by

Supreme Court auto-reply: 2026 anti-segregation edition

What if every person who emailed you faced the reality of the UK’s segregation regime?

Last year I created an internal auto-reply for my work email, in the wake of the 2025 Supreme Court judgement which redefined sex for the purpose of the Equality Act and undermined the civil rights of trans people in Britain. I explained the logic for this in a blog post about it:

“It is impossible for me to forget what is happening to trans people and especially trans people in the UK, so I will ensure it is impossible for my colleagues to forget this also. Equally, my intention is to transform bad feelings into understanding, and practical action.”

One year on, and the auto-reply is still there. It’s come and gone a bit, been amended and updated, and now goes to every single person who emails me, internally and externally, be they a colleague, a student, a community collaborator, a journalist, or anyone else who might be in contact. It has been impossible for me to experience any kind of normality at work during this time, so I do not believe that anyone contacting me should expect me to act as if nothing significant is happening. Most recently, I updated the auto-reply to respond to the EHRC’s new Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations, which provides a formal framework for the segregation of trans people in most areas of public life.

I know the auto-reply has been actively useful. I have received messages from people thanking me for it, and from those who have adopted it for their own purposes. The most surprising response was a hand-written letter sent by air mail from a scholar based at George Washington University in Washington DC, who had originally been in contact about peer review for a journal I edit. She very kindly thanked me for “providing background, advice regarding how to respond proactively, information regarding further reading as well as resources for those who need support“.

I was deeply moved that she took the time and care to contact me in this way. This reminded me how when we share ideas and information, it can reach and help people in unexpected ways, often without us ever knowing about it.

With this in mind, I am sharing the full text of my current auto-reply. In addition to drawing on the resources I have shared, please do feel free to copy, use, and amend the material for your own purposes if relevant.

Thank you for your email. While I have your attention, I wish to highlight the UK government’s plan to introduce a new segregation regime by 30 June 2026. This will likely have severe implications for the wellbeing of women and trans people, and will impact my ability to work safely at the University of Glasgow. 

As an expert in trans studies, I outline further information and potential actions below, as well as spaces you might seek support.

–

Background

In June 2025, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) consulted on proposed guidance for the mandatory segregration of trans people from single-sex spaces in all areas of public life. The EHRC recieved 50,000 responses to their consultation. These were not read by human beings, but instead analysed by AI, enabling them to ignore calls for a different approach.

The consultation took place against a wider background of rising hatred and intolerance towards all minoritised groups in the UK. Two of my friends died due to transphobia and transmisogyny in September 2025 alone.

In May 2026, a new draft Statutory Code of Practice Services, public functions and associations was put to Parliament, drafted by the EHRC. This provides explicit provisions for the exclusion of trans people from public life, through means that are also likely to disportionately impact women and disabled people. Simultaneously, the UK government has introduced new guidance insisting that institutions collect and report data on every person’s sex assigned at birth, which has significant privacy implications for intersex and trans people.

You can read more about these changes, including their causes and wider implications, here:

–

Act now

Any one of these actions could be helpful:

  • If you live in the UK, write to your MP, asking them to reject the EHRC code of practice and support Early Day Motion 240: https://equalrecognition.eaction.org.uk/rejectthecode.
  • Write to senior management in your workplace, asking what they will do to support women and trans staff and/or service users, including through actively lobbying the UK and/or national governments, and ensuring continued access to women’s and men’s facilities as relevant.
  • Write to your line manager and ask what action they will be taking to protect women and trans staff, and what pressure they will be putting on senior management to do the same.
  • Write to your political representatives (e.g. MPs, MSPs) more generally. Explain exactly why you are concerned, and demand action to protect trans people’s civil rights. For example, you could ask for new primary legislation to protect trans people, ask why the UK is no longer complying with the European Convention on Human Rights, or demand the dismissal of openly transphobic commissioners from the EHRC. You do not have to write a perfect letter and it is okay to be emotional and express sorrow or anger, so long as you are not aggressive or mean. If you live in the UK, you can find contact details for your representatives here: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/.
  • Support trans people materially, through providing time, resources, and/or money to community initiatives. Examples include: Glasgow Trans Collective (fundraising for emergency support to people facing an immediate danger of threat to life, https://www.gofundme.com/f/glasgow-trans-collective-emergency-fund); Trans Harm Reduction (supporting safer practices for people self-medicating in the absence of NHS treatment, https://transharmreduction.org); and Five for Five  (donating money every month to a range of trans women’s causes, https://www.fiveforfive.co.uk).
  • Check in on your trans friends and colleagues. Make sure they are okay, and do what you can to be there for them. But do your own research on what you can do to help: don’t put this burden on us. Some good places for information include the websites and social media channels for TransActual, What The Trans, QueerAF, Trans Safety Network, Scene Mag, and Trans Writes.

–

Further reading

You can read more about the EHRC proposals and recent Supreme Court judgement that inspired them here:

Women and trans people across the country, including my own friends, have reported increased abuse and street harassment, as the ruling is seen to position trans women as legitimate targets for misogyny and violence. Trans people of all genders are already even more likely to experience public harassment, sexual assault and rape than cis women (see e.g. https://bulletin.appliedtransstudies.org/article/3/1-2/3/). If the EHRC’s proposals are implemented, this will likely get worse.

