Debunking Transing the Gay Away

You’re ‘transing the gay away’, scream members of LGB Alliance, the trans-hostile LGB “charity” famed for their 55 Tufton Street address, home of the far right and climate deniers. 

Recent statistics prove that over a ten-year period, the number of self-identifying LGB (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual) people has, in fact, doubled – they are not being “erased” – far from it.

Derived from extensive national surveys, such as the Annual Population Survey (APS), show that the share of UK adults identifying as LGB grew from around 1.5–2.0% in 2013 to roughly 3.5–4.0% by 2023.

In 2015, approximately 1.7% of UK adults identified as LGB, representing about 1.1 million people. By 2023, this figure had risen substantially to an estimated 3.8% of the adult population, equating to about 2.1 million people. This increase resulted in an estimated net change of 0.9 million LGB identifiers between 2018, when prevalence stood at 2.2%, and 2023.

This robust acceleration is recognised as a genuine social transformation and consistently validated by large-scale surveys, including the 2021 Census for England and Wales.

The number of people identifying as bisexual doubled in the five years between 2018 and 2023, increasing sharply from 0.9% to 1.8%. In 2023, the proportion identifying as bisexual (1.8%) nearly equalled the proportion identifying as gay or lesbian (2.0%). This rapid expansion suggests that social acceptance is evolving to normalise sexual fluidity and non-monosexuality, challenging rigid binary constructs of sexuality.

The shift is heavily concentrated among the youngest adults, demonstrating a pronounced generational divergence. The 16–24-year-old cohort is identified as the statistical outlier and trendsetter, with recent estimates often around 8–11% identifying as LGB. In 2023, approximately 10.4% of those aged 16 to 24 years identified as LGB, a figure that has more than doubled since 2018 (4.4%).

In contrast, the prevalence rate for individuals aged 65 years and over remained low and relatively stable over the period, at 0.9% in 2023. This disparity strongly indicates a generational cohort effect, in which younger cohorts have matured in environments marked by legislative recognition and greater social safety.

Gender stratification further reveals that men are slightly more likely to identify as gay  (2.8% vs. 1.2% for women), but women are more likely than men to identify as bisexual (2.2% vs. 1.5% in 2023). Young women (16–24) specifically show the highest single-group prevalence of bisexual identity, reaching 9.2% in 2023.

The sustained increase is attributed to several structural factors: greater social acceptance and visibility (such as Pride visibility and reduced stigma), favourable legal and policy contexts (like same-sex marriage), and measurement improvements (including the addition of a sexual orientation question in the 2021 Census). Digital community effects also facilitate identity exploration and disclosure, especially for young people and bisexual individuals.

The 2021 Census provided crucial cross-validation, confirming that 3.2% of the population identified as LGB+. The Census also offered unprecedented detail on diversity beyond the traditional LGB labels, identifying significant numbers of pansexual (48,000), asexual (28,000), and queer (15,000) identifiers.

Regionally, identification rates are highest in major urban centres. London, a large metropolitan centre, consistently exhibits the highest regional prevalence, nearly doubling from 2.6% in 2015 to 5.2% in 2023.

The acceleration of LGB identification necessitates that public services and regulators plan for sustained growth in LGB visibility across health, education, and workplace contexts. Data suggests a need to prioritise bi-inclusive mental health support, given the group’s rapid growth among young people.

Despite the demographic growth, statistical advances have not yet translated into equitable lived experiences. LGBT respondents reported an average life satisfaction rating of 6.5 out of 10, significantly lower than the 7.7 average reported by the general UK population. Moreover, the increased visibility is met by ongoing social friction: over two-thirds of LGBT respondents reported avoiding public displays of affection for fear of adverse reactions.

This highlights that while the population is more open and visible than ever, institutional and social safety barriers persist, demanding a policy focus on ensuring equitable experience and full inclusion.

But what of us trans?

The trans community in the UK has seen a significant increase in visibility and self-identification over the last decade, with official 2021 and 2022 census data for England, Wales, and Scotland identifying approximately 282,000 people (about 0.5% of the population) as transgender or non-binary. The ONS has since cautioned that this particular census question had limitations, so this figure should be seen as an approximate order‑of‑magnitude estimate rather than a precise count, though 0.5% ties in quite closely to the Scottish census taken a year later. Much is made of a huge increase in the younger trans community, but the reality is the UK never started collecting data until after 2009.

