People who look you in the eye and say restricting trans rights would have stopped something like this from happening are either clinically stupid or think you are.
www.btp.police.uk/news/btp/new...
I've lost 3 organs & a ton of reconstruction to endometriosis, and for whatever it's worth I'm 100% happy for a trans woman to represent the cause. What we need is someone brilliantly well informed, passionate, and great at communicating.
That's the entire qualification list.
Streeting and Mandelson
I suspect this photo is going to be one of the most shared over the next few years if Labour is stupid enough to select Streeting to replace Starmer.
APOLOGY.
One year on from For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, I am truly sorry for the impact this has had on trans lives.
This is my personal view. I am not speaking on behalf of the legal profession or any other lawyers.
#transrights #uklaw #equalityact #lawtok #humanrights
I Completely Support This Petition….
This should recognise that people have legal rights by virtue of their biological sex which are different from the rights of those of the opposite sex with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
The new teaching is already coming in with the RSHE guidance.
You can no longer have trans posative books, let kids they have a gender, tell them that transition can help trans people etc.
It is worse that Section 28 and it comes in after the summer
Example 1: Enforcing "biological sex" based law
The Code of Practice, if it is as bad as I suspect it will be is much worse than Section 28. Section 28 targeted the teaching of queerness.
This Code of practice will actively try to exclude trans people from public life and along with new school guidance censor the teaching of trans topics.
It's hit £20,000 in just the first few hours.
Thank you so much for your donations! 💚🙌🏽
Making hope normal again:
www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/we-deserve...
The longer this bullying, xenophobic, racist, transphobic charlatan clings on, the better for the Green Party, hands down!
We're making hope normal again right across England and Wales.
20 days today - help end Rip Off Britain.
Vote Green.
www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midland...
The Chair Equality and Human Rights Commission Arndale House, Manchester 17 April 2026 Re: The Effectiveness of the Equality Act and “Bathroom Bounty Law” Dear Mary-Ann Stephenson, As a trans business owner, I took legal action against your predecessor in office. I write to draw your attention to your statutory duties as Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Under the Equality Act 2006, the Commission must monitor the effectiveness of the equality and human rights legislation. You must exercise this function with a view to encouraging and supporting the development of a society in which there is mutual respect between persons who share a common attribute in respect of gender based on understanding and valuing of diversity and on shared respect for equality and human rights. Some campaign groups propose that the Equality Act 2010 gives rise to a public policy position colloquially known as a “bathroom bounty law”, whereby a trans person’s choice of gendered facilities is limited on the basis of a mere technicality without objective justification. This is in addition to these groups’ demand for the “policing” of gendered facilities. A “bathroom bounty law” represents a significant state interference with the rights of trans people and the freedoms of business owners and charities, and is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It engages the United Kingdom’s negative obligations under Articles 1, 8 and 14+11, as it involves a sanction against inclusive practices. Accordingly, there is virtually no margin of appreciation for a “bathroom bounty law”.
![In my view, Convention rights preclude any legal theories suggesting that trans-inclusive practices could be considered direct or indirect discrimination, harassment, or any other contravention under the Equality Act 2010, or be found to be unlawful under the principles of public and administrative law. This is unlikely to be fact sensitive.
I am concerned that the Commission may be misguided in its position, given that your defence in Good Law Project & Ors, R (on the application of) v EHRC [2026] EWHC 279 (Admin) bears a close resemblance to the proposal of a “bathroom bounty law”. One would expect counsel to have professionally advised you on any areas where the equality and human rights legislation might be ineffective.
I look forward to receiving your response and understanding how the Commission intends to address these concerns to ensure that the Equality Act 2010 is not misinterpreted to the detriment of trans people.