Realistically, the EHRC segregation regime probably will be implemented in the immediate term. The UK government has demonstrated a clear commitment to hate and authoritarianism, and Labour MPs have little appetite for rebellion. It is important that we – you – do not lose hope as a consequence. I hope this moment helps you to focus on the struggles that lie ahead, and the collective strength we hold in the face of those struggles. With this in mind, I also recommend Josie Giles’ funeral prayer for EDI:

–

Mental health support

If you found the contents of this email distressing, I urge you to look after yourself first and foremost. Resources for this can be found below.

Additionally, I find hope and power in community organising. You can read about that in a 2025 blog post I wrote following the death of two of my friends, and a recent article by Juliet Jacques.

–

Education as the practice of freedom

This auto-response is inspired by bell hooks’ comments in her book Teaching to Transgress:

“When education is the practice of freedom, students are not the only ones who are asked to share, to confess […] empowerment cannot happen if we refuse to be vulnerable while encouraging students to take risks. [Lecturers] who expect students to share confessional narratives but are themselves unwilling to share are exercising power in a way that could be coercive. In my classrooms, I do not expect students to take any risks I would not take, to share in any way that I would not share. […] It is often productive if [lecturers] take the first risk, linking confessional narratives to academic discussions so as to show how experience can illuminate and enhance our understanding[.]”

I will not necessarily respond to any replies you send to this automated message, as I am trying to stay focused on teaching, admin, and research while the world burns down around me. But regardless, thank you. 

Photo of British landscape with rolling green hills and distant mountains, with sheep in the fields and clouds overhead. Faint reflections can be seen, indicating the photo was taken from inside a vehicle.
by

Open letter to NHS Director for Specialised Services on trans youth hormone ban

I am one of the 85 signatories to an open letter to James Palmer, NHS England’s National Medical Director for Specialised Services. We are raising serious concerns about the recent NHS evidence reviews of hormone therapy for trans youth, and subsequent prescribing policy and public consultation.

The letter has been published and sent to Palmer by Trans Actual – you can read more about it on their site here. In my signature, I note that I was a 2023 recipient of the NHS England LGBT+ Advisor Award. Unfortunately, in subsequent years, NHS policy on LGBT+ healthcare seems increasingly shaped by ideology and political pressure, rather than patient experience, expert advice, and evidence. In meetings I attended with Palmer in the early 2020s, I personally heard him share various forms of disinformation about young trans people, such as the factually inaccurate claim that recent cohorts of adolescents presenting with gender dysphoria represent a distinct population from young people referred to the same clinics in earlier years.

For a longer and more detailed critique of the NHS evidence reviews, see this excellent analysis by Kim Hipwell: A Medical Mess: An Analysis Of The NHS’s Proposal To Ban Hormone Therapy For Trans Youth.

The public consultation is open until 7 June, and you can submit a response here.

Dear James Palmer,

We are a group of clinicians, researchers, and academics working in gender care, paediatrics, and related fields of healthcare, medicine, and science.

We are writing to lay out our serious concerns with NHS England’s recently-published evidence reviews into the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) by children and adolescents.


1. Lack of Clear Rationale

The Cass Independent Review previously commissioned a systematic evidence review into GAHT for under-18s.

Based on this peer-reviewed and published analysis, Dr. Cass recommended that “NHS England should review the policy on masculinising/feminising hormones. The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review would recommend extreme caution.”

In 2024, NHS England reviewed and updated their GAHT policy accordingly.

A “living systematic review” – also recommended by Dr. Cass – is now underway, to consolidate the evidence base and keep it up-to-date. This work is being conducted by EPPI-Centre and others, funded by the National Health and Care Research Institute (NIHR), and includes an ongoing review of evidence for GAHT for under-18s.

Therefore, it remains entirely unclear why – having previously wholeheartedly accepted the Cass Report – NHS England has now launched a separate evidence review that was never recommended by Dr. Cass and which duplicates other research already commissioned and underway.


2. Lack of Peer Review

None of the NHS England evidence reviews have been peer reviewed or written to meet publication standards. Instead, NHS England released the reviews only as part of a public consultation process and has asked the general public to “check that draft policies are well evidenced” and to determine whether “all of the relevant evidence [has] been taken into account”.

Consultation is not a substitute for formal academic review, and risks conflating technical evaluation with public opinion.


3. Methodological Limitations and Risk of Bias

Rather than address a single, clinically meaningful research question, NHS England subdivided the GAHT for under-18s evidence review into 10 separate and extremely narrow PICOs (population, intervention, comparison and outcome search parameters).

We have confirmed that this methodological decision was made by NHS England’s “Policy Working Group”, prior to instructing the “independent” researchers, Solutions for Public Health (SPH).

This methodological approach explicitly goes against the gold-standard guidance outlined in the Cochrane Handbook, which cautions that fragmentation of PICOs is likely to result in “sparse” evidence and “could be chosen by review authors to produce a desired result.”

As a result of these overly-narrow search parameters, the researchers had to exclude some of the most significant studies on gender-affirming care for young people, such as Chen et al., 2023, the largest NIH-funded prospective study of trans youth ever conducted.

