Latest News
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.
Entrepreneur of Excellence Award – National Diversity Awards 2025
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.
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.
HAMPSTEAD HEATH LADIES POND – “It’s not about women. It’s about a trophy”
These are not my words, but those of a cisgender woman who regularly swims at the pond and is utterly disgusted by a tiny minority of women who are transphobic and use the word “woman” as their weapon and shield.
As CEO of TransLucent, I want to make it very clear that all the time I am in tenure, we will fight transphobia on the streets, in parliament and in the courts.
As an organisation, we announced our intention with yesterday’s statement that TransLucent had intervened in a high-profile legal case. I appreciate that many were surprised by our intervention, but obviously, we can’t always “flag” what we are doing.
It was Nicola Sturgeon who once said the gender critical was “using women’s rights as a cloak of acceptability for transphobia“. As time passes, this becomes increasingly evident every day.
The voices of women who reject transphobia are not being heard; meanwhile, the likes of LBC, GB News, TalkTV, The Times, The Telegraph and Mail are happily promoting transphobia.
Clickbait.
I take pride in being a feminist, fighting for women’s rights and trying to make “peace” with those who are so vocal.
I have reached out to nearly every gender-critical organisation and attempted to schedule a meeting. Only one ever replied, the now-defunct Women’s Place UK.
I tried desperately to save the Labour Party Women’s Conference this year. The fact is, 1500 women have been denied their conference because one gender-critical organisation was threatening to take the Labour Party to court if trans women were allowed to attend. The organisation concerned did not reply to my emails.
How many trans women were likely to be delegates?
Three.
The battle against discrimination needs to be reframed. It is not women v trans women. It is the gender-critical movement v women.
The transphobic gender-critical ideology movement is a negative force to feminism, because most women are not transphobic and these people are deflecting from the issues that matter to women, that of healthcare, violence against women and girls, and the pay gap, to name just three.
The voices of 1,500 women delegates at the Labour Party Women’s Conference were not heard.
The voices of the 42,150 women who have signed the “Not In Our Name” letter say the gender-critical do not speak for them.
I will fight discrimination while supporting the need for single-sex spaces as required.
The Labour Party Womens Conference and Hampstead Heath Ladies Pond are two examples of transphobia.
Please support our work at TransLucent.
Thank you.
Authored by Steph – TransLucent CEO.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/working-for-the-trans-and-gender-diverse-community
TransLucent is pleased to confirm that the Employment Tribunals (Scotland) has accepted our application to intervene in the case of Mrs. S Peggie v. Fife Health Board and Dr. Beth Upton.
We are grateful to our legal representatives, Leigh Day, for their expert support in this significant matter.
We remain committed to respecting the legal process and upholding its integrity throughout our involvement.
In line with this commitment, we will not be making any further public comment on the content of our intervention beyond what is outlined in Leigh Day’s press release dated 29 August 2025.
A message from Rebecca Jones: Attention UK-based people, I need YOU to help me challenge NHS Blood & Transplant’s policies towards Trans & Non-Binary people.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rAPx8gpSix5Msf_HOu5cZhg6qSamNZiCtlDZLDc17yE/edit?usp=sharing
In July 2024, NHS Blood & Transplant changed its policy to test trans people’s haemoglobin levels exclusively like their sex at birth against scientific consensus. I have been investigating this over the past few months to understand why the NHS made this decision, and how we can make them change their policies.
What I was told concerned me greatly, especially when the NHS acknowledged it was a problem and did not give me a commitment on when they would solve it.I have followed up with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, and they’ve informed me that they need a significant number of complaints to investigate further.
If you can, please take 2 minutes of your day and fill in the steps below:
Please also share this where you can. So please, join me in complaining to NHS Blood & Transplant, then the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This will take you roughly 2 minutes to send the email, then 5 minutes to later submit your complaint to the Ombudsman.
Together, we can change NHS policy and deliver an inclusive blood donation policy. If you’d like to read further into my investigation, the full document is available here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18FQmNgbR8VnURHsp7MVtE1zfVVU1NoXZIuJA8qGyHPY/edit?tab=t.0
Any enquiries, please contact: RebeccaJones03LD@gmail.com
