave concerns about the process behind this guidance, highlighting a perceived biased interpretation of the law by the EHRC and a failure to uphold its duty to promote equality for everyone.

A Chorus of Opposition

The pushback against this guidance is broad and strong:

• The Lemkin Institute has gone as far as calling for the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRIGANHRI The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions brings together and supports national human rights institutions to promote and protect human rights Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions https://ganhri.org    ) to withdraw accreditation from the EHRC, citing violations of the Paris Principles and the erosion of protections for transgender and intersex people.
• 33 Labour MPs wrote to the EHRC, detailing a significant number of concerns about the interim and draft guidance.
• Hundreds of doctors and academics have contacted Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson, pointing out the oversimplification of ‘biological sex’.
• BMA Resident Doctors condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling on biological sex, calling it “biologically nonsensical” and “scientifically illiterate”.
• Crucially, charities running more than 80 refuges have vowed to continue accepting trans women, stating they do not see them as a threat to other users.
• A powerful open letter, “Not in My Name,” has garnered over 42,000 signatures from women in support of trans rights. It emphasises that these women do not need protection from trans people and concludes with a clear message: “We welcome trans people. We demand that trans people are able to live their lives safely and with dignity. We believe that trans women are women and trans men are men. The Supreme Court ruling is not a victory for feminism; it is a victory for patriarchy. And when the patriarchy wins, everybody loses. This ruling does not speak for us. Not in our name”.

“Apartheid” and Misinterpretations of the Law

The interim and draft guidance have been described as amounting to “apartheid”, creating a total exclusion of trans people from spaces and services they have used for decades without credible issues. The guidance reportedly implies that a trans person might be unable to use either female or male spaces, forcing them into a hypothetical “3rd space” that may not exist, potentially causing service providers to break existing laws like GRA section 22 or GDPR regulations.

This outcome appears to be in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court’s own comments, which stated that its judgment should not be seen as a victory for one side and that it “would not be disadvantageous to or remove protection from trans people”. The Supreme Court ruling, which was not a victory for either side, was interpreted by some as a green light for the EHRC to issue guidance that could potentially undermine the rights of trans people. Furthermore, the protections under the Equality Act (EA) for Gender Reassignment are still explicitly stated to be extant.

A core point of contention is the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). Parliament’s clear intention when passing the GRA was to recognise trans people as their acquired gender “FOR ALL PURPOSES”. Section 9(1) of the GRA explicitly states that upon receiving a full gender recognition certificate, a person’s gender, and consequently their SEX, becomes the acquired gender for all purposes.

This means that, legally, a trans woman’s sex becomes female for all purposes, with the exception of the specific section on sex discrimination under the EA.

The concept of ‘biological sex’ itself is highly complex. While the Supreme Court referenced an ‘ordinary’ definition of sex as ‘biological,’ medical experts highlight that sex registered at birth is often based on a cursory glance at external genitals. They argue that there isn’t one specific, easily applied criterion, pointing to a range of factors like physical appearance, physiological, genomic, phenotypical, and neurological aspects. This complexity challenges the binary understanding of sex and supports the need for a more inclusive approach to gender identity.

Therefore, it is “much more complex than what was written on the birth certificate”. For instance, blood tests for a trans woman should be monitored in the female range.

Equality Act: Protection, Not Discrimination

The original, and arguably still extant, purpose of the Equality Act was to protect against discrimination, not to promote it, especially for those with defined protected characteristics. Critics argue the draft guidance exceeds the intention of the Act by stating that exclusion is mandatory for a service to remain “single sex,” even while permitting exceptions for young children of the opposite sex.

The Equality Act actually specifies that services could (not must) exclude trans people if it was “a proportionate response to achieve a legitimate aim,” suggesting that mandatory exclusion was not its primary intent. The Act’s intention is to include and find ways to achieve inclusion, rather than mandating discrimination. Service providers and employers are not obligated to provide communal single-sex services and can implement facilities based on gender presentation or individual needs to avoid discrimination.

Broader Implications and Unnecessary Change

Beyond these points, numerous other significant legal and practical shortcomings are highlighted:

• The Gender Recognition Act, particularly sections 2, 9, and the privacy protections under section 22, which make it a criminal offence to disclose a person’s gender/sex history if they hold a GRC.
• Compliance with ECHR provisions (e.g., 3, 8, and 13) and consequent Human Rights Act provisions.
• Treatment in accordance with acquired genders as per the Istanbul Protocol.
• GDPR regulations.
• Workplace Health and Safety Regulations.
• The financial and consequential implications on employers and service providers.

