Trans people in the UK are at the centre of a political firestorm, but their voices have been largely absent from the laws shaping their lives. For many organisations, this exclusion has led to messy policymaking that fails those it most affects.
Image courtesy of The GuardianYou can simply scroll past—but please don't overlook the importance of an independent queer press.
Time is now or never.
Queer voices disappear without independent journalism to amplify them.
We document what others won't touch.
We hold power to account when it threatens our communities.
This work exists only because you choose to fund it directly.
Donate over €25/month and receive our limited-edition tote bag — a badge of resistance, a statement that you stand for fearless journalism.
We are grateful!
Can't donate? Sharing our work helps more than you think
You can simply scroll past — but please don’t overlook the importance of an independent queer press.
You can simply scroll past—but please don't overlook the importance of an independent queer press.
Time is now or never.
Queer voices disappear without independent journalism to amplify them.
We document what others won't touch.
We hold power to account when it threatens our communities.
This work exists only because you choose to fund it directly.
Donate over €25/month and receive our limited-edition tote bag — a badge of resistance, a statement that you stand for fearless journalism.
We are grateful!
Can't donate? Sharing our work helps more than you think
In response, lawyers from the Trans Legal Clinic, representing Britain’s first openly trans judge, Dr Victoria McCloud, have fired a historic shot: taking the UK Supreme Court’s contentious “biological sex” ruling to the European Court of Human Rights. The Supreme Court had originally rejected McCloud’s request to intervene, so no trans people were heard on an issue fundamentally about trans rights. Her appeal argues this exclusion violated her right to a fair and impartial hearing under Article 6.
This exclusion of trans voices from the Supreme Court ruling has since led to confusing and exclusionary guidance from the UK’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on how to apply it in practice. Consequently, The Good Law Project is gearing up for a November court challenge, arguing the guidance “goes far beyond what the For Women Scotland judgment requires” and effectively amounts to “a bathroom ban for trans people,” prohibiting them from accessing certain public spaces.
For Jess O’Thomson, a spokesperson and representative from the Good Law Project, it is fundamentally “important to involve people with lived experience who can talk about the direct impact that changes in law and policy will have on people’s lives.”
This was a core reason “why we [the Good Law Project] supported the interveners [McCloud and trans academic Stephen Whittle] in the For Women Scotland case. We wanted to avoid the consequences of trans exclusion.”
In their view, judges and policymakers were unable to predict “what we’re now seeing. Not just as a consequence of the decision itself, but all the things they didn’t think about, simply because the process lacked any voices that could have told them this was going to happen.”
This lack of knowledge has fueled confusion as politicians wrestle with the ruling and the EHRC’s guidance. Providing ‘clarity’ is how Prime Minister Keir Starmer appraised the Supreme Court ruling. Then, on April 22, Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson – now a favourite to take over Angela Rayner’s Deputy PM spot – leaned on the same word while MPs from various parties raised critical concerns from constituents and organisations alike.
Yet, clarity is rarely something that has to be insisted on. By definition, it is obvious. And, judging by the mounting criticism since, the label is now showing its own precarious face.
Hundreds of doctors and academics have written directly to Phillipson, arguing ‘biological sex’ as a binary political term ignores human diversity and makes an unsafe basis for policy. Thirty-three Labour MPs have appealed to the EHRC to reconsider its stance. The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has even called for the EHRC to be stripped of its accreditation by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, an extraordinary rebuke for a UK body.
Jess O’Thomson is clear: “If trans people were given more authority over their own lives, experiences, and how their human rights should be enabled and respected, this decision and its broader interpretation could have never happened.” They stress that, “including trans people’s perspectives means you make better legal decisions. It means you reach better outcomes because you’re drawing directly from that expertise.”
Even Baroness Falkner, the EHRC’s chair, who will step down in December, admitted on September 5th that, “Everybody I speak to, every institution I speak to, says: ‘Can you tell us what we’re supposed to do?’” This stark admission demonstrates the opaqueness and chaos resulting from the exclusion of trans voices from discussions on trans rights.
Some reads you might like…
- Dr Victoria McCloud, the UK’s first trans judge, tells GAY45 that the UK is establishing a “regime of oppression” against trans people as she prepares to open her legal challenge against the government
- In May, trans women across Britain protested the Supreme Court by taking to the street topless, asking: “If we’re men, why is this a protest?”
But while recent shifts suggest a greater willingness to include trans voices, in practice these efforts have often fallen short. For example, many have seen the EHRC’s approach as inadequate at best and disingenuous at worst.