Yours sincerely,
Ashley Lee](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:5kydynj3pme74rk5ynru3m6d/bafkreibl2nn265zlkderxg26inmjrerwzncmxazxvhjkl3g3zxtadejrgy)
In my view, Convention rights preclude any legal theories suggesting that trans-inclusive practices could be considered direct or indirect discrimination, harassment, or any other contravention under the Equality Act 2010, or be found to be unlawful under the principles of public and administrative law. This is unlikely to be fact sensitive. I am concerned that the Commission may be misguided in its position, given that your defence in Good Law Project & Ors, R (on the application of) v EHRC [2026] EWHC 279 (Admin) bears a close resemblance to the proposal of a “bathroom bounty law”. One would expect counsel to have professionally advised you on any areas where the equality and human rights legislation might be ineffective. I look forward to receiving your response and understanding how the Commission intends to address these concerns to ensure that the Equality Act 2010 is not misinterpreted to the detriment of trans people. Yours sincerely, Ashley Lee
Today, I sent an open letter to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. A “bathroom bounty law” that limits trans people’s choice of gendered facilities is a clear breach of human rights law. Read it here:
So, friend of Trump (Trump has no friends) no doubt thought that by throwing other trans women (and men) under the bus, she would be left on a longer leash.
Didn’t work out…🙄
As it won’t work for Gender Critter women, throwing trans-women under the bus. The patriarchy will come for them too‼️🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️
🌍🏥 “Stop the attacks on migrant workers now.”
UNISON general secretary @andreaegangs.bsky.social speaking at #uhealth26 in Edinburgh after taking UNISON’s message directly to parliament and the prime minister.
Text: "To standardscommissioner@parliament.uk <standardscommissioner@parliament.uk> Dear Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, We are writing to make a formal complaint about remarks made by Suella Braverman MP concerning Steph Richards, a trans woman and Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) holder, in relation to her role with Endometriosis South Coast. In public statements and on social media, Ms Braverman repeatedly referred to Ms Richards as “a man”, described her appointment as “regressive”, and claimed it “erases women” and is “insulting and inappropriate” for her to speak on endometriosis. These comments were not incidental; they involved the deliberate and repeated mischaracterisation of Ms Richards’ legal sex and identity in a manner that was hostile and demeaning.... Under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, a person who holds a full GRC is, 'for all purposes', recognised in their acquired gender. In Ms Richards’ case, she is legally recognised as a woman, and her sex is female in law. The repeated public description of her as “a man” is therefore not simply a matter of opinion or debate, but a denial of her legal status.... In addition, Ms Richards is protected under the Equality Act 2010 by the characteristic of gender reassignment. The Act protects from discrimination and harassment, including conduct that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Public statements by a senior MP that single out a named trans woman, deny her legal status, and frame her participation as inherently inappropriate are reasonably understood to meet that threshold."
Text: "...The House of Commons Code of Conduct states that “Members have a duty to uphold the law, including the general law against discrimination”, it also requires Members to treat others with “dignity, courtesy and respect”, and that they “shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally”. Publicly singling out a legally recognised woman and subjecting her to this form of treatment falls well below those standards, particularly given the wider impact such comments have in legitimising hostility towards trans people. The inconsistency of Ms Braverman’s position further underlines the discriminatory nature of the remarks. Men hold roles within organisations such as Breast Cancer UK, and Endometriosis UK itself includes male staff, without comparable objection. Similarly, a woman serves as Chief Executive of Prostate Cancer UK without controversy, despite not sharing the relevant anatomy. If Ms Braverman holds the belief that Ms Richards is a “man”, then the fact that she has singled her out while overlooking other cisgender men in comparable roles demonstrates that this criticism is not applied consistently, but is instead directed specifically at a trans woman, solely because she is transgender. Taken together, these remarks appear to constitute a misuse of Ms Braverman’s public platform to promote discriminatory and demeaning treatment of a protected group and to undermine the dignity of a named individual. We therefore ask that you investigate whether Ms Braverman’s conduct breaches the House of Commons Code of Conduct, including its requirements to uphold the law, treat individuals with respect, and maintain the reputation of the House. Please confirm receipt of this complaint and advise if any further information is required. Yours faithfully, Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective"
We have raised a formal complaint with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards regarding discriminatory remarks by Suella Braverman MP, about Steph Richards stepping down from Endometriosis South Coast.
@nionwomen.bsky.social well done to everyone at Not In Out Name in hitting over a hundred thousand signatures. Wonderful work ladies our community is sending much love to you all on this amazing achievement 🩵🩷🤍🩷🩵
notinourname.org.uk
Family Beyond the Binary: A study of non-binary people's family experiences. Are you non-binary, 18+ and living in the UK? You are invited to participate in 'Family Beyond the Binary' a groundbreaking research study from UCL and Gendered Intelligence exploring non-binary people's family experiences. The online survey takes around 30 minutes to complete and asks about family relationships, disclosure, wellbeing, stigma and community. You might also be invited to participate in a follow up interview. To find out more visit familybeyondthebinary.co.uk or contact Dr Susie Bower-Brown at s.bower-brown@ucl.ac.uk
Call for research participants! Are you non-binary, aged 18+ and living in the UK?