With approximately 9,000 GRC holders and about 48,000 trans men and 48,000 trans women in England and Wales, these numbers represent a relatively small minority.

The law, it is argued, has not fundamentally changed, and there were no significant, widespread problems with the use of services prior to this guidance. Therefore, many question the necessity of evolving existing codes of practice, guidance, policies, and arrangements at significant cost to service providers and to the detriment of the rights of a protected minority.

The current EHRC guidance, if implemented as rumoured, represents a significant concern for human rights and equality advocates, raising profound questions about the protection and inclusion of transgender individuals in society.

Lemkin calls for EHRC to be downgraded. This is a copy of their statement issued by way of a PDF earlier today – [Emphasis ours]

“Statement on the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission: Violation of the Paris Principles and erosion of protections for transgender and intersex people

Released on 5 September 2025

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention & Human Security calls on the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRIGANHRI The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions brings together and supports national human rights institutions to promote and protect human rights Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions https://ganhri.org    ) to withdraw accreditation from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in Great Britain due to violations of the Paris Principles and the erosion of protections for transgender and intersex people.

The EHRC is Britain’s independent equality and human rights regulator. It currently has an “A status” accreditation as a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI), bestowed by GANHRI, which is co-funded by the United Nations and European Union. To maintain accreditation as an NHRI, an organisation needs to follow the Paris Principles.

The Lemkin Institute believes that the EHRC has violated the Paris Principles, particularly in actions targeting the rights and protections for transgender and intersex people. The most recent example of such actions is the appointment of Dr. Mary-Ann Stephenson as the new EHRC Chair, contrary to the advice of the two committees involved in the appointment: the Women and Equalities and Joint Human Rights Committees.

While the EHRC is supposed to be a neutral and non-partisan public body, in the past few years it has behaved as a lobby group for erasing the rights of intersex and trans people on the basis of gender critical views. This has been explicitly confirmed by the leader of the UK’s Official Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, who posted on X (formerly Twitter): “having gender-critical men and women in the UK government, holding the positions that mattered most in Equalities and Health […] It was when the ministers changed that everything changed.”

One example of this takeover Badenoch shamelessly boasted about is the appointment of Baroness Falkner of Margravine under the Conservative Government headed by Liz Truss. Falkner has, in the course of her term of five years, never attended a minuted meeting with a transgender person in attendance.

In 2022, the EHRC wrote to the Scottish Government recommending a delay to the reform of the Gender Recognition Act—a reversal from its prior support for such reforms. This dramatic shift was not precipitated by the appearance of any new substantive evidence. It was quite partisan in nature. That same year, the EHRC issued a statement calling for a “more careful approach” to conversion therapy legislation that would specifically exclude transgender people from protections. Such an approach contradicted overwhelming evidence from both the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists and signalled a departure from Evidence-Based Policy Making.

Additionally, the EHRC published interim guidance encouraging single-sex service providers to exclude transgender people, significantly misrepresenting the legal thresholds of such exclusion as a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.’ It also intervened in the case For Women Scotland v. Scottish Ministers, arguing for a definition of sex that would exclude transgender people from their acquired legal sex as represented by their Gender Recognition Certificate.

Rather than presenting a legal position, this argument is clearly based on an ideological stance on transgender people, which goes against the EHRC’s statutory obligation to equally protect all citizens.

These actions did not go unnoticed; GANHRI’s reports on the EHRC acknowledged concerns by the civil society groups in the UK around human rights issues facing LGBTI people and migrants and asylum seekers in particular, recommending the EHRC address these issues in an ‘independent, effective, public and transparent manner.’

In 2023, Baroness Falkner faced an investigation into her conduct due to multiple allegations of bullying, harassment, and discrimination from staff at the EHRC, but this was dropped when Minister Kemi Badenoch ordered a procedural review of the investigation. The BBC framed this closure as the end to a “witch-hunt” against Baroness Falkner due to her views on sex and gender.

However, the 2023 GANHRI report displayed a drastically different take, ordering a special review into the EHRC’s ongoing compliance with the Paris Principles, particularly noting allegations that the EHRC did not demonstrate independence from the government relating to the LGBTQI+ issues and noting publicly available sources showed the EHRC had significantly changed its position regarding the rights of Transgender people. Advocacy organisations welcomed this investigation.

