TransLucent Applies to the High Court to Intervene in the Hampstead Heath Ponds Case.

The Directors of TransLucent are pleased to confirm that we have applied to the High Court to intervene in the Hampstead Heath Ponds case – one that could prove pivotal for trans people in the future.

Join the Fight: Donate to the TransLucent Legal Fund

The anti-trans group Sex Matters is once again taking legal action in an attempt to exclude trans women from the Hampstead Heath Ladies’ Pond. Their challenge aims to force the City of London Corporation to abandon its inclusive policy, risking a harmful precedent for trans rights nationwide.

In April, we instructed our legal team at Leigh Day to prepare a formal intervention. Sex Matters bases its argument on a narrow reading of the For Women Scotland judgment, claiming the Equality Act 2010 defines “woman” solely by biological sex. We believe this stance is divisive and legally unsound. The City of London Corporation has affirmed that the Ladies’ Pond is not a “single-sex service” under the exceptions in the Equality Act that would permit exclusion.

The Corporation remains committed to maintaining trans-inclusive arrangements, including signage affirming that transgender women are welcome.

The Mandate for Inclusivity

This renewed legal action ignores overwhelming public support for inclusion. In a recent consultation of over 38,000 participants, 86% supported maintaining trans-inclusive access to the ponds. Additionally:

•  81% of pond users reported positive experiences under the current policy, describing trans swimmers as “unremarkable”.
• 90% of respondents rejected “compromise” models like separate changing rooms or timetabled sessions, labelling them as “segregation” and a safety risk to trans people.

Protecting Our Sanctuary

For decades, the Ladies’ Pond has provided a safe haven for women in all their diversity. As the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond Association (KLPA) affirms, trans women have swum there for many years “without incident,” and their presence is integral to the space’s unique spirit.

Efforts to exclude trans women result in harmful “gender policing,” targeting any woman—cis or trans—who does not conform to narrow definitions of femininity. We stand with all swimmers who believe trans women are women and deserve the right to swim in peace.

Solicitors Ellie Fawcett, Anna Dews and Partner Ricardo Gama of Leigh Day represent us, with Hannah Slarks from 11KBW and Crash Krylova (Wigley) from Landmark Chambers instructed as counsel.

Steph Richards, the Chair of TransLucent Directors, said:

“This case could have profound implications for the ability of organisations to provide services which are inclusive of trans people, and for the ability of trans people to use facilities like these in their day-to-day lives in accordance with the gender they live”.

Our application includes heartfelt testimony from trans people who use the single- gender bathing ponds regularly and find them to be a place of acceptance and tranquillity that clearly means a great deal to them. We are seeking permission to intervene to provide the court with this perspective directly from trans people, both as swimmers who use the ponds and as users of other public facilities where similar issues may arise”

Ellie Fawcett, solicitor at Leigh Day, said:

“Too often, issues impacting trans people are debated without hearing from the
people most affected. This application is about making sure those voices are before
the court. The evidence filed on behalf of TransLucent shows that the Hampstead
ponds are more than a place to swim; they are a place of community, belonging and
wellbeing.

“The outcome of this case could have implications far beyond the ponds, affecting
how trans people are able to access services and participate in public life across the
UK. We hope that by hearing directly from trans people, the Court will have the
fullest possible picture of what is at stake in this case.”

How You Can Support the Fight for Trans Rights. 

We must meet the determination of those who seek to exclude us – we know they are very well organised and are incredibly well funded.

Your support for our legal fund enables us to:

• Legal Defence: Enabling our team to monitor proceedings and build a strong counter-case.
• Public Awareness: Creating fact-based content to counter misinformation and share the lived experiences of trans women.
• Sustained Advocacy: Allowing us to continue working with MPs and human rights organisations to defend trans protections in the UK.

Trans people deserve dignity, safety, and equality. Our existence is not up for debate.

Join the Fight: Donate to the TransLucent Legal Fund

LINK: https://www.gofundme.com/f/working-for-the-trans-and-gender-diverse-community

TransLucent Applies to the High Court to Intervene in the Hampstead Heath Ponds Case.

Emily Brothers: Exclusion from Labour Women’s Conference.

