Resisting Transphobia in Edinburgh

The UK has become much more hostile to trans people in recent years. A particularly troubling instance is that the government is passing a new Equality Act Code of Practice for service providers.

Should this become official, it will recommend businesses open to the public with single-sex spaces (like toilets or changing rooms) or single sex services (like a men’s support group) become more exclusionary towards trans people. These changes have been lobbied for by right wing newspapers and anti-trans organizations funded by / tied to American conservative movements. We believe this approach is harmful to the safety, dignity, and rights of trans people and others who may not have a conventional gender presentation.

As a service provider, you are now placed in a difficult position. This document is not intended to be formal legal advice, rather a few things we (concerned trans people and allies) ask you to keep in mind as you consider if and how to make changes to your policies.

• The new Code of Practice recommends trans exclusion (trans women may not use the women’s toilets). However, some service providers (including many UK universities) have decided to maintain trans-inclusion (trans women may use the women’s toilets) anyway. Unions like the University and College Union have argued for the same approach.

• Trans exclusion has generally been found to violate trans people’s rights under international law.

• For everyday facilities like toilets and changing rooms, unisex / gender neutral options are possible – provided there are private, lockable ‘rooms’. If you can offer this set up, that may be your best option for both following the code and remaining trans inclusive.

• The code is clear that for services everyone must use (like toilets and changing rooms), trans people should not be left with no option.

• The code does allow that someone might be asked (politely and privately) about their birth sex. But says this should be rare. We would strongly suggest this should never be done. It will increase the hostile environment towards trans people. You cannot know someone’s birth sex for sure, so will invariably get it wrong. Your staff may not want to do this, or feel it is discriminatory. And making them do this may create other legal liabilities.

• Be aware that there is a lot of misinformation being pushed by anti-trans groups. Be careful who you take information from.

• If you feel you are able to offer a service that remains trans inclusive, or the facilities in your setting remain trans inclusive, please advertise that fact. For instance, displaying a trans flag, or ‘trans people are welcome here’ sign. The world is feeling very oppressive right now and solidarity helps.

This is a legal issue for service providers, but also a moral one. We suggest that you discuss this carefully internally and, where possible, take specialist legal advice.

The new EHRC Code of Practice was placed before the UK Parliament by the Minister for Women and Equalities on the 21st May 2026.

It automatically comes into force after 40 days unless a specific motion to reject it is raised and passed by either House.

Please write to your MP telling them why you believe they should object to the new code.

You can use: https://www.writetothem.com/

You can make the following points and please personalise:

…………………………………………………………

The new code disadvantages trans people despite the Supreme Court insisting that their April 2025 ruling should not do so.

Evidence from criminological and human rights research shows that transgender women do not pose a heightened risk to women’s safety. Instead, data indicates that trans women are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of violence and discrimination than the perpetrators of it.

Many feminists are already describing the new code as one that targets trans people and is failing women.  Why is this?

It is a known fact that women face an epidemic of violence in the UK, but despite clear and consistent data pointing to the source of this epidemic, men who abuse their power, something has been lost in translation.

As the campaign group ‘Not In Our Name Women’ puts it:

“These changes have been presented as necessary for women’s safety. Yet they do nothing to address the actual violence and inequality women face every day.”

“Instead of genuinely addressing the known sources of harm to women – the media, certain politicians and even the EHRC have directed their focus towards the trans+ community instead, a tiny, marginalised group who are being used as an easy target and an effective distraction.”

These are the voices of over 100,000 women and they should be listened to.

But as well as pointing at the wrong target there are also the social risks to women from the code itself.

Cisgender women, particularly Black and Asian women, or those who do not strictly conform to traditional feminine stereotypes, are already experiencing increased hostility and harassment when attempting to use female-designated toilets.

So when an establishment may legally, according to the code, challenge you based on “physique or physical appearance” the situation is only going to get worse.

Excluding trans people will not make women safer. Now, more than ever, we need the media and politicians to report truthfully about the sources of violence and oppression that affect women, both cis and trans, and meaningfully address these longstanding issues by bringing affected communities together, not scapegoating a vulnerable minority.