Would you be willing to spend 30 minutes on a survey on your experiences of family?
qualtrics.ucl.ac.uk/jfe/form/SV_...
Please share! I am a researcher on this project - A short thread to follow. 1/14
I’ve just checked… 99,563!!!
Wouldn’t it be great to get to 100,000 on the first anniversary of the illegal Supreme Court ruling.
So, sign it here👇if you haven’t already done so.
Notinourname.org.uk
Then repost. Tell your family and friends.
Every signature makes a difference!!!
Minister calls for single-sex spaces to be more inclusive Geraldine Scott - Assistant Political Editor Bridget Phillipson told the equality regulator that it must “tone down” its guidance on single-sex spaces and make it more inclusive before she presents it to parliament, The Times understands. The women and equalities minister has not yet published new guidance, which protects single-sex spaces, a year after a Supreme Court ruling defined gender as relating to biological sex in reference to the Equality Act. She has been in talks with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), under its new chair, Mary-Ann Stephenson, and while the guidance itself will not change, the regulator has been asked to include more examples of how organisations can be inclusive within the law. The code of practice, seen by The Times but not yet released publicly, was submitted to ministers in September. The EHRC confirmed yesterday that it had been asked to make changes and had now resubmitted the draft code.
"Bridget Phillipson told the equality regulator that it must “tone down” its guidance on single-sex spaces and make it more inclusive before she presents it to parliament, The Times understands."
Times front page.
The page 2 stuff is all about defence which is not as important as where you pee.
Dear young trans people…
Here’s a little message from Dani St James of Not a Phase :
We love you and we are waiting for you with open arms. You are not alone 💙
"Sign the UK's biggest ever thank you card to the people who choose hope (and hard work) over hate" 📝
There is many examples this fails, for instance a group of disabled gay men also can not form due to this flawed framework. Once again the EHRC supports discrimination of marginalised groups.
Membership of an association of 25 or more people can be limited to men only or women only and can be limited to people who each have two protected characteristics. It can be, for example, for gay men only or lesbian women only. A women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men), and a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans men (biological women).
Is it this lie from their ‘guidance’ in particular? Which would mean for example that a group for Jewish lesbians would be banned as it covered 3 protected groups (race/religion, sex and sexuality)
A further campaign is ongoing relating to the 1992 Workplace regulations run by @transactualuk.bsky.social
Screenshot from the notinourname.org.uk Women in support of the trans+ community website. The words on screen show that 99,000 have signed. Let’s get to 100,000, under a quote that reads: “We want the media and politicians to recognise that there is a large number of women who are supportive of the trans+ community. We call on them to report truthfully about the sources of violence against women and to address the systems that perpetuate harm.”
We crossed 99k signatures yesterday. As we approach the anniversary of the SC ruling tomorrow, we will share some thoughts on updates from our work over the last 12 months.
It looks like our initial target of 100k signatures is firmly in reach, but we won’t stop there.
Thank you everyone 🙏
Bridget Phillipson says “We are getting it right, showing leadership by implementing the clarity the Supreme Court ruling delivers.”
I sincerely hope they, and their counsels, are getting it right, because if it suggests that inclusion could be indirect discrimination, I will still go after them.
For me, a more palatable and less obviously offensive approach to segregation isn't a win, especially where it hits the most vulnerable in our communities.
I'm not meaning to undermine the success of delaying the guidance nor of the potential impacts of tweaks to the guidance.
I don't mean to misrepresent - I was focusing on the use of the word optimistic.
From my limited understanding, there is very little hope of getting guidance that enforces inclusion.
If the current & short term fight is on the phrasing of our exclusion, the word 'optimism' feels hard to read.
Genuine question Jo - When you say optimistic - will my kid be segregated at school from September, yes or no?
If the answer is still yes then the word optimistic is not welcome.
More polite segregation is still segregation. Segregation with occasional exceptions is still segregation.
