#queer uk

Resisting Transphobia in Edinburgh applauds the City of Edinburgh Council for voting today, by an overwhelming majority, to condemn the transphobic new guidance from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

We are grateful to Councillors Alex Staniforth and Alys Mumford whose motion not only included powerful and unequivocal language calling the guidance “discriminatory, unworkable, and incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights,” but also laid out several concrete actions for the Council to take in response.

We were proud to send a deputation to speak at the meeting. Zoe Harding delivered a blistering speech on our behalf that made clear the genocidal intent of the EHRC’s latest move, along with heartbreaking testimony that laid bare the harm already being done.

We were also glad to hear the forceful and moving deputations from Scottish Trans, Trans Pride Scotland, and the Education Institute Scotland, as well as the impassioned speeches from the Scottish Liberal Democrat and Scottish National Party Councillors supporting the motion.

The EHRC’s new code of practice is nothing short of an attempt to erase trans people from public life. It mandates discrimination, promotes hostility, and shreds human rights that have been settled for decades. It also raises potential threats to gender non-conforming women, in particular women of colour, and threatens women’s equality with its narrow definition of womanhood. Just the threat of its implementation has already caused material, physical harm to trans people across Edinburgh and the UK. People we know. People we love. Adults and children alike. Today Edinburgh Council responded to the guidance with exactly the energy it deserves – a full-throated rebuke. We hope other local authorities across the UK soon follow suit.

Full text of Councillor Staniforth’s motion: (link)

Full agenda, including a link to the webcast: (link)

Full text of Zoe Harding’s deputation on behalf of RTiE below the cut:

March with us at Edinburgh pride 26'. We'll be meeting from 12:15 outside the Holyrood Park information centre.

Reject sex based segregation, join the fight for liberation. The EHRC seeks the social murder of trans people, not only by pushing us out of public life but by barring us from essential services. We must fight it at every turn.

Queer and trans liberation stands alongside and within the fight for racial justice and decolonisation. We reject the pink washing of genocidal states and corporations at home and abroad.

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.

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.

I have one depressing story and one tiny good thing to share.

The Derbyshire spa town of Matlock is known for the joyful flags adorning its historic high street. The St George’s Cross, the union flag, the county flag and the Pride flag flutter brightly above the town’s many independent businesses.

That was until a row erupted that has divided the town, after the mysterious disappearance of a Pride flag turned out to be the work of the very council that had installed it.

It's hard to know what's true here. As reported:

A gay woman gave the council money to replace tatty flags

The council included a Pride flag

The Christian bookshop complained

The flag was removed

Possibly because of the risk of someone injuring themselves if they tried to remove it? (But then why not fly it somewhere else where this wouldn't be possible?)

The council says more flags have been ordered... despite them being under Reform UK whose basical philosophy is "down with that sort of thing"

Basically it doesn't feel good.

Tiny good thing:

I was out the other night and spotted this

I mean. I'm not very much in favour of rainbow washing, and I've never heard much good about Persimmon homes.

But putting up the Progress Pride flag, in Pride Month, on Terf Island?! That's actually not nothing.