In 2024, GANHRI decided to maintain an A grade accreditation for the EHRC, but twice noted that the EHRC was encouraged to incorporate the 2023 recommendations and engage with civil society organisations, particularly those working on transgender rights, in a ‘meaningful and constructive manner.’

However, since then, following the April 2025 UK Supreme Court Ruling that “sex” under the Equality Act 2010 refers to “biological sex,” the EHRC erased decades of established practice protecting transgender and intersex people by taking the most restrictive interpretation of the ruling possible, refusing to consider the welfare of intersex or transgender people.

This interim guidance has been noted by the Good Law Project to be either wrong in law or a breach of human rights. Translucent, a UK-based transgender advocacy organisation, has also begun legal action against the EHRC in light of this interim guidance.

This interim guidance has been challenged, but it has already caused irreversible damage. It has led to many organisations changing policies to exclude all transgender people from the gendered spaces of their lived gender and, in some cases, from the spaces of their sex assigned at birth as well. The guidance dictates that anyone who is not binarily “male” or “female” is excluded from single sex spaces, ranging from public toilets to groups such as a single-gender choir.

Again, intersex people are left ignored; for example, it is not clear how guidance would apply to an intersex woman who was recorded initially as male at birth and had her birth certificate amended to female. When asked if intersex people had been considered in this guidance, Baroness Falkner responded that intersex people had not been considered as they are not included in the Equality Act (2010).

Meanwhile, EHRC Commissioner Akua Reindorf KC stated in a personal capacity that trans people have been lied to about what rights they had and that there needed to be a period of correction, as other people also have rights. This goes against the EHRC’s own 2022 guidance that stated in Sch. 2, Paragraph 28: “If a service provider provides single or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender in which they present.”

Though the harm this guidance has caused the transgender and intersex community in the United Kingdom cannot be understated, the EHRC’s ‘consultation’ on the guidance provided no opportunity to give feedback on this harm. The original consultation was scheduled for two weeks and, upon challenge, was extended to six weeks. However, it remained significantly shorter than the usual timeframe of 12 weeks and was structured to allow feedback only on the clarity of the guidance, not on its content.

The Good Law Project discovered that the EHRC is using AI to screen a substantial number of responses that support the transgender and intersex community in the revision of the guidance, despite their own guidance to organisations noting the risks of AI being subject to bias that can deepen discrimination and inequalities.

The appointment of Dr. Mary-Ann Stephenson as the next EHRC chair further solidifies the case that the EHRC is systematically targeting transgender and intersex people in conjunction with the government. Dr. Stephenson has a documented history of anti-transgender views. Her appointment was rejected by both the Women and Equalities Committee and the Joint Human Rights Committee.

This has led to advocacy organisations such as the Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective, Trans Exile Network, Amelia’s Angels, Feminist Gender Equality Network, and Equality Amplified publicly declaring they do not recognise the EHRC as a human rights institution and will no longer co-operate with the EHRC, urging GANHRI to reconsider the EHRC’s accreditation. Disability advocacy organisation Manchester Disabled People Against Cuts have endorsed this criticism, calling on the government to replace the EHRC and noting additional problems of the EHRC’s actions towards ethnic minorities and disabled people.

The Lemkin Institute amplifies the voices of these organisations and calls on the GANHRI to urgently review the status of the EHRC as a human rights body, noting that GANHRI’s instruction of engagement with transgender groups to remain compliant with the Paris Principles has not only been explicitly disregarded but actively worked against, with the EHRC prioritising anti-transgender activist groups time and again, and more recently refusing Freedom of Information requests from individuals and groups concerned with transgender intersex rights.

We reiterate the words of our recent Red Flag Alert: there is a transparent attempt to eradicate transgender and intersex people from British life. This is a clear example of the 9th Pattern of Genocide: Denial and/or Prevention of Identity. The EHRC has undergone an institutional takeover and has been captured by transphobic and interphobic people and agendas.

As of the 5th of September the finalised EHRC guidance has been given to the Government, there is no guarantee the guidance will be given time for debate in parliament before going into effect. If this is the case, the EHRC will have succeeded in undemocratically stripping transgender and intersex people in the United Kingdom of fundamental human rights and dignity.