Ultimately, the researchers could find only 11 eligible studies across all 10 PICOs, with 0 (zero) studies found for 6 of the 10 reviews. In contrast, the University of York evidence review commissioned by Dr Cass found 53 studies, 34 of which were assessed as moderate- or high-quality.

As an example, studies were deemed “out of scope” if participants had received GnRH analogues in the context of puberty suppression prior to receiving gender-affirming hormones (despite the fact that this was the standard treatment protocol internationally for many years, including in the UK).

According to the published reviews, as a result of this methodological decision alone at least 38 studies were excluded that would otherwise have been eligible (and potentially many more at title/abstract stage). These studies could, at the very least, have provided information on the risk profile of GAHT, a factor which NHS England claims to be central to their policy decision making.

NHS England has published no rationale at all for this – and other– methodological decisions. In response to an FOI request, NHS England indicated that studies involving GnRHa puberty suppression “cannot be included” in the PICOs because of “legal issues”, an “ongoing research trial in this area” and “lack of new evidence” – reasons that we find scientifically unsound.

Additionally, in contexts where limited evidence is available for a paediatric intervention, it would be typical for researchers to consider extrapolating data from research into adults, something that NHS England again chose not to do.

In effect, NHS England has adopted a methodological approach that predictably minimises the available evidence base, then cites this manufactured scarcity as a justification for restrictive policy conclusions.


4. Misreporting and Misapplication of Findings

Especially in paediatrics, clinical policy and decision-making is commonly based on evidence considered limited and/or “low-quality” as recognised under the GRADE system. There is therefore no reason why the purported lack of evidence reported in these reviews should automatically lead to the policy position that gender-affirming hormones are so unsafe and/or ineffective for 16- and 17 year olds that they must be immediately withdrawn.

Even when looking only at the 11 studies included in this NHS England evidence review, we believe the overall pattern of evidence suggests that the benefits of GAHT for under-18s outweigh any harms. We believe this is also the case in the University of York review.

We have also found that at least one of the studies included in the SPH reviews that apparently found evidence of “harm” (Grannis et al., 2003) was entirely misreported. The evidence review states that those taking oestrogen had significantly higher depression, suicidality and social anxiety scores than those not on hormones. In fact, Grannis et al. found no statistically-significant differences on these measures.


5. Impacts of Treatment Withdrawal

As far as we are aware, NHS England has no plan to monitor the impact of this withdrawal of gender-affirming healthcare on patient outcomes. This is despite evidence that removal of gender-affirming care is associated with adverse mental health outcomes, including increased suicidality among trans youth.

A decision to withdraw a treatment must consider what alternatives will be provided. Psychotherapy or psychosocial support alone – all that is currently available via the NHS – has not been demonstrated to be an effective treatment for those with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Nonetheless, as far as we know, NHS England has no plans to conduct a similar evidence review of
this intervention.


6. Conclusion

In summary, a drastic and potentially devastating policy change that runs counter to international standards of care has been advanced:

  • without any clear rationale,
  • on the basis of a methodologically-flawed process,
  • in the absence of peer review,
  • and without plans for monitoring impact or mitigating harm.

We therefore urge NHS England to:

  1. pause and reverse implementation of any policy changes arising from this flawed review process,
  2. publicly acknowledge and take into consideration the existing University of York systematic review into gender-affirming hormones and the existing EPPI-Centre study,
  3. ensure any clinical commissioning policy on gender affirming hormones for under-18s reflects established international best practice,
  4. and incorporate patient and clinician consensus and testimony into any decision about transgender healthcare.

A full list of signatories can be found here.

Did you appreciate this post? Want to read more?

Subscribe now to receive new posts whenever I write them.

by

Gig: Oestrogenesis – Hot Doll Summer!

Hello hello friends and followers. I am writing to inform you that I will be doing a spoken word set at the next Oestogenesis!

Where? Stereo, Glasgow

When? Thursday 14 May, 6:30pm doors

Advance tickets? Heck yes! Get them here!

Poster for featuring a colourful drawing of a cocktail. Text reads as follows. Oestrogenesis - hot doll summer. Hosted by Medea. Performers - Fair Verona, Nat Raha, Ruth Pearce, DJs Husane and Arcadio. Raising funds for Brooklyn's visa fees. Doors 6:30pm. Party starts 7pm. Stereo, 14th May.

The event will also feature performances from drag artists Medea and Fair Verona, more spoken word from Nat Raha, and DJ sets from Husane and Arcadio.

We’ll be fundraising for Brooklyn, a Cherokee two spirit woman and recent graduate of the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland. She is currently is trying to raise money for a graduate visa to stay in Glasgow, where she will be safer than the USA.

If you’re free on Thursday and live in or near Glasgow, join us for an excellent night of performance and dancing! Medea, a true pillar of our community in Glasgow, has been doing an incredible job running Oestrogenesis nights over the last couple of years. So I am super excited to be taking to the stage for this one.

by

Talk: lambda nordica symposium, Göteborg

In mid-April I will be travelling to Sweden to speak at the University of Gothenburg. I will provide a keynote address at a symposium titled Academic Freedom and Collegial Solidarity in Times of Pressure, hosted by the academic journal lambda nordica. I am really looking forward to again meeting Swedish colleagues, and learning with them, after an extremely productive visit to Karlstad, Uppsala, and Linköping last year.

logo for lamda nordica

My talk, “From Birth Parents to Backlash”, takes the Trans Pregnancy Project as a starting point for thinking through how and why academics are facing specific types of social and political backlash, what this looks like in practice, and what we can do about this.

