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 the way in which 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.

Link to Petition   https://c.org/HTXK5MWMWX

The very poorly argued judgment in For Women Scotland contains a number of legal errors, no Human Rights analysis and ignores the clear will of parliament in enacting the Gender Recognition and Equality Acts to protect the rights of trans people as set out by the European Court of Human Rights in the Goodwin case.

Instead of putting this right, as they could with some very simple legislation, the UK government has permitted the Equality and Human Rights Commission to publish new guidance on the Equality Act, intended to implement the flawed decision in FWS.

This would leave trans people in exactly the ‘intermediate space’ that Goodwin said they should not occupy, at risk of being unable to participate in society, banned from spaces they have used without difficulty for decades.  The UK is now one of the most trans-unfriendly nations in Europe, having previously been a leader in the field.

The guidance was published just as parliament rose for the May recess.  We do not think that was by chance.  If no active step is taken, the guidance will have legal force in a little over 30 days.

We call on all trans people, their allies, relatives and friends to sign and share this petition with all their might, to demonstrate to our legislators the support that trans people have in the UK to live their lives with dignity and respect.

We should say that we hoped this would have been a petition promoted via the UK parliamentary petitions arrangements, but the process to lodge a petition via that route takes around a month, and we need to show the support that trans people have much sooner than that.

Trans people need YOUR help.  It only takes a few moments to sign the petition.

Petition on restoring trans rights reads 

We call on parliament to:

1. Reverse FWS v SM and restore to full effect the Equality Act 2010 and Gender Recognition Act 2004 provisions, which recognised the European Convention Rights of trans people.
2. Reject the present draft Code of Practice and ensure UK law allows clear options for single-sex services and associations to be trans-inclusive.
3. Ensure that trans people are enabled to play a full part in society as their genuine selves and examine how non-binary and intersex people can be included and protected.

Link to Petition   https://c.org/HTXK5MWMWX

Petition on restoring trans rights.

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

Rebecca Paul MP and SEGM

Trans Rights & Police Searches: What You Need to Know

Your Rights as a Detainee

• Expressing a Preference: If your lived gender differs from your biological sex, you can express a preference to be searched by an officer of your lived gender
• The Consent Process: For a search to proceed in accordance with your lived gender, written consent is required from you, the searching officer, and the authorising officer.
• Separate Area Searches: You have the right to request a “separate area search” based on your anatomical presentation. This involves one half of your body being searched by an officer of one biological sex and the other half by an officer of the other biological sex.
• Withdrawing Consent: You can retract your consent for a lived-gender search at any time. If you do, the search must then be completed by an officer of your biological sex.

Note: If you request a search by an officer of your lived gender but no willing officer is immediately available, you may be placed on constant watch until one is found. If a willing officer cannot be found within a reasonable time, the search will be completed by officers of your biological sex. However, in TransLucents’ view, this could give rise to claims under Article 8 at a later date.

Protections for Transgender Officers

• Search Protocol: Transgender officers will generally conduct searches in line with their biological sex.
• Right to Opt-Out: Trans officers can be exempt from all search duties. The NPCC states there will be no career detriment for choosing this.
• No Forced Searches: A trans officer cannot be given a “lawful order” to conduct a search.
• Mutual Consent: A trans officer may search a trans detainee if they share the same biological sex[cite: 19, 20]. [cite_start]If their biological sexes are different, the search can only happen if both the officer and the detainee provide consent.

Establishing Sex for a Search

Trans Rights & Police Searches: What You Need to Know

Support for Endometriosis Advocacy: A Statement from TransLucent

Our letter sent today to  Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP

Dear Minister for Health and Social Care,

We write to express our grave concern that individuals who hold gender‑critical views are being permitted to participate in decisions directly affecting trans healthcare, including within regulatory and clinical settings, and that trans people themselves are often excluded from the same processes.

The fact that Professor George has been recused from the MHRA puberty blocker panel is a clear recognition that certain framings of sex and gender can distort clinical decision‑making.

However, the issue extends far beyond one individual, reaching into the wider healthcare workforce, including a minority of doctors, nurses, and other health professionals with gender‑critical views who continue to influence or scrutinise trans‑affirming care beyond trans people’s involvement.

We need to be explicit that no person whose gender‑critical beliefs result in discriminatory conduct towards trans people should hold any role in the delivery or governance of trans healthcare. Where such discrimination is identified, existing disciplinary and employment frameworks must be used to remove those individuals from positions of influence.

In the longer term, robust safeguards should be developed to prevent such individuals from being appointed to roles that shape or oversee trans healthcare in the first place. Those decisions must be taken by people with lived experience of being trans.

Trans people are experts in their own health and wellbeing, and their voices must be central to the design, monitoring, and reform of trans‑inclusive services.

We recognise that gender‑critical beliefs are protected under Article 9 ECHR and the Equality Act 2010, and we fully respect the right of individuals to hold such beliefs.

However, when those beliefs are manifested in ways that discriminate against trans people, restrict access to care, or undermine trans‑affirming treatment, they cross the line into what can reasonably be described as an “objectionable manifestation of belief”.

Trans people in the UK continue to face significant prejudice and discrimination, and a substantial portion of that prejudice is rooted in gender‑critical ideology, which frequently targets trans identities and gender‑affirming care. That pattern of animus is commonly understood as transphobia.

While there is currently no statutory definition of transphobia – just as there is none for antisemitism – the City of Portsmouth, where TransLucent is based, has adopted a local definition grounded in the United Nations framework. The council’s motion, passed in November 2024, defines transphobia as “the dislike, prejudice, discrimination, denial of identity, hatred or violence towards people who identify as transgender or gender‑diverse”.

We would also draw your attention to the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC), which has designated certain organisations that promote transphobic narratives, including opposition to gender‑affirming healthcare, as “hate groups”. The SPLC defines a hate group as an organisation whose beliefs or practices attack or malign an entire class of people, typically based on immutable characteristics.

Two international gender‑critical organisations that actively promote concerns about gender‑affirming care and have considerable influence within the UK have been identified by the SPLC as meeting this hate group threshold. Their interventions in UK policy debates cannot be treated as neutral or simply “academic”: they are part of a broader pattern of hostility towards trans lives.

TransLucent has always maintained a tolerant and respectful approach, seeking to engage constructively with those who do not share our goals. We operate in accordance with the Nolan Principles and are transparent about our research and data collection, publishing our findings publicly, including on issues such as the safety and acceptability of trans people’s use of single‑sex spaces.

However, when organisations or individuals use prejudicial or discriminatory views to target trans people, or to propagate misinformation about the services they are entitled to, it is both necessary and proportionate to highlight those facts. Failing to do so risks normalising hostility and embedding it into the structures of the healthcare system itself. This deliberately reduces the access to care of trans people, which is clearly a form of discrimination.

We urge your department to take concrete steps to ensure that trans healthcare is free from gender‑critical discrimination and that trans people are not only consulted but are central to the design and oversight of services that affect them.

Yours sincerely,

Steph Richards

CEO TransLucent.Org.UK

CC MHRA