For more information please attend the Not in Our Name briefing to be hosted by Kate Osborne MP.

…………………………………………………………

Please write to your MSPs telling them why you believe they should speak out against the new code.

The same reasons still apply, but at the end simply ask them, should the new code become law, how the Scottish Government will respond.

You may also wish to point out to them that:

The Scottish Government can legally challenge the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), primarily through the process of judicial review in the courts.

Before enacting new policies or revising existing practices, the Scottish Government uses EHRC guidance to conduct Equality and Fairer Scotland Impact Assessments. These assessments require policymakers to:

• Gather Evidence: Collect data on how proposed policies might differentially impact individuals with protected characteristics (e.g., race, disability, age, sex)

• Consult Communities: Engage directly with affected groups to inform the policy’s design.

• Publish Findings: Ensure transparent reporting on how the policy aims to eliminate discrimination and advance equality.

…………………………………………………………

Credits

Much of the above is based on the work done by:

Not In Our Name Women:

Targeting trans people, failing women – the EHRC update

NION Women Head to Parliament

The Guardian:

Gender non-conforming women tell of toilet abuse after UK’s supreme court ruling

Tony Buckle:

EHRC Statutory Code of Practice Overview

UK government:

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Parliament Committees

Williams Institute:

Targeting trans people, failing women – the EHRC Update - An analysis by Toby Buckle

On Thursday 21st May The government unveiled the new Statutory Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations. It marks a significant change in how equality law has been interpreted. Specifically, its likely impact will be to make day to day life in the UK less trans-inclusive with respect to single-sex spaces such as toilets or changing rooms. It has been compared by many (in my view accurately) to a US style ‘bathroom ban’. 

This document is intended to give a clear, accessible overview of what it says, what that means in practice, and how those of us who support trans inclusion might communicate what is happening to a larger public. 

This should not be taken as formal legal advice, either for an individual or business. Rather, this is an informal first attempt to make sense of the changes and how to talk about them in the immediate aftermath of the new code. 

Some basic notes to keep in mind

The code is advice on civil law, not criminal. This is essentially about how services and business can operate to reduce their risk of getting sued (and win if they do). In this case, if they have single-sex spaces like toilets and changing rooms, how should they set those up and what policies they have around their use. 

The Code does not cover toilet and changing room use in the workplace, that’s a separate set of issues. 

The code is by no means always clear and straightforward, or even internally consistent. This is my best attempt to make sense of what it says after careful reading and consulting with subject matter specialists, but other interpretations are likely viable. 

The code is not official yet. It is being implemented by a process called a ‘statutory implement’, meaning MPs have 40 days to object to it.

We should realistically expect that MPs will not object to it (or not enough will) and it will become official. 

What does this mean for toilet use?

The biggest upshot is that services must now operate on a trans-exclusionary basis . If a toilet, changing room, or other ‘single-sex’ space or service is designated as for women only this must exclude trans women. (On the basis that it must exclude people whose assigned sex at birth (termed “biological sex” in the code) is male.) 

Likewise, a men’s only space must exclude trans men.

Trans people may also be excluded from toilets (and other single-sex spaces and services) that match their gender at birth. For example, a trans man may be prohibited from using the women’s toilets, on the grounds that he is likely to be perceived as a man. 

If an establishment decides to exclude trans people from both the toilets of their gender, and their sex assigned at birth (so not allow a trans man to use either the men’s or women’s) they must provide a 3rd space. For example, a gender neutral toilet, or make a disabled toilet available for this purpose. 

For services everyone must use (like toilets), trans people should not be left without any options. 

What would happen if a trans person continued to use the toilets of their gender?

The biggest risks here would likely be in the workplace (which the code does not cover). An employer obviously knows you and may fire you for going against a company policy. 

For toilet use in bars, restaurants, and so on the law is structured so the obligations fall on the provider, not the customer.

An establishment may, according to the code, challenge you based on “physique or physical appearance.” They would also likely be able to ask you to leave and/or bar you from the premises if they felt you were violating their toilet/ changing room policy.