It will build on material I have previously delivered at events such as the BSA Medsoc annual conference, and last year’s Standards of Evidence workshop at the University of Lausanne. I will be linking long-term trends to more recent events, thinking through how recent attacks on academic freedom build on phenomena such as the international trans panic and debates over the teaching of critical race and gender theory within universities.

The public portion of the event will take place on Thursday 16 April, and details can be found here.

by

I won an Emma Goldman Award!


Trans feminist scholar Dr Ruth Pearce honoured with prestigious Emma Goldman Award
Scene Magazine

Group photo of women posing with awards in a library


In January, I received an unexpected message. And at first, I thought I was being scammed.

Actually, I received several unexpected messages, over a couple of weeks. These comprised direct messages to my social media accounts, a comment on this blog, and – eventually – an email to my work account.

The purported person urgently trying to contact me was Mieke Verloo, Professor of Comparative Politics and Inequality Issues at Radboud University in the Netherlands, and Permanent Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna, Austria. I was familiar with her extensive feminist scholarship, especially her work on gender equality policies and anti-gender movements. Given the overlap in our interests, I wasn’t surprised she reached out. I speak with a lot of other researchers and activists on a pretty much daily basis. What was surprising was how keen and persistent she was to speak with me.

As a social researcher, my work is all about people – and our interactions with policy, institutions, and community organisations. To do my job well, I need to speak with people, all the time. Outside of teaching, this can consist of formally conducting a research interview, sharing advice or information, or just having a chat to maintain a relationship. I’m grateful that my research been highly read and impactful: that has happened because I have worked closely with others the whole time, to inform, design, undertake, and share my studies.

The problem is that academic employment does not leave much time and space for this people work. I do it on top of my teaching and administration load, plus reading, planning, writing, and so on. So I squeeze it in: a meeting here, a blether there. It’s increasingly difficult. I have a growing list of people who want to speak with me about their project idea, the latest insider scoop on NHS policy, next steps for their organisation, or their proposed PhD or postdoc. It takes me increasingly long to reply to emails, and I’m booking meetings months in advance. I am, to put it bluntly, overwhelmed.

So that’s a normal academic problem. It’s even worse for those of us working in fields such as gender studies at a time of far-right backlash. I have started to develop a trauma response to opening my emails. I am always anticipating the next terrible news, the next round of harassment, the next legal threat from a “gender critical” scholar who has decided I am a problem. There is, sadly, a reason why my work email can no longer be found on my university profile. Like many minoritised scholars, I have removed it, making it harder for hostile individuals to contact me.

This is a systemic issue, not just a “me” issue. Universities like to say that they value community engagement and impact. But we are never really provided time for it in our workload, especially if we are part of a targeted minority group. I feel like a one-woman gender clinic, gradually amassing my own ridiculous waiting list.

Professor Verloo did not want to wait. Her numerous messages indicated that what she wanted was clearly very important. I wondered, is this actually the real Mieke Verloo? Is this part of some elaborate harassment campaign? Am I being catfished?

Eventually, I set aside a bit of time, and asked Mieke to prove her identity – which, very kindly, she did. As a leading feminist academic who has studied anti-gender movements, she got it.

I had a flexible hour the next day, so I set up a Zoom meeting, to see what I could help her with.


On receiving awards

I don’t do the work I do to win prizes. I am not saying this to be humble – I am saying this because it true, and realistic.

While some of my work is highly-read, I think the most impactful things I’m involved in tend to be invisible. And that’s okay. I organise with others, and share ideas and information with various people and groups, without any of this ever being visible to the wider world (let alone seeing academic publication). This is the work of social movements, and untold millions of us do it.

Meanwhile, on the occasions when I have sought academic awards, it has been very difficult. I’ve really struggled to land research funding, in spite of my profile, in spite of cis mentors pulling baffled faces and saying things like “I have never seen a proposal this strong fail in the first round”, over and over again. Again, this is a systemic issue. I’ve seen enough trans studies scholars go through the same to know that we are being quietly discriminated against. The same is true of other marginalised groups, such as academics who are Black and people of colour.

I have also, very occasionally, won something that feels entirely hollow. A few years ago I received an “LGBT+ Advisor Award” from NHS England. This was announced in a ceremony I wasn’t invited to, and was not publicised outside of a tweet from someone who was there. I received a small badge in the post, which is now displayed on my office pinboard, a focal point for conflicted emotion. For several years, I put enormous amounts of time and energy into working for a more trans-friendly NHS. Now, many of the very NHS commissioners and policymakers I used to meet with are mainstreaming pseudoscience and conversion practices. It hurts.

So when I asked what I could help Mieke Verloo with, and she said, “we would like to give you a prize”, I went into shock.