While the increase represents a historic rise for the UK, it remains a much smaller total compared to the United States, where current estimates from the Williams Institute place the trans population at approximately 2.8 million people (1.0% of those aged 13+), and Germany, where recent surveys and its larger national population suggest a community of between 800,000 and 2.5 million (estimates vary from 1% in medical data to as high as 3% in broader social surveys).

This expansion across all three nations has been driven by younger generations, with nearly half of the UK’s trans population under 35, a trend mirrored in both the US and Germany. Given that gender-critical activists are mainly in an older demographic, this can only be seen as a positive.

The LGBT community keeps growing. Organisations, which suggest LGB kids are being “transed”, are either incapable of checking statistical evidence or are downright lying.

Debunking Transing the Gay Away

Works cited

1. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2015
2. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2023
3. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality
4. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/2021-census-what-do-we-know-about-the-lgbt-population/
5. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/methodologies/sexualorientationandgenderidentityqualityinformationforcensus2021
6. https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/12999-half-young-not-heterosexual
7. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2021and2022
8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7539694/
9. https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/decades-long-study-illustrates-bisexuality-boom
10. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/rainbow-britain-report-2022
11. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/11/sexual-identity-mobility-study-uk
12. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b3cb6b6ed915d39fd5f14df/GEO-LGBT-Survey-Report.pdf
13. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/lgbtq-facts-and-figures
14. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/trans-pop-estimates-press-release/
15. https://www.bmbfsfj.bund.de/bmbfsfj/themen/gleichstellung/queerpolitik-und-geschlechtliche-vielfalt
16. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/142/4/e20182162/37381/Ensuring-Comprehensive-Care-and-Support-for?autologincheck=redirected
17. https://caringforkids.cps.ca/handouts/behavior-and-development/gender-identity
18. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf
19. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.753954/full
20. https://www.nature.com/articles/378068a0
21. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1887214

Debunking Transing the Gay Away

The 5,000-Year Legacy: Gender Fluidity in the Cradle of Civilisation

The Lady of Infinite Variance

Enheduanna: The Voice of the Goddess

“To turn a man into a woman and a woman into a man are yours, Inanna.”

The Sacred Clergy: A Life Beyond the Binary

• The Gala (Kalû): These people led rituals of song and lament. Many were assigned male at birth, but they lived openly in feminine roles, took on women’s names, and spoke a dialect called Eme-sal—used only by women and goddesses.
• The Assinnu and Kurgarrū: Called “man-women” in the old texts, these devotees were believed to have had their masculinity transformed by the goddess. During festivals, they wore mixed clothing—one side for women, the other for men—and carried both a spindle and weapons, thereby combining symbols of femininity and masculinity.

The Myth of the Underworld: A Story of Resilience

Why This History Matters

Claims that trans women have lost the right to use single sex spaces misstate the law.

Contrary to claims by the right-wing media and gender-critical organisations, the Supreme Court has NOT removed trans women’s ability to access single‑sex services, nor has it created any new duty on providers to exclude them.

The Equality Act 2010 continues to protect trans people through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. That protection applies across services and public functions, education, employment, clubs, associations, and similar settings. There is no requirement for medical treatment or a Gender Recognition Certificate to be covered.

If a service provider treats a trans person less favourably because they are trans – for example, by refusing access, subjecting them to degrading treatment, or forcing them into an unsafe, degrading alternative- that may amount to unlawful discrimination unless a statutory exception applies.

Single sex service exceptions still exist, but they are not blanket permissions for anyone.

A provider may rely on them only where:

1: They are pursuing a legitimate aim, and

2: Their approach is a proportionate means of achieving that aim. A policy that excludes all trans women from women’s toilets, changing rooms, refuges or other services “because of biological sex” is not automatically lawful.

If a policy is rigid, punitive, or goes further than necessary – or if it leaves a trans person without any safe or usable service – it can be challenged as disproportionate and discriminatory Specialists in discrimination law are already emphasising that trans people retain the ability to bring claims where single‑sex policies are applied in an unfair or unjustified way, and that tribunals are scrutinising whether both exclusionary and inclusive policies are genuinely proportionate.

The proportionality test remains central to equality law.

The Supreme Court case concerned whether Scottish Government guidance could treat trans women with a Gender Recognition Certificate as “women” for the purpose of a statutory representation target on public boards. It did not concern access to toilets, changing rooms, refuges, prisons, or any other single‑sex service.

While the Court confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, it did not instruct service providers to exclude trans women, nor did it dilute the protection for gender reassignment.