Released just eight days after the Supreme Court ruling, the EHRC’s interim guidance drew widespread criticism. Its guidance suggested trans people could be banned not only from facilities matching their gender but also those matching their birth sex if their appearance caused a “reasonable objection”: a potential total bathroom ban.
The EHRC proposed an initial two week consultation, however after pressure from NGOs and MPs, this was extended to six; still half the usual 12 weeks for complex issues. While the guidance technically came before the consultation, campaigners argue its release during the same window effectively predetermined the outcome. Over 50,000 pages of submissions were received, however a large proportion were processed using AI. With the results now in the hands of Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson, doubts persist about whether concerns will be genuinely addressed.
In the words of the Good Law Project: “The EHRC never took the consultation seriously: they proposed an unrealistic two-week window, they published transphobic interim guidance in the middle of it and then refused to consult on their legal position. Now, they’re refusing to read responses they did get.”
O’Thomson highlights that, “There are numerous, incredibly intelligent and expert trans people who have contributed responses that are an absolutely thorough demolition of everything currently proposed,” adding, “if it actually was serious about listening to trans voices, the EHRC would be completely changing course.”
O’Thomson is confident that true inclusion brings tangible change. They point to the Trans Solidarity Alliance’s mass lobby in Parliament, the largest LGBTQ+ lobby in British history. On June 25, 2025, nearly a thousand trans people met MPs and Lords at Westminster, an effort rivalled in scale only by the 1980s fight against Section 28.
Having spoken to both attendees and politicians, they emphasise how personal encounters can change perspectives. “What organisers say is that MPs’ minds were genuinely changed that day. When you have a real person in front of you, a real constituent, it’s very different.”
After relentless media coverage, “trans people have been turned into a concept, whereas in reality they’re just people living their lives, they have been for decades, and they’ve been going to the loo like everyone else.
“When people look you in the eyes, they realise ‘oh, you’re a person too!’ And I think part of the importance of trans people being in the room, having these conversations, is because it’s much harder to hate them when they’re there and human and in front of you.”
O’Thomson believes, though it may seem unlikely, that real change is possible. They say, “it’s about bravery. People spend so much time talking about all the things they wish we had. And I think the approach of the community should be – if you think the thing should exist, go and build it.”
They note, “sometimes people don’t have the confidence in themselves and their skills. They think they lack some sort of magical qualification. But you gain the expertise when you just go out there and do it. So people should put themselves out there more. That’s how we build our power.”
O’Thomson reminds us that “Politics, parliament, is ultimately made up of people. It’s possible to talk to the people within them.”
They believe the ruling was “one of the worst mistakes the gender criticals [i.e., trans-exclusionary feminists] ever made. They went too far too fast. This was such a big shift that it made people notice. So a lot of trans people and cis allies have been energised.”
As a result, “The Good Law Project has had a groundswell of support. From our crowdfunders we’ve raised a significant amount. We’re so lucky that our supporters really care about this work.”
O’Thomson highlight the need to understand how “so much time and energy has been given to people who want to take people’s human rights away, while very little time and energy has been given to those who want to protect them.”
On the Supreme Court, they add, “we should never have been in a position where this case was heard without trans voices; there needs to be a lot of reflection on how that happened.”
They see this fight as part of a wider movement. “I think one has to understand the wider context of attacks against LGBT rights. What we’re seeing now are challenges to women’s reproductive autonomy – like abortion and access to contraception – that are based on the same arguments originally used to restrict teenagers’ access to contraception, which were themselves derived from arguments weaponised against trans people.
“The whole point was, and is, to erode human rights broadly, including reproductive and bodily autonomy.”
It was never just going to be about trans people. Of course, it is about trans people. We matter. It should have been enough that it was about trans people, but it isn’t. It’s part of a wider far-right rise. This is a fight for all of us.”
By excluding trans voices, Britain has created laws that are unworkable, and unjust. Until trans people are recognised as experts in their own lives, ‘clarity’ will be no more than an empty, dishonest claim.
As O’Thomson reminds us, “We have expertise on our own lives. We are a community of intelligent, talented, and interesting people who have a lot to contribute. We just need to be listened to.”
Only when trans people are centred in shaping the laws that govern them will justice move from rhetoric to reality. In the words of the Trans Legal Clinic as it heads to the European Court of Human Rights, there exists “a simple truth: there must be no more conversations about us without us.”
Subscribe to our newsletter here.
* * *
When we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction. If you spot an error, please let us know.
* * *
You can listen to our podcast Queer News & Journalism on your favourite platform or go to our YouTube Channel @GAY45mag.
* * *
Let us know what you think at taylor@gay45.eu.
* * *
Submit a letter to the editor at servus@gay45.eu.
* * *
We appreciate it. Thanks for reading.