There are also social risks. We know instances of harassment and intimidation have increased, both against trans people, queer people, and those whose presentation doesn’t match a gender stereotype.

Ultimately this is likely to be a case-by-case decision based on the individual, circumstance, risk tolerance, and situation. 

What rights do trans people retain?

For toilet and changing room use trans people should not be left with no option. If an establishment tells you (or their policy says) that there is no toilet you can use, that likely constitutes discrimination on their part. 

Establishments should not (as was suggested in a previous version of the code) be conducting document checks—i.e asking for a birth certificate. This is now ruled out.

If the establishment asks you for your ‘biological sex’ this must be done in a polite and private manner. You should not be asked this in earshot of others, or in a way that uses demanding language. 

You are still protected from discrimination based on gender reassignment. (Although the above prohibitions on toilet use are not held to constitute that).

How to communicate this to the broader public 

This will depend on context and will likely evolve over time. As a starting point, here’s some things I would stress:

This is an American style ‘bathroom ban’ of the type that was widely decried by our politicians only a few years previously.

It’s hostile to trans people’s dignity and privacy as they are expected to continually ‘out’ themselves by asking which toilets they are allowed to use.

It is also a threat to trans people’s safety—trans women will be expected in many instances to use the men’s toilets. 

It violates trans people’s rights under international law. (EU caselaw has long held that trans people cannot be treated as members of a ‘3rd sex’ which this does). 

The way this has happened has been profoundly anti-democratic. No one voted for this (the Labour 2024 manifesto was moderately pro-trans). It will not get parliamentary scrutiny or (very likely) a vote.  

This is all based on a complete lie—namely that trans women are a threat to cis women’s safety and that gender identity is being exploited to attack (cis)women in toilets. There is no evidence for this (every actual study done finds no relationship between trans-inclusivity and bathroom crime). There isn’t even anecdotal evidence for this. 

This is all a political choice: Politicians often frame this as them just going along with what the supreme court (and/or EHRC) said. But parliament is constitutionally superior to both. At any point the government could amend the 2010 Equality act to clarify it should be interpreted in a trans-inclusive way. Or they could pass stand along legislation formalising a trans-inclusive legal regime. 

In a couple of sentences, perhaps:

This is a US-style bathroom ban that directly harms trans people’s safety, privacy, and rights based on discriminatory lies. The way it happened was dumb and anti-democratic, the government can and should legislate for trans-inclusion instead.

Join us Monday for a picnic at the Botanic Gardens. Let's Plot!

Key details

Botanic Gardens picnic

Monday 25 May, 12pm

Meeting point: farms.ports.summer on the East side of the pond, near the East Gate

Getting there

The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh has two entrances: the West Gate on Arboretum Place (EH3 5NZ) and the East Gate on Inverleith Row (EH3 5LP).

Bus: The Garden's East Gate entrance on Inverleith Row is served by bus routes 8, 9, 23 and 27 from the City Centre. The West Gate (John Hope Gateway visitor centre) on Arboretum Place is served by Lothian Buses 29 and 24 via Stockbridge and the Majestic Bus Tour (0131 220 0770).

Bicycle: Bicycle stands can be found at the East Gate and the West Gate.

Car: There is metered on-street parking available near the Garden’s West Gate (John Hope Gateway) on Arboretum Place. Blue Badge parking spaces are located on Arboretum Place, see the Accessibility section of our website for more information.

Accessibility

Benches are available for seating near the meeting point.

Mobility scooters and manual wheelchairs can be booked for two hours at a time. Supply is limited. To book, call 0131 248 2909.

More accessibility information: https://www.rbge.org.uk/visit/royal-botanic-garden-edinburgh/access/

What to bring

• something to sit on

• food for yourself or to share

• water (there is a Scottish Water point to refill water bottles near the East Gate)

• sun cream

Sunshine on Leith, May 16th

A big thank you to the Equality Network for the invitation to Pride in Our Community.  We were blessed by a day in the sunshine, the company of friends, and some dance lessons from the wonderful Bollywood Dance Community.