Clarification on “Biological Sex”

While the Court clarified the definition of ‘sex’ in a specific context, it did not erase the ‘gender reassignment’ protection. These two characteristics exist side-by-side. One does not trump the other; rather, providers must balance both. In the vast majority of cases, the protection against discrimination based on gender reassignment ensures that trans women should be treated as the women they are.

For Service Providers: A Cautionary Note:

The ruling does not grant a ‘license to exclude.’ Any provider moving toward a blanket exclusionary policy is likely increasing their legal risk. To be lawful, a policy must be evidence-based and considered on a case-by-case basis. If you cannot prove that excluding a trans person is the only way to achieve a legitimate aim, you may be vulnerable to a discrimination claim. Dignity and privacy apply to everyone—including transgender service users.

Claims that trans women have lost the right to use single sex spaces misstate the law.

Recent tribunal decisions, including Peggie, and cases such as Kelly demonstrate both that trans people can succeed where policies are applied in a discriminatory or disproportionate manner, and that trans‑inclusive policies can themselves be upheld as lawful and proportionate.

Authored by Steph Richards (TransLucent CEO)  31/12/25

Claims that trans women have lost the right to use single sex spaces misstate the law.

The Equality Act: Why Trans Rights Still Prevail in Tribunals

On 16 April, the Supreme Court ruled that, in the Equality Act (EA) 2010, “sex”, “man” and “woman” refer to biological sex, and that a Gender Recognition Certificate does not change a person’s sex for that Act.

Time will tell whether this judgment violates Goodwin; however, in our opinion, it likely does. 

Needless to say, many gender‑critical (GC) campaigners and their media allies hailed the SC judgment as a “landmark.” Some organisations, including the WI, Labour Women’s Conference, and Girlguiding, have since cited legal risk to justify excluding trans women, even where no court has required them to do so.

Yet when these ideas have been tested in employment tribunals, the sweeping anti‑trans results that the GC groups hoped for have not materialised; instead, they show that the EA can still protect trans people in practice.

One early decision pushing back on the “landmark” narrative was the case of trans postal worker Sophie Cole, who successfully brought claims of harassment and discrimination. The tribunal accepted that a trans woman can be treated as a (non-genetic) female victim of sex‑based harassment where abusers “perceive” her as a woman.

Later came Kelly v Leonardo UK, heavily publicised by GC networks because it centred on toilets. Ms Kelly objected to trans colleagues using the women’s toilets and alleged harassment and sex discrimination. The tribunal rejected her claims, finding that Leonardo’s policy did not place women at a particular disadvantage and was a proportionate way of creating an inclusive workplace for trans staff.

Peggie v NHS Fife and trans colleague Dr Beth Upton were likewise framed as a test to access ‘women’s spaces’, but the outcome was a disaster for the GC. Nurse Peggie brought 47 claims, but lost 43, including all claims against Dr Upton, saying that, in fact, Peggie had harassed her trans colleague. It did not endorse the idea that simply sharing workplace spaces with a trans woman amounts to unlawful treatment of non‑trans staff. In this case, TransLucent intervened, and we are obviously pleased with the result. 

Finally, Allison Bailey’s appeal failed to deliver the victory against Stonewall that the GC hoped for. The appeal was dismissed, and while the courts confirm that gender-critical beliefs are protected as philosophical beliefs, this does not create a licence to discriminate against trans people. Nor does it strip protection from affirming beliefs such as “trans women are women”, which also fall within the law’s protection. 

Taken together, these cases show that, even after the SC ruling, the EA still offers meaningful tools for trans people to challenge harassment and discrimination – leaving those who practice exclusion open to litigation in 2026. 

The emerging story from the tribunals is that trans people can and do win – that inclusive policies are lawful, and that attempts to drive trans women out of ‘single-sex spaces’ have not received the sweeping endorsement in law that GC advocates and their right-wing media promised.

In 2026, we are likely to see a new front emerge with trans human rights campaigners advocating that the gender-critical beliefs have become objectionable by way of manifestation. 

The Equality Act: Why Trans Rights Still Prevail in Tribunals

GRC v Statutory Declaration: Understanding the Legal Commitment to Change Sex in the UK

by Steph.

When I signed my Statutory Declaration as part of the application for a Gender Recognition Certificate to live as a woman in 2022, I was not merely completing a form; I was making a legal pledge. A Statutory Declaration is a solemn commitment, carrying the same weight as a sworn oath; breach it, and there are legal consequences. In essence, a Statutory Declaration is a contract between the Crown and me, and contracts come with commitments from BOTH sides. 