UN: Revised Code of Practice risks institutionalising discrimination against transgender and gender-diverse persons, warn UN experts

On the 17th of August 2026. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the United Nations published this statement:

A Message From Our Founder – Steph Richards

Crowdjustice Messages: EHRC Draft Code of Practice.

Just over 48 hours ago, at 06:01 AM on Monday, 6th July 2026, TransLucent launched its Crowdfunder to challenge the Draft EHRC Code of Practice by Judicial Review.

PLEASE DONATE: https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/challenging-the-ehrc-code-of-p/

Since then, over 309 people have donated, and we are over 70% of the way to our target. Many people are leaving messages. This post highlights some of what has been said.

Crowdjustice Messages: EHRC Draft Code of Practice.

Urgent Travel Advisory Issued for Trans and Gender Diverse People.

An urgent travel advisory has been issued warning LGBTQIA+ people, and particularly trans and gender-diverse travellers, about the risks of visiting or relocating to the UK.

The advisory was published on 30 June 2026 by the Trans Exile Network (TEN) and countersigned by TACC (Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective), Compton’s Café CIC, and Transpilot.

What the Advisory Says

The advisory is being circulated to EU and other national organisations that advise or support LGBTQIA+ people, offer travel to the UK, or publish travel and safety guidance. It sets out a series of concerns rooted in recent UK legal and policy changes, including the non-recognition of legal gender changes for equality purposes, restrictions on access to single-sex spaces, the placement of trans prisoners according to sex assigned at birth, and NHS ward allocation policies.

Speaking as part of the release, former Scottish judge Dr Victoria McCloud, now living in exile in Ireland, described the advisory’s core message as “stay safe, stay away“.

In terms of legal recognition, the UK ranks among the lowest-ranked in Europe, alongside Bulgaria, Georgia, Hungary, Russia, and Slovakia. Further, the Lemkin Institute has issued the UK a second red flag, warning of the social genocide of trans people.

Why This Matters

The advisory reflects a wider shift in the UK’s legal landscape following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the definition of sex under the Equality Act, and the subsequent Code of Practice developed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

For many in our community, this news will be sobering but not surprising, as it puts into words a reality that trans people navigating UK public life have been experiencing directly.

Standing With Our Colleagues

We want to highlight the work of TEN, TACC, and Compton’s Café CIC in bringing international attention to these issues, including Carla Ottersen’s detailed coverage of the advisory published via Compton’s Café.

We will continue to monitor developments in UK law and policy as they unfold, and we encourage anyone with questions about their own situation to reach out to TEN, TACC, Compton’s Café, or TransLucent directly for support. TransLucent endorses the message that the UK is not a welcoming country for trans and gender diverse people, and they should avoid travelling to the UK.

Urgent Travel Advisory Issued for Trans and Gender Diverse People

TransLucent Letter to the EHRC June 14th 2026

Correspondence Unit
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Arndale House
The Arndale Centre
Manchester
M4 3AQ
June 14, 2026

Dear REDACTED

At our meeting with you on Friday in relation to the Commission’s Code of Practice, now laid before Parliament, we raised with you a number of matters which are presently of great concern to trans people in the UK.

It was agreed that we should write to you formally to seek an answer on these matters that can be shared publicly. As also agreed, we will write to you separately to provide evidence and examples of the practical unworkability of the Code as it now stands.

Our concerns:  the ‘intermediate’ position of trans people, and
The unworkability of s7,

Both under the FWS Supreme Court ruling and the recent EHRC Code on the provision of services.

We were particularly concerned to note the position advanced by your Chair, Dr Mary-Anne
Stephenson and Chief Executive John Fitzpatrick at the House of Commons joint Women and
Equalities Sub-Committee (WESC) and Human Rights Sub-Committee (HRSC) session on Tuesday last, at which they put forward the position which can be summarised as:

Trans people should be accommodated in ‘third spaces’ away from cis men and women, and
Ms Stephenson and Mr Fitzpatrick saw the state of the law as satisfactory and certainly not a state which would cause them to advise government that a change in the law was required.