The continued accreditation of EHRC as a human rights body, despite being a key player in this attempt of identity erasure, is a disgrace. GANHRI is allowing the EHRC to claim they are fully compliant with the Paris Principles, whilst the voice of transgender and intersex people in Britain, as well as other minority groups, are left ignored.

If GANHRI does not take action against the EHRC, it risks its credibility on the international stage and will be complicit in the genocide towards transgender and intersex people.

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention & Human Security reaffirms a commitment to the rights of transgender and intersex people, as well as anyone else who falls outside of the sex and gender binary in the United Kingdom”.

ENDS.

This post was updated on the 6th September to add emphasis to certain points Lemkin raises.

Joint Call: Demand Full Parliamentary Scrutiny for EHRC Code of Practice

Over 110 partner organisations including TransLucent have united to call on MPs across the UK for robust parliamentary scrutiny, meaningful debate, and a free vote on the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) forthcoming Code of Practice.

This updated Code, which includes proposals for mandatory exclusion and segregation, poses significant threats to the dignity, safety, and human rights of both trans and cisgender people. It also introduces legal and logistical risks for businesses and service providers.

Despite its profound impact – potentially one of the most significant changes to equality law since the Equality Act itself – the Code is set to bypass Parliament through the ‘negative procedure,’ becoming law without democratic debate. Concerns about its compatibility with human rights law and the Windsor Framework have been raised by UN experts and others.

We urge MPs to write to the Minister for Women and Equalities and the Prime Minister to ensure a full democratic process for this vital legislation. Your voice matters: use our template letter to write to your MP today and demand proper oversight for a Code that risks everyone’s human rights.

Template: Joint letter from trans+/LGBTQLGBTQ LGBTQIA+ is an inclusive term that includes people of all genders and sexualities, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer, intersex, asexual, pansexual, and allies. While each letter in LGBTQIA+ stands for a specific group of people, the term encompasses the entire spectrum of gender fluidity and sexual identities. https://abbreviations.yourdictionary.com/what-does-lgbtqia-stand-for-full-acronym-explained.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT+ orgs:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O3LLdh0lPA5pApaJZJFRI9BftPl4lfb6deSVI95QXno/edit?tab=t.0

Read More:

• https://tacc.org.uk/2025/09/01/joint-statement-calling-on-mps-to-scrutinise-the-ehrc-code-of-practice/
• https://transactual.org.uk/blog/2025/09/01/joint-statement-calling-on-mps-to-scrutinise-the-ehrc-code-of-practice/
• https://bsky.app/search?q=Parliamentary+Scrutiny+EHRC

A personal opinion by our CEO – this post does not represent TransLucent policy. 

Since when has a space suitable for one person with a lockable door not been a single sex space?

This simple sentence underscores the significance of privacy in defining a single sex space, particularly in the context of toilets. It’s about being behind a closed, lockable door, a space where one can feel dignified and secure.

Many, quite legitimately, will argue that “single sex” starts at the entrance of a loo. Opponents can argue that male cleaners occupy hand washing areas, so that area is not single sex – that single sex starts at a cubicle door.

Are there laws to define where a single sex space starts and finishes?

I dont know.

Some will argue that they are “uncomfortable” with a trans woman in a space designated for women. Do the same apply to male cleaners? Are female racists worried about being close to black women?

Probably.

I support the need for single sex spaces, but ‘block bans, ‘ which are blanket policies that prohibit all trans people from accessing these spaces, equate to a human rights violation, in particular if they have a female anatomy.

Single sex spaces are needed in domestic abuse shelters operating on a communal living model, where women need other women to give support, to help heal their trauma. They are not required in domestic abuse shelters, where their working model is that of independent living, which allows for more individualised care and support.

There is certainly a case that some trans women should never be held in a female prison, but there is also a case that some, especially those who are not a risk to others and who have a female anatomy, are.

It is a fact that 29% of trans women held in a male prison are subjected to sexual assault – it’s a fact that is never reported in the mainstream press because it dont fit their narrative.

Hospital wards?

What are the curtains for if not to offer privacy and dignity?

The simple message in this post is that a “one size fits all” won’t work.

Every case, every situation is unique, and this is where the Equality Act should step in. The EA was drafted to ensure that human rights are balanced on a case-by-case basis, providing reassurance and confidence to all. After the SC judgment, many would argue that it is no longer the case.

With a little effort and goodwill, human rights can often be balanced.

When they can’t, sensible options must be available – because every person, woman, man and trans person has human rights.