A Statutory Declaration, while part of the process for obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), serves a different purpose.

So, what is expected of me after signing the Statutory Declaration?

I declared my intention to live as a female until death. This means my gender identity is no longer a point of discussion but the backbone of my life.  I am expected to maintain congruence between my internal self and my outward social life. In my everyday interactions, like ordering coffee or meeting a stranger, others should assume I am female by default. This involves:

Language: Using a culturally female name and being referred to as “she” or “her.”

Aesthetics: While it’s wrong to set stereotypes, most people wear clothing associated with their gender.

Roles: Living in womanhood, just as trans men want to live in manhood. As a matter of course (subject to reasonable service providers’ limitations, which may apply), I should be able to use female-specific facilities, including toilets and changing rooms [Checknotes as the norm; women do dont go into the Gents].

I should also be permitted to participate in female-associated spaces, such as social groups, book clubs, or possibly sports teams, subject to fairness and safety requirements (not that participation is likely, given the state of my knees). Administratively, I must ensure that my identity is reflected in official documents such as bank accounts and passports, which I have done for many years.

My Statutory Declaration was signed in the presence of an authorised witness (a solicitor) who certified my signature. However, the burden of truth rests entirely on me. If I do not live as declared, I could, in theory, face:

Criminal prosecution: Under the Perjury Act 1911, with a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine.

Revocation: Any rights or statuses (such as a Gender Recognition Certificate) obtained through a false declaration can be cancelled or revoked.

By signing my Statutory Declaration, I entered into a formal contract with the justice system. I promised that “I have lived as a female for two years before the date of this statutory declaration and I intend to live in that gender until death”.

So what happens if blanket “laws” or “rules” suddenly come into force, stating that I cannot live life in my female gender? Does this present a genuine legal conflict that could lead to a “Declaration of Incompatibility” being sought in the courts?

We often discuss the Equality Act, the Human Rights Act, and the Gender Recognition Act, but rarely consider the legal promise to the Crown embodied in a Statutory Declaration, or the real meaning of “living as a female” (or male, as the case may be).

In 2026, the conversation may well change.

Authored by Steph Richards (22/12/25).

REFERENCES ​

1. https://transactual.org.uk/the-gender-recognition-act-2004/
2. https://www.gires.org.uk/obtaining-your-gender-recognition-certificate/
3. https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/gender-recognition-guide.pdf
4. https://hanne.co.uk/what-is-a-gender-recognition-certificate/
5. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition-certificate-statutory-declarations-for-applicants
6. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition-certificate-statutory-declarations-for-applicants/guidance-statutory-declarations-for-a-gender-recognition-certificate-application
7. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/622a1746e90e0747a30ca9a5/gender-recognition-certificate-statutory-declaration-for-single-applicants.pdf
8. https://www.harringtonfamilylaw.co.uk/blog/uncategorized/gender-recognition-certificate/
9. https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/gender-recognition
10. https://www.hardingevans.com/services/legal-support-for-the-lgbtq-community/statutory-declarations-for-gender-recognition-certificates/
11. https://www.dillonmarshallcowell.co.uk/legal-transition-blog/how-to-get-a-gender-recognition-certificate
12. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/crossheading/applications-for-gender-recognition-certificate
13. https://woodcocknotarypublic.com/statutory-declarations-for-a-gender-recognition-certificate/
14. https://ncth.nhs.uk/changing-your-details/
15. https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1kfgws1/statutory_declaration/
16. https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1iips3r/statutory_declaration_gender_recognition_act_2004/
17. https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/what-documents-you-need
18. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30/schedule/5/2013-07-17/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true
19. https://uktrans.info/legislation/68-legal-gender-recognition/355-t469-statutory-declaration-for-the-spouse-of-an-applicant-for-gender-recognition/
20. https://www.rainbow-project.org/gender-recognition-certificate/

GRC v Statutory Declaration: Understanding the Legal Commitment to Change Sex in the UK

Alex Massie and Transphobia – Opinion.

Trans Women in NHS Wards: FOI Data Reveals Only ONE Complaint Amid Culture War

By TransLucent Investigative Team

The foundation of the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) rests on core values: compassion, respect, dignity, and the binding commitment that “nobody is excluded, discriminated against or left behind”. As an organisation advocating for the rights and acceptance of the UK’s transgender and gender-diverse community, TransLucent finds these values to be essential.