Recognition and recovery

I think I have become too acculturated to the idea that there is no external recognition for trans liberation work. This is an important reminder that people outside of trans communities care about us, and care about our role in wider struggles for social justice.

I have been a part of a feminist movements my entire adult life. For many years I have campaigned for and within women’s services and women’s political spaces, and fought back against systemic sexism and misogyny. Nevertheless, as the anti-trans movement has grown more powerful, I have felt the walls closing in. Powerful forces are trying to separate women like me from our sisters in struggle.

In a world of divide-and-rule, it matters that we extend recognition to one another, in whatever ways we can. Often, this means just telling someone that they are seen, and that their work matters. It means so much when I hear this, and I try to make a practice of doing the same for others.

But Mieke Verloo is part of the FLAX Foundation, a Dutch organisation with some funding for Europe-wide feminist research awards. It seems that FLAX seeks to extend recognition in ways that are as useful as possible for prize recipients.

The recognition alone is the most powerful and beautiful thing about the Emma Goldman. I think it will provide me with greater strength going forward, a sense of togetherness with other feminist activist-researchers across Europe.

However, the award also comes with funding. So I will also be considering how best to use this to support my work going forward. My hope is to focus on finding more time and space for restoration and slowing down, for existing collaborations and research dissemination rather than starting something new. I hope to focus on writing up findings from work undertaken with colleagues in the Trans Learning Partnership, and finish my next book. I will also look into paying for services that might help me better manage my experiences of overwhelm, ideally in a way that puts money back into queer and trans communities. It is rare indeed to obtain funding for this purpose.


The Emma Goldman Award

Every year, between five and ten people receive an Emma Goldman Award. Several more can win a different prize given by the FLAX Foundation, the Snowball Award. Two weeks ago, we gathered in Vienna for an awards ceremony, and for a budgeting workshop to support the best use of the funding we have received.

It was quite overwhelming to be in a room with a group of such highly accomplished women. We came from a great range of backgrounds, in terms of nationality, heritage, culture, discipline, field, and medium. It was amazing to hear about the work everyone was doing: as academics, as journalists, as filmmakers, as comic artists – and, inevitability, as collaborators and organisers. Every one of us was involved in community-building in one way or another. And everyone seemed pretty shocked to be receiving an award, because each one of us feels the pain of oppression, and none of us do what we do to win prizes.

The award ceremony was filmed, and I’ve put a link to the youtube video at the bottom of this post. It’s worth a watch simply to hear about the exciting things every single award winner is up to. It expanded my sense of possibility, of what is happening in the world and can happen in the world, and who I might work with or be inspired by going forward.

It meant a great deal just to spend time with each other outside of the formal sessions, speaking and listening and learning together, building new friendships. This is something I have taken away from my time in Vienna, something I will sit with for a long time. I believe this is another intention of the Emma Goldman and Snowball Awards: to go beyond themselves, to support networks of research and activism, to enable new connections and collaborations across borders. In this sense, the prize couldn’t be better named.

The thing that struck me most after the award ceremony – and I mean this in a really good way – is that it made our collective achievements feel unexceptional. I don’t say that to talk down myself, or any other winner. Quite the opposite: I feel that recognising this kind of work collectively reminded me that none of us are alone, that we are part of a movement.

It is enough for any of us to simply do the work – of fighting for a better world.


by

Going to California (with an aching in my heart)

When I received an invitation to speak about my research at the University of California in Davis, my initial, instinctive response was “heck no”.

It was December 2025, and the United States was looking an increasingly dangerous place to be both trans, and to be a critical scholar. The last year has seen anti-trans legislation introduced at every level across the country, while the influential Oversight Project at the Heritage Foundation and some in the FBI sought to brand trans activism as “violent extremism“. Meanwhile, attacks on academic freedom have resulted in massive funding cuts, the mass censorship of race and gender studies, and the kidnapping and detainment of students who protest the genocide in Gaza. One scholar seeking to flee the country with his family following death threats arrived at the airport gate to find their flights had been mysteriously cancelled.

Then there’s the international situation. Back in December, the US administration was beginning to escalate its rhetoric around Greenland. By January, I was genuinely concerned that a visit to California might coincide with a previously inconceivable outbreak of war between the US and its former European allies. It seemed that no possibility was off the table.

Don’t get me wrong, for all that Brits like to dump on Trump, I fear the UK is rapidly heading in a similar direction. While the dangers posted by the US administration are more blatant, thanks to its volatile and emotional rhetoric, the UK’s Labour government is pursuing a similarly authoritarian agenda. We can see this for example in deeply racist policies on migration and asylum, a crackdown on protest groups, attacks on equality and diversity policies, and the embrace of disinformation and pseudoscience in pursuit of an anti-trans agenda. And of course, our country too is entirely complicit in various conflicts and forms of state violence, including the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Nevertheless, I have the considerable privilege of being a white UK citizen. I own a passport that enables me to freely leave and enter the country. I do not fear being detained on the UK border. I live in a diverse community where I feel safe and held by my neighbours. I am still – for now – able to maintain a university profile that openly states my commitment to feminism and equality work. And while I am increasingly afraid of facing violence at work, at least there aren’t many guns in this country.