We were, frankly, shocked at the complacency, lack of engagement with practical consequences for trans people (illustrated so clearly in the OEO Equality Impact Assessment) and the fall back on ‘common sense’ as an answer to questions from the MPs.

Coming shortly to the particular matters on which we seek an answer to understand the EHRC’s
position, we also noted Ms Stephenson’s comment that the Supreme Court had had Goodwin and Article 8 in mind because they are mentioned in the judgment.

We find that a shockingly complacent position given that Ms Stephenson failed to mention that, after demonstrating that they were aware of the two important sources of law, Ms Stephenson omitted to mention that the Supreme Court failed entirely to perform any analysis (as is to be expected under the UK Human Rights Act) of whether its ‘sex is biological sex and does not include certified sex’ determination was consistent with the

European Convention, particularly Article 8 and relevant case law such as Goodwin.

Goodwin Compliance.
Goodwin was very clear that :

‘In short, the unsatisfactory situation in which post-operative transsexuals live in an
intermediate zone as not quite one gender or the other is no longer sustainable. (para 90)

And that:

‘…the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.’ (para 91)

Does the EHRC accept that banishing trans people to ‘third spaces’ is precisely placing them in the inappropriate ‘intermediate zone’ identified by the ECtHR in Goodwin whereas allowing them to be recognised in the identity they have transitioned to would alleviate this breach of Article 8?

Does the Commission accept that evidence available, including the FOI – based studies carried out by TransLucent shows that trans people’s use of services aligned with their gender has caused minimal or no difficulties?

Does the Commission accept that the negative impact on trans people and others of attempting to force trans people into third spaces, is disproportionate to any gain?

Does the Commission accept that the present position is likely to have put the UK in breach of Article 8 and if not, why not?

Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010.
This section defines the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment.
Section 7(1) provides:

‘A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to
undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose
of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.’

It has generally been accepted that physiological attributes have included such matters as the changes brought about by hormone therapy or surgery, and ‘other’ attributes include adopting a different honorific, name, and matters such as hairstyle or style of dress.

The difficulty with the Supreme Court ruling is that if ‘sex’ is ‘biological sex as recorded at birth’, it can never be altered, and section 7 now appears otiose under the Supreme Court ruling.

Does the EHRC accept that the Supreme Court ruling appears to render Section 7 otiose?

Does the EHRC accept that this is an absurd position?

Does the EHRC accept that the absurd position is contrary to and incomprehensible when read with BOTH the will of parliament in enacting the GRA 2004 and the relevant parts of the Equality Act, AND those parts of the Supreme Court judgment which suggest that trans people are still protected?

How are courts and tribunals to assess whether individuals have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in future?

Whilst appreciating that the Commission will have many calls on its time, we are sure that these are questions the Commission has asked itself and its advisers since the FWS judgment appeared and before proffering its draft code.

We would appreciate answers within a timescale which will allow the answers to be shown to MPs considering the draft Code.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this letter. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely yours,

Robin Moira White

Dr Debora Diamond

TransLucent Letter to the EHRC June 14th 2026

Petition on restoring trans rights

The publication of the Draft Code on Services and Associations on Thursday, 21 May 2026, has brought into sharp focus how the Supreme Court judgment in ‘For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers’ of April 2025 has interfered with the rights of trans people in the UK.

Rebecca Bennett (not a member of the TransLucent team) has created a petition (ending on 19th December 2026) with over 18,500 signatories.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/770527

Her request reads as follows:

I want the House of Commons to disapprove of the Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations, 2026, laid on 21 May 2026.

We are concerned that the guidance published on 21 May 2016 could lead to women being excluded from women’s spaces based on their appearance. We think that the guidance will make it harder for trans people to participate in sport as either gender, and that it can limit trans people from accessing toilets and other facilities that match their acquired gender. I therefore think the House of Commons should disapprove this draft guidance.

In view that Rebecca has gained significant support, trans people and allies may wish to sign her petition.

Link: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/770527

Trans Rights Petition To Government

Trans Rights Petition To Government

TransLucent letter to Olivia Bailey MP

Olivia Bailey MP
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London

By email only.