Scotland elects two trans MSPs in historic first, May 9th

RTiE would like to extend our hearty congratulations to Dr Q Manivannan and Iris Duane, Scotland’s first trans MSPs! We were privileged to hear Dr Manivannan speak at our march last year, when thousands of people joined us to protest the notorious For Women Scotland decision. Edinburgh turned up then, and we have turned up again, as Dr Manivannan will be representing us in Edinburgh and Lothians East.

It’s also worth noting that the Scottish Green Party, the only party to include trans rights in their manifesto, elected their first constituency MSP in Edinburgh Central. Lorna Slater joined RTiE members recently at last month’s Guiders Against Trans Exclusion protest.

Read more about these results, including Dr Manivannan’s acceptance speech, at The Canary. 

RTiE joins May Day rally in Edinburgh

Several RTiE members joined the radical bloc on 2 May in Edinburgh, where the emphasis was on solidarity and included a Palestine bloc. It was a great turnout, and lovely to see so many people standing against the attempts to divide us.

Supporting the right to abortion, 25th April

Bodily autonomy is a human right.

RTiE have been welcomed as supporters of this Abortion Rights Scotland protest for the last couple of years, and we were there to fly the flag again in April.  Every year is a reminder that the anti-abortionists have not given up, and that we will show up to oppose them and to support free, safe, legal, and local abortion services.

Help save the Lavender Menace Queer Books Archive

Time and time again the Lavender Menace have stood in solidarity with the Trans Community.  They are the only queer books archive in Scotland, and they need our support to continue protecting queer history – and to create more!  Please help them out if you possibly can.

Thank you to Augustine United Church!

A big thank you to everyone for the Trans Social Space at the Augustine United Church, for the counter protest at the Scottish Parliament on 11th April and for supporting Guiders Against Trans Exclusion on the 12th.  Please follow the links above on how things went.

Trans Pride Scotland, 28 March

With Trans Pride Scotland happening on 28th March and no plans for a march, some of us teamed up with friendly faces in the Radical Independence Campaign for a stroll down the High Street.   We then gently detached ourselves at the Parliament for a proud party.

Trans Day of Visibility, 27 March

On a day dedicated to celebrating the Transgender community and our allies, we celebrated Trans Joy with storytelling, zine making, refreshments, crafts and placard making for Trans Pride Scotland at Augustine United Church.  This event was organised in partnership with Augustine United Church, Resisting Transphobia in Edinburgh and Metropolitan Community Church.

RTiE join counter-demo against racist rally in Edinburgh

21st March saw a far right group hold a racist rally outside the Scottish Parliament.  These weren’t just a disorganised bunch of hotel shouters – two of their key speakers were members of the Homeland Party and the Patriotic Alternative, hardcore Nazi organisations. Folk from RTiE joined a counter protest, marching to the Parliament and making friends at a thousand strong anti-racist party led by ‘Cabaret Against the Hate’.  Nazis can’t dance.  Have a look at  Instagram for more on this.

At International Women’s Day

Join us for Trans Pride Scotland - 12:30 - 28th March 2026 - Outside the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh!

With Trans Pride Scotland happening on 28th March and no plans for a march, some of us are planning to team up with friendly faces in the Radical Independence Campaign (RIC) radical bloc for a stroll down the High Street, then gently detaching ourselves at the Parliament to join the Trans Pride Scotland event. Look out for the Resisting Transphobia in Edinburgh banner.

RIC is assembling at 11:30am on the front steps of St Giles' Cathedral. They are looking forward to seeing us there!

The Radical Independence Campaign radical bloc is marching as part of 'Believe in Scotland' on the theme of "A Scotland for All, Against Racism and Fascism" and is being supported by the Republican Socialist Platform, Scottish Socialist Youth, SNP Socialists and rs21 Edinburgh.

'Believe in Scotland' is the national coordinating campaign of the grassroots Scottish independence movement. It is a coalition of 142 national and local Yes groups including the SNP and the Scottish Greens.

Celebration for Transgender Day of Visibility!