So while I felt morally torn about potentially travelling to the USA, I was also aware that my home country is not exactly a great place. Thinking through the idea of complicity, Mijke van der Drift and Nat Raha encourage us to find “the right relation to what your position is in the world”. This “entails attending to where one is, and what one can do from that place”.

The question, then, was one of getting to California safely, and then ensuring that the trip would be worth it. What could my in-person presence offer that was not possible in my writing, or over the internet? What could I offer, and what would be worth the risk?

Photo of a flyer. Text reads as follows. Trans Freedom School. Vital relations: rethinking trans health and medicine. This two panel symposium brings together scholars, clinicians, and activists to examine how trans health has been shaped and contested through medicine, ethics, and political struggle. This symposium situates the contemporary moment's heightened scrutiny, backlash, and regulatory intervention within broader histories of trans medicine - from early gatekeeping and experimental care to community-led health activism to the current reconfiguration of "evidence," risk, and responsibility. What counts as care? Who gets to define it? How is medical authority produced and challenged?



The Trans Freedom School

It turned out that my colleagues at UC Davis really knew what they were doing. The event I spoke at, Vital Relations, was part of the Trans Freedom School. This is a series led by Ava Kim and Christoph Hanssmann, which brings together scholars to share knowledge and ideas on a range of extremely pressing topics.

Our event specifically addressed the past, present, and future of trans health and medicine. This included how trans healthcare might be defined, whose interests have shaped the development of the field, how to address threats to trans people’s health and wellbeing, and how all of this connects to wider struggles around the pursuit of truth and defense of free inquiry. The event format was a facilitated conversation, meaning that the speakers were in conversation with one another as well as the audience. This felt extremely generative given the range of knowledge and experience in the room.

I sat on a panel with Tankut Atuk, who is doing amazing work on pathogenicity: specifically, the social contexts and power relations which make minoritised people more vulnerable to illness and disease. Understanding these things can help us learn not only how and why people are disadvantaged, but also how we can organise against such disadvantage. We explored examples from Tankut’s research with trans sex workers in Turkey, my work on trans people’s experiences of perinatal care, and Glasgow’s strong community networks. A second panel saw Kadji Amin and Jacob Moses explore histories of trans healthcare, plus debates around identity and regret.

Importantly, these conversations are not limited to academic events. The panel discussions are bring professionally filmed, as are separate studio conversations with the speakers. The idea is to produce information and teaching resources for the long term. Other events associated with the Trans Freedom School take a wider look at current debates around gender and race, at a time when discussion on these topics is increasingly censored within media and scholarship, in the US and beyond.

In short, this was indeed vital.

Continuing to foster international dialogue and the free exchange of ideas is incredibly important, especially when these things are under threat. Teaching materials that challenge norms while tackling disinformation are desperately needed. I am grateful and honoured that I was invited to be part of this work.

I will of course be sharing materials produced by the Trans Freedom School when these are ready to go online. In the meantime, I was left with a great deal to think about, which will no doubt shape my own ideas and work going forward.

Tankut and Ruth in conversation
Tankut and Ruth in conversation



The right relation

As it turned out, the US did not invade Greenland while I was in California. Instead, as I flew home, the US and Israel launched a series of airstrikes on Iran. They killed the Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei, along with members of his family, plus hundreds of civilians. This including over 170 people at a girls’ primary school, most of whom were children. This was an immediate reminder of how the world’s greatest superpower is also a rogue state, prepared to inflict death and suffering for seemingly little reason other than flattering the macho egos of its unchecked leadership.

Seeing sickening scenes of violence unfold across the Middle East in the following days made me feel extremely powerless. It is hard to know what to do, how to respond, in the face of such evil. I’ve had enough Iranian friends that I have no sympathy with the awful regime there. But the Iranian people will not be freed from tyranny by a racist foreign power murdering schoolgirls. I remember the slow, pointless horrors of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, with hundreds of thousands of people killed across the long years. I remember joining a million people on the streets of London to oppose this violence in 2003, only to be entirely ignored by the Labour government of the day.

In countries such as the UK and the US, what we do with our complicity in state violence depends on what tools we have, and options are in front of us. Here in Glasgow I will be supporting protests against war and arms dealers. I will be sharing information with my friends and neighbours. I will be teaching about power and its abuses in my day job. I will be voting to keep Labour as well as Reform out of Scotland in the forthcoming Holyrood election. It probably won’t feel like enough, but it does matter to do what we can.

The same goes for confronting other forms of state and corporate violence. I focus much of my research, activism, and writing on addressing discrimination and violence against trans people, because this happens to be where I have developed my skills and knowledge. The Trans Freedom School reminded me that the benefits of such skills and knowledge can cross entire oceans. It mattered for people in California to learn not only about my research, but also about the work of UK and Irish groups I spoke about, such as Trans Kids Deserve Better and Trans Harm Reduction. These groups are not working in universities or speaking to government. They are meeting with others in their community and building connections and resources, step by step, conversation by conversation.

Here in the UK, anti-trans policies are killing children. As with the West’s imperial wars, it is easy to feel powerless. But as I argued last year in my essay about the UK’s anti-trans Supreme Court judgement and the Lesbian Renaissance, there is so much we have achieved – and can achieve – through activism, community work, and mutual aid:

“There are more of us publicly creating art and culture, more of us creating events and running nightclubs and playing in bands and writing essays (hi). There are more community groups providing mutual aid and support when charities and state bodies fail us. And, importantly, we are not alone.”