15^th May 2026

Dear Minister for Equaities – LGBT

Re: The United Kingdom’s Continued and Accelerating Decline in the ILGAILGA A driving force for political, legal and social change for LGBTI https://www.ilga-europe.org-Europe Rainbow Map and Index

We write to you on behalf of the trans community across the United Kingdom to express our profound concern regarding this country’s continuing and accelerating decline in the ILGA-Europe Rainbow Map and Index – an internationally recognised annual benchmarking tool that scores 49 European countries on legal and policy protections for LGBTI people.

The facts are deeply concerning and demand immediate government attention. In 2011, the United Kingdom proudly held 1st place in the Rainbow Index – a position maintained until 2015, with a peak score of 86%.

As of the 2026 edition, published on 11 May 2026, the UK has fallen to 22nd place with a score of just 43.90% – a deterioration of more than 40 percentage points and 21 ranking positions over little more than a decade.

No other country in the Index’s history has experienced a decline of this magnitude.

The Cause of Decline:

The Rainbow Index assesses countries across 76 criteria spanning seven thematic areas, including equality and non-discrimination, family recognition, hate crime and hate speech law, legal gender recognition, intersex bodily integrity, civil society space, and asylum protections.

While the UK’s decline is not attributable to a single factor, the most damaging recent development has been the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling that the legal definition of “woman” under the Equality Act is determined by biological sex.

This ruling prompted ILGA-Europe to strip the United Kingdom of all points previously awarded for legal gender recognition, a category in which the UK had historically been a European leader.

The consequences of this ruling for both transgender and cisgender people in the UK are now well documented, particularly regarding access to toilets and changing rooms, which disproportionately impact butch lesbians, gender-non-conforming women, and those with a masculine appearance. Additionally, the closures and disruptions faced by WI branches and Girlguiding groups have caused significant distress.

There has been a regression in legal protections that affects access to healthcare, employment safeguards, public services, and the fundamental right of transgender people to be recognised in law. TransLucent views this as a serious human rights matter, not merely a statistical one.

The Broader Context

The 2026 Rainbow Index demonstrates that progress is achievable.

Spain has this year risen to 1st place with a score of 88.70%, having enacted new legal protections, established an independent equal treatment authority, and fully depathologised trans identities in healthcare. Iceland, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, and Germany all score significantly higher than the UK, illustrating that legislative ambition on LGBTI rights is neither unrealistic nor incompatible with the values of a democratic European nation​.

Meanwhile, the UK’s score of 43.90% places it below countries such as France, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, nations that have, in recent years, moved decisively to strengthen legal gender recognition and anti-discrimination frameworks​.

The gap between the UK and the leading nations now stands at almost 45 percentage points.

Our Calls to Action

TransLucent respectfully but urgently calls upon the Government to take the following steps:

• Restore and strengthen legal gender recognition by introducing a reformed Gender Recognition Act that eliminates medicalised and bureaucratic barriers, enabling transgender people to obtain legal recognition in a timely and dignified manner.
• Explicitly protect transgender people under the Equality Act and provide clear statutory guidance following the 2025 Supreme Court ruling to prevent ambiguity and discrimination at the point of service delivery.
• Enact comprehensive hate crime and hate speech legislation that unambiguously protects transgender people from targeted violence and harassment.
• Commission an independent review of the UK’s declining ILGA-Europe rankings, with a view to producing a cross-departmental action plan with measurable milestones to restore the UK’s position as a European leader in LGBTI rights.
• Engage meaningfully with transgender advocacy organisations, including TransLucent, as stakeholders in the development of policy that directly affects our communities.

Conclusion

The United Kingdom’s fall from 1st to 22nd place in the ILGA-Europe Rainbow Index is neither inevitable nor irreversible.

It is the product of political choices – and it can be remedied through political will.

The current trajectory inflicts real harm on transgender people living in this country, undermines the UK’s international reputation as a champion of human rights, and sends a damaging message to transgender young people about their place and value in British society.

TransLucent stands ready to engage constructively with the Government on these matters. We request a formal meeting with you at the earliest opportunity to discuss the steps outlined above.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Debora Diamond – Joint CEO

15th May  2026 – TransLucent letter to Olivia Bailey MP