This event is dedicated to celebrating the Transgender community and our allies.

Let’s celebrate Trans Joy.

Come along for a social time with storytelling, zine making, refreshments, crafts and placard making for Trans Pride Scotland, at Augustine United Church, 41-43 George IV Bridge, Edinburgh, EH1 1EL on Friday 27th March from 5.30pm to 8.30pm.

Changing space available and step free disabled access.

This event is organised in partnership with Augustine United Church, Resisting Transphobia in Edinburgh and Metropolitan Community Church.

This article is reproduced with the kind permission of Dr Ruth Pearce. For this and other work by Dr Pearce see https://ruthpearce.net/

This consultation currently applies in England, but would Scottish Labour do better?

In May 1988, the Conservative government introduced Section 28. This legal measure outlawed support for “homosexuality as a pretended family relationship” across Britain, especially in schools. While Section 28 was eventually repealed between 2000 and 2003, it has had a long legacy of harm. Most LGBTIQ+ people who lived through it have never forgiven the politicians responsible.

In February 2026, following a similar pattern of escalating moral panic and extremist rhetoric against trans people (including non- binary people), the Labour government looks set to introduce its own version of Section 28, in the form of proposed revisions to the guidance on “keeping children safe in education” in England. These proposals seek to erase trans children: through extreme restrictions on social transition, toilet and sports bans, and censorship of the word “trans” itself. Like Section 28, they will most likely also create a wider chilling effect, reducing support for lesbian, gay, bi, and gender-nonconforming young people as well.

There are some important differences between the situation in the 1980s and today. Section 28 provided a strong rallying point for action in part because it was a single, explicitly homophobic, and powerfully impactful legal clause. Labour’s transphobia has been a lot more piecemeal, and complicated by an endless series of messy court cases, including this week’s extremely unclear High Court ruling on proposed segregation measures in the workplace and public services. Meanwhile, many Labour politicians continue to claim that they oppose transphobia, even as they support the most actively transphobic government in British history.

It is for this reason that we need to be loud, clear, and explicit about the active danger posed by Labour government policy. And this danger is explicit in the new proposals for “keeping children safe in education”.

What is the new schools guidance?

“Keeping children safe in education” is statutory guidance for schools in colleges in England. As “statutory” guidance, the document effectively operates as part of English law. It is regularly updated by UK governments, and the Labour government is now consulting on proposed revisions for 2026.

It is these proposed revisions that pose a threat to the safety of young trans people.

Importantly, this is not the same as the draft non-statutory guidance on “Gender Questioning Children” introduced by the Conservative government in late 2023. That guidance was not law, and was never formally adopted by the government – although in practice, many schools changed their policies and practice because of it.

However, Labour’s new proposed revisions to the guidance on “keeping children safe” are clearly influenced by that Conservative document, as well as the Cass Review, and the 2025 anti-trans Supreme Court judgement in For Women Scotland vs The Scottish Ministers.

In 2023 I outlined some key issues with the Conservative guidance. Here are those points, with notes on what has changed or been kept the same, as Labour seek to bring the Tory proposals into law.

Trans students are presented as an implicit danger to themselves and others. This is still effectively the case in the 2026 proposals, which position a young person coming out as a major safeguarding issue.

Schools are told to out trans students. This is still effectively the case in the 2026 proposals, which ban measures to protect trans students’ privacy (see toilets and changing rooms) and encourage schools to tell parents if their child is is “questioning their gender”.

Schools are encouraged to intentionally misgender students. This is still effectively the case in the 2026 proposals, which draw on the Cass Review to discourage support for social transition.

Schools are told to ban trans girls from girls’ toilets and changing rooms, and ban trans boys from boys’ toilets and changing rooms. This point is made even more strongly in the 2026 proposals, which draw on the 2025 Supreme Court decision to call for a complete trans toilet ban.

School uniforms should be worn according to “biological sex”. This is one of the few Tory proposals which has been dropped from the 2026 proposals. The new proposals instead state that schools and colleges “should consider adopting policies across school and college life that maintain flexibility and avoid rigid rules based on gender stereotypes”.