There are always things we can do. It is simply a matter of attending to where we are, and doing what we can from that place.

Photo of graffiti against a colourful background. It reads as follows. Develop enough courage so you can stand up for urself and then stand up for somebody else.



Like this post? Want to read more?

Don’t rely on corporate social media – subscribe now to receive new posts whenever I write them.

by

Crowdfunder: help a Black trans kid afford care

I’m currently helping to raise money for Isaac, a young trans man I know, and his family.* In the face of enormous NHS failings, they need your help to afford trans healthcare.

Share or donate:
Help a Black trans kid afford care


There is of course already a lot of fundraising for healthcare within trans communities. This is inherently unfair for several reasons. Firstly and most importantly, it’s wrong that people struggle to receive the care they need from state-funded providers, and pretty much all trans people across the world are discriminated against in this regard (whether or not we are talking about medical transition).

Secondly, research shows that crowfunding tends to favour individuals with more existing social capital. People trying to raise money for their care benefit from factors such as being older, transmasculine, white, and/or well-connected on social media.

For these reasons, I try to support collective fundraising where possible. Some examples of this include the Glasgow Transfem Electrolysis Project, and the gig I was DJing at just this week for Trans Healthcare Access Glasgow.

However, there are cases where we simply don’t have the infrastructure or resources in place (yet?!) to support collective fundraising. A good example of this is all minors: young trans people who are more likely to face heightened discrimination and legal barriers both to accessing care in the first place, and in attempting to circumnavigate these barriers.

I do not have the capacity to make a habit of running fundraisers. In this instance, I have known both Isaac and his family for a long time. I know that they are systemically disadvantaged due to economic factors, an inability to go public and put a face to their crowdfunder, and the intersection of transphobia, racism, and various other forms of structural oppression.

Here’s some of the blurb from the crowdfunder page about why you should support Isaac:

Isaac’s story

Isaac is a Black trans kid living in England. He is an expert baker of chocolate chip cookies, loves painting and drawing sharks, and has a budding rock collection. He’s obsessed with highland cows, and knows all the words to Hamilton.

Isaac has a very supportive family who want to help him access healthcare. However, they are in low income work, and are on universal credit.

They therefore need your help to afford care for Isaac.

Stylised drawing of a young man, with white and pink chalk on black paper.

NHS failings

Isaac received a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from the NHS England Gender Identity and Development Service (GIDS). However, the clinical timelines were so slow at GIDs that this diagnosis came too late for him to access any medical treatment before the clinic closed in 2024.

Like many of young people, Isaac has found the new NHS trans healthcare clinic for under-18s – the Children and Young People’s Gender Service  – to be traumatic and abusive. He also has no hope of being prescribed medication there.

For more information on young trans people’s terrible experiences at NHS clinics, see Dr Cal Horton’s article, “The worst thing I ever experienced”

How much money does Isaac’s family need?

We are aiming to raise up to £8000. This is to cover the cost of the following for up to three years:

  • Diagnostic appointments
  • Subscription to a private clinic
  • Medication costs
  • Blood tests

Isaac’s family may save on some of these costs if they can find a GP who will provide shared care and blood tests. However, this is not guaranteed.

If Isaac’s treatment costs less than the money raised, any remaining donations will go towards a top surgery fund for when he is an adult.

If there is still remaining money not spent on Isaac’s healthcare, the family will donate this to fundraisers for other trans kids and/or other trans people of colour.



*Isaac, of course, is not his real name. However, the image for this campaign is a self-portrait of his future self that he drew when much younger. Isn’t it amazing?

by

DJ setlist and review: There Will Be Blood! @ Stereo, Glasgow

I’m currently in the middle of a busy fortnight for work-related travel (more on that soon!) But last night, I managed to make the most of a brief return to Glasgow.

The occasion was There Will Be Blood! a fundraiser at Stereo for the brilliant group Trans Healthcare Access Glasgow. They are helping to provide free laboratory testing for bloods. This is really important for trans people on HRT who are increasingly denied monitoring by GPs. If you couldn’t make it but would still like to donate, you can do so here.

The organisers put together a fantastic lineup and there was a great turnout – especially for a Monday night. It was exciting to see so much talent from within our community, and loads of people come out to support both the cause and a pretty eclectic collection of artists. And exciting for me to be a part of it, performing a DJ set as ROGD.

In which I am going for it. Photo by Onni Gust.


The night kicked off with a luscious set from singer-songwriter and drag artist Sersi. He’s probably the first person I’ve ever seen sport a Britney mic at a DIY gig, which was very cool but sadly couldn’t quite capture the sheer dynamic range of his vocals on the night. At the same time, it enabled him to completely own the stage for a series of ballads that were by turns beautiful and strange. Sersi was ably supported by a pal with a laptop, and Johanna Kirkpatrick (of trad folk bands Chanterelle and Madderam) looking dead dykey on acoustic guitar.