Yet, this essential consensus is currently under political assault. In October 2023, the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Steve Barclay, announced a commitment to change the NHS Constitution to “protect the rights of women” and “recognise the importance of different biological needs”. This move was widely reported as paving the way for a ban on trans women being treated in female-only wards, making the provision of care, such as for a trans woman with a hip fracture, potentially contingent on being placed in an orthopaedic ward otherwise reserved for men.

This proposed intervention is not aimed at solving a “truly significant” problem facing the NHS, such as mounting waiting lists, failures in cancer care, A&E delays, or staff strikes. Instead, this focus on excluding a small minority from basic compassion appears to be a calculated battle in a wider “culture war”.

The evidence collected by TransLucent, spanning multiple years and hundreds of Freedom of Information Requests (FOIRs) across public facilities, proves conclusively that the presence of trans women in women-only spaces is a non-problem.

The NHS: One Minor Complaint in a Year

To gain a definitive and current picture, TransLucent conducted a comprehensive survey leading up to January 2024, polling all 180 acute and mental health trusts in England responsible for adult inpatient care. We specifically asked how many complaints had been received in the 12 months leading up to September 2023 regarding the presence of trans women on women’s wards, or in women-only day rooms (in the case of mental health trusts).

The results are staggering. At the time of writing, nearly 90% of trusts had responded substantively. Across the entire relevant part of the NHS, only one (1) single complaint was received on this topic, reported by one acute trust.

To put this solitary complaint in perspective:

1. Over the same review period, these trusts cared for around 6.75 million adult women inpatients.
2. The NHS, excluding GPs and dentists, typically receives around 200,000 written complaints per year.
3. We confirmed through a follow-up FOIRFOIR How to make a freedom of information (FOI) request You have the right to ask to see recorded information held by public authorities. https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request that the single complaint received was not designated, investigated, or reported as a ‘Serious Incident’—a formal NHS category typically covering matters of serious harm, abuse, or ill-treatment.

In summary, for every 200,000 complaints the NHS logged, zero were about the sharing of sleeping accommodation with trans women.

A Consistent Finding Across Years and Facilities

Our most recent findings are merely the latest data point in a pattern stretching back years. Our previous investigations, conducted over a period of two years and three months (from April 2020 to June 2022), involved a total of 102 FOIRs made to NHS Foundation Trusts. The outcome of those extensive inquiries was consistent: No NHSFT reported a woman complaining about a trans woman in her hospital ward. The results were described as “No complaints, none, zilch”. In total, across four investigations spanning three years and three months (282 FOIRs), TransLucent has only ever found one minor complaint.

This pattern of non-complaint extends beyond the hospital environment. Our “Local Authority Facilities Survey 2022″ specifically investigated complaints concerning transgender women using public changing rooms and toilets owned by Local Authorities in England. By targeting the 50 largest Local Authorities in England (covering 20 million people), we sought complaints recorded during the calendar year 2022. Of the 40 authorities that provided substantive responses, 35 reported “None” recorded incidents where a complaint was made about a transgender person, or someone perceived to be transgender, using women’s facilities.

Compassion is the Policy

The idea that trans women pose a widespread threat to safety and privacy in these spaces is not supported by any factual evidence. The reality is that trans people have existed for millennia and have used hospitals, changing rooms, and toilets without a major “whimper”.

The NHS already has sensible, inclusive, and compassionate guidance in place: “Trans people should be accommodated according to their presentation: the way they dress, and the name and pronouns they currently use”. Privacy concerns are resolved using straightforward clinical technology referred to in the documents as “curtains”.

In fact, the greater risk stems from segregation driven by ignorance. Hospitals generally treat patients based on “medical condition,” not “sex”. When staff segregate trans patients into single-occupancy side rooms simply because they are transgender, the outcome can be fatal. We have seen tragic cases where trans women placed in side rooms suffered cardiac arrests that went unwitnessed, arguing they should have been placed in an open women’s bay where earlier intervention could have saved their lives.

TransLucent hopes that NHS professionals will be allowed to carry on doing what they are clearly succeeding at: balancing the needs of all patients with expertise and compassion. Instead of attempting to fix the NHS Constitution to allow the exclusion of a small minority from fundamental compassion, Ministers should stop “behaving like characters in a Carry On film, exhibiting instincts and values… that should have been abandoned long ago”. They must instead turn their attention to the overwhelming majority—the estimated 99.999%—of complaints that are not about trans women.

Trans Women in NHS Wards: FOI Data Reveals Only ONE Complaint Amid Culture War

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.