For sports, schools are told to “adopt clear rules which mandate separate-sex participation”. This is still the case in the 2026 proposals, which explicitly ban participation “in sports designated for the opposite sex”.

The guidance entirely ignores legal protections for young trans people. This is almost entirely the case for the 2026 proposals, which acknowledge possible Equality Act protections on the grounds of “gender reassignment” in one short footnote.

The guidance does not actually use the word “trans” once. This is still the case in the 2026 proposals. Young trans people are instead referred to as “gender questioning“. The document also uses the term “LGB” instead of “LGBT”. The language of trans or non-binary identity and experience is entirely erased.

Safeguarding and risk

“Keeping children safe in education” is a safeguarding document. The idea of the guidance is to manage risk, and help prevent harm to young people. Yet the Labour government’s proposed changes will have the opposite effect.

Discrimination and exclusion hurts people, especially young people. If implemented, the new guidelines will ensure that schools cannot possibly be an affirming or safe space for young trans people. This will be especially dangerous for the many young trans people who do not have a safe home environment, due to the transphobia of their parents, carers, or guardians. My own research has shown how an absence of affirmation can put young trans people at risk of sexual exploitation and statutory rape. These risks can be mitigated where people are able to socially transition in a safe, supportive environment.

This leads me on to the biggest issue with the proposed guidelines: their fearmongering and misinformation around social transition.

Social transition

Social transition describes a range of things a person might do to affirm their own gender. These things might include: a change of clothes or haircut, a change of name, and/or a change in pronouns. Social transition describes a series of choices that are linked to coming out as trans or otherwise gender diverse (e.g. non-binary, genderqueer, genderfluid). Social transition can also be a stage of experimentation or questioning, where young people figure out what is right for themselves. The changes we make may be temporary, or permanent: but regardless, these are deeply personal decisions.

In the Labour government’s proposed changes to the “Keeping children safe in education”, social transition is represented as a problem. The document recommends that “Schools and colleges should take a very careful approach”, and that “Primary schools should exercise particular caution, and we would expect support for full social transition to be agreed very rarely”. It further states that “a [school’s] decision relating to social transition may not be the same as a child’s wishes”.

This guidance is justified through reference to the final report of the Cass Review, a document which pathologises social transition by insisting that it should only be undertaken with medical guidance. This recommendation is as dangerous as it is offensive. Social transition is a personal decision linked to coming out. Doctors should have no role in deciding how someone dresses, or what name or pronoun they use.

The Cass Review has been widely discredited and condemned globally by researchers, medical practitioners, and community groups with relevant experience and expertise. This is in part because its most controversial recommendations are informed by pseudoscience and misrepresentation of evidence. For example, the Cass Review found no actual evidence of harm caused by social transition. Instead, it positions transition as a problem in and of itself. Its recommendations have been adopted as part of an eliminationist drive to erase trans existence entirely.

Speaking to the Metro this week, Dr Cal Horton, an expert in trans childhood, explained:

“Trans children need to be supported and respected in order to be safe at school, in order to access their right to education, in order to enjoy their childhood. Instead, we are seeing a complete ban on access to appropriate toilets, PE, accommodation on school trips, a complete erosion of their rights. It will lead to children avoiding the bathroom, avoiding exercise, missing out on school trips, dropping out of school, losing any hope of education, equality, friendship, happiness.”

I agree with Dr Horton. Furthermore, I believe these are the intended outcomes of the new Labour government proposals. As with Section 28, young people are presented with a choice between state-mandated abuse, or staying in the closet. The overall aim is to stop trans children from existing altogether.

As with Section 28, these hateful guidelines will never fully succeed in their aims. If implemented, they will certainly cause enormous harm. Yet trans kids are powerful and know their own minds, and many will continue to come out.

It is incumbent on us to fight with them for liberation.

Act by 22 April

We have two months to fight back against the Labour government’s new Section 28, as a consultation on the proposed guidelines is open until Wednesday 22 April.