Next to take the stage were Deep Filff. I hadn’t had a chance to look them up before the gig so had zero idea what to expect, although they did arrive with an absolutely enormous inflatable swan. Deep Filff turned out to be a two piece, with Nadia Fiffsky playing bass and belting out epic sun-baked vocals, while Jenny Tingle methodically destroyed the drumkit. As purveyors of some of the dirtiest psychedelic grunge-punk riffs I think I’ve ever heard, they were extremely well-named. It was engrossing, hypnotic stuff. Eventually the swan came out and bounced around the audience, most likely representing a serious hazard to some of the important-looking wires and glitterball hanging from the ceiling.

Local heroes comfort never fail to disappoint, and this evening they truly tore up the stage as the final live act of the evening. The sibling duo have a truly unique sound, with Natalie’s staccato vocals punctuating a skitterish soundscape of totally artificial electronic sounds, underpinned by Sean’s assertive drumming. It was impossible not to dance. My favourite moments came whenever the band’s weird, abrasive noise would suddenly gave way to a transcendentally beautiful synth melody for a minute or two, before we all dived collectively back into the tumult.

Finally, following a quick raffle, I was up! The gig was due to end at a remarkably civilised 10pm, so I had a tight half hour DJ set.

I’ve thought a lot since returning to DJing that the landscape of queer and feminist music and activism has completely changed. Back in the day, I used to do quite a few “Women’s Voices” DJ sets, especially for feminist events such as Reclaim The Night afterparties, and the woman-only Women’s Aid and NUS Women’s Conference discos. The idea was that every song played (sometimes for sets of up to four or five hours) had a woman on lead vocals, and ideally women also playing instruments. Finn Mackay always used to refer to me as “feministDJRuthPearce” (all in one breath!) which was never failed to be delightful.

Unfortunately, many of the people who were only too happy to join the dancefloor for those events are now either actively backing trans-exclusionary politics and the grossest forms of transmisogyny, or otherwise failing to speak out again them. (Junior equalities minister Liv Bailey, I’m looking at you – remember when you hoped I’d DJ your wedding one day?!) It’s odd to reflect on just how normal it was for trans women to be involved in woman-only politics spaces in the UK, given the extremity of the post-2017 moral panic.

Anyway, I digress.

Another thing that has happened over the last decade is the enormous influx of excellent trans artists to both underground and mainstream music scenes. We live in an age where I listened to jasmine.4.t for the first time because my mum told me she’d done a good interview with Craig Charles on BBC 6 Music(!) So, while I’d like to do more Women’s Voices DJ sets in the future, for the first time it felt realistic to put together a Trans Voices set, with a mixture of tunes fronted by trans women and men, and/or non-binary, genderqueer, or genderfluid people, that I could reasonably expect a large number of people in the audience to be familiar with.

So, here’s what I played:

Shopping – The Hype
My Chemical Romance – Teenagers
100 gecs – mememe
SOPHIE – Immaterial
underscores – Locals (Girls Like Us) [with gabby start]
Kae Tempest – Move
Ada Rook – BURY YOURSELF
Janelle Monáe – Make Me Feel
jasmine.4.t – Guy Fawkes Tesco Dissociation
G.L.O.S.S. – Outlaw Stomp
Against Me! – True Trans Soul Rebel

Obviously I could have kept going a lot longer, but I’ve got to say, it was one heck of a half hour. I have such enormous love for everyone who joined me to dance their arse off on a Monday night. And if you’d like me to DJ your event – I’m officially back behind the decks, so do get in touch!

Back home – sweaty and happy!

by

Labour’s Section 28 is here – act now

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”.

Protest outside EHRC HQ, 2025. Photo from Trans Kids Deserve Better.


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. Trans Kids Deserve Better, a campaign group run by and for young trans people, explain how harmful this is in their post “We demand the Department for Education axes its transphobic guidance”:

[The proposed guidance] does not centre the wellbeing of trans kids, rather this puts us through scrutiny and invasive questioning when we need support. The guidance of course neglects to mention the negative mental health effects for being denied a social transition. As one adult who was only able to transition later in life said, “Social transition as a kid would’ve let me be a kid – figuring out what kind of person I was and how I related to the world around me. Instead, I only knew that I was different and weird, isolated and stunted. It took me a full decade of self-loathing in adulthood to begin unpacking everything and growing into myself in the way I should’ve been allowed to so much earlier.”

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 , 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.

A really good consultation response guide has been jointly prepared by The Proud Trust, Allsorts, and The Kite Trust.

Transparent Action are also collecting evidence from parents to inform their response to the consultation.

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.

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:

Alternatively, Abigail Thorn of Philosophy Tube has produced a fantastic, accessible video on conversion practices, which includes strong sections on the Cass Review and current UK government policy:

…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.

Protest outside the Department for Education, 2025. Photo from Trans Kids Deserve Better.

[post updated 21/03/26, adding the consultation guide from The Proud Trust, Allsorts, and The Kite Trust, and a link to the new Philosophy Tube video on conversion practices]

[post updated 01/04/26, adding a quote from Trans Kids Deserve Better following their latest protest outside the Department for Education]

Did you find this post helpful? Want to read more?

Don’t rely on corporate social media – subscribe now to receive new posts whenever I write them.