One of the most obvious things you can do is respond to the consultation. This will likely be a long and discouraging process, so if you choose to respond, I encourage you to give yourself as much time as possible to work on it. There will also likely be consultation guidance produced by organisations such as Trans Actual and Gendered Intelligence. I will update this post as soon as that is available.

You can find the UK Government’s consultation page here. Note that they are consulting on a series of wider changes to the “Keeping children safe in education” guidance, not just the section on “gender questioning children”. Scroll to the bottom of the page for consultation document, full draft guidance, and a summary document.

At the same time, you may quite reasonably distrust government consultation processes at this point. I know I do. The consultation on the EHRC’s trans segregation plans last summer received approximately 50,000 responses, which were fed into AI instead of being read by human beings. If media reports from the likes of The Times are to be believed, the EHRC then simply produced the same hostile guidelines they were planning to all along.

Fortunately, there are a lot of other things you can do to oppose Labour’s new Section 28, including:

Writing to your MP

Organising against the proposals within your union

Organising against the proposals with other parents or students

Asking your local school’s headteacher or board of governors to speak out against it

Banning the Labour Party from your local Pride (if they’re not already banned!)

Supporting trans youth groups

Supporting youth-led campaign groups, especially Trans Kids Deserve Better

Planning or supporting protests against the Government, Department for Education, and Labour Party

I’ve written about these ideas and more in two previous blogs posts. Both are also available as downloadable zines, so feel free to share these freely, either as PDFs or through printing them out and sharing them around.

New Year’s Resolution: Smash the new Section 28 (2024)

But what can I do? How to fight the trans panic (2025)

I am hoping to update the first one at some point to more explicitly address the latest proposals. However, I am not realistically sure when I will have the time or capacity. You are therefore welcome to create your own updated version too if you want, as long as you don’t sell it for profit, or misrepresent any of my original words or messages.

If you seek to understand criticisms of the Cass Review, or collate evidence for sharing others, I am maintaining an ever-growing roundup of academic research, commentary from medical experts, and statements from community groups here:

What’s wrong with the Cass Review?

…and if we fail?

The original Section 28 was met with a storm of protest. LGBTQ people rallied across the UK. Ian McKellen came out as gay on live radio to speak out against it. Lesbian activists disrupted the BBC news, and abseiled into the House of Lords. The campaign group Stonewall was founded to oppose the new law.

None of this succeeded in stopping Section 28. But it did provide the initial momentum for a long, gruelling, yet eventually entirely successful campaign for its repeal. In the process, an entirely new wave of campaigning groups and activists emerged – including Queer Youth Network, where I cut my own teeth as a young campaigner.

The Conservative Party, meanwhile, never fully shook off the legacy of Section 28. They are still distrusted by many queer and trans voters for the harm they caused to entire generations.

If the Labour Party similarly proceeds with its plans for trans segregation and erasure in schools and beyond, we must never forget. Their legacy will be one of bigotry and hatred – and it is up to us to ensure their policies fail.

In just one week, the Council of Europe will be voting to ban conversion therapy. This would be an incredibly important step to stop the rollback in the rights of LGBTQ+ people. But Sex Matters is infiltrating the vote. They have set up a tool for transphobes to email the MPs that are part of the council, bullying them to uphold transphobic ideas and asking them to vote against a ban. The British parliamentarians who represent us in the council should represent what the people actually want, instead of reflecting the views of a small, hateful minority. After all, banning conversion therapy was in the government’s manifesto – let’s make sure they keep their word. We have to stop this. Email the MPs and let them know they don’t have to bend down to Sex Matter’s transphobic threats, they can stand up for what’s right. We only have a week, but together, we can stop hate.

It has been a busy year! Thank you and Happy New Year to all the wonderful people who made this happen, both those who got involved in person, and supporters who spread the word on social media!

Below the cut is a look back on many of the major things RTiE has been involved with in 2025.

New Community Zine: Supreme Injustice

Compiled after the unjust and discriminatory Supreme Court ruling against trans rights on 16 April 2025, as well as the subsequent EHRC guidance, this zine documents and archives trans people’s voices, art and resistance in the direct aftermath of the ruling.