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 comfortnever 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 Mackayalways 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.tfor 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!
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 transphobiahas 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”.
“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 judgementin 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 beenwidely 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.
[edit, 3 March 26: Transparent Action are currently collecting evidence from parents to inform their response to the consultation, and will be producing guidance for others who wish to respond]
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!)
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:
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.
I’m super hyped to announce I will be doing a DJ set at Stereo on 2nd March 2026 – performing for the first time as ROGD.
This will be at a gig for Trans Healthcare Access Glasgow. They are raising money to provide free blood tests for trans people who have otherwise been denied healthcare by the NHS.
Much like the Glasgow Electrolysis Project (who are now running a successful clinicin the city) the very existence of Trans Healthcare Access Glasgow is both an indictment of the NHS and a credit to our community organisers. It’s depressing that the UK’s state healthcare system has so profoundly failed trans people that many GPs are now refusing to even monitor the safety and efficacy of NHS-prescribed medication. But it is also truly excellent that we are building our own new networks of medical support, which offer an alternative to the cis-led medical systems that have abused and exploited us for decades. Through the work of harm reduction groups such as Trans Healthcare Access Glasgow, we are collectively less reliant on these systems than we have ever been.
Meanwhile, I have a long history as a rock DJ but don’t get behind the decks too often these days. While I’m hoping to perform a bit more often again going forward, there’s no guarantee – so snap up those tickets while you can!
I have a new article out, co-authored with Dr Cal Horton. It’s about the incorporation of UN convention rights into Scottish law, and what this should (in theory) mean for trans children in Scotland and beyond. The article is totally open access so anyone can read, download, and share it anywhere. You can peruse a copy right here:
In recent years I’ve felt increasingly critical of human rights as an artificial framework for behaviour, which is frequently ignored or manipulated by those in power. As Nat Raha and Mijke van der Drift put it, these are “human rights for human resources”. Nevertheless, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is now part of Scottish law, and Scottish children and policymakers alike are being informed that this conveys certain expectations for how young people are to be treated.
Cal and I believe it is important to reflect on what this all means for people seeking to work in a humane way with trans children, in Scotland and beyond. In particular, we emphasise the importance of directly involving young people in conversations and decision-making about their own lives. We draw on the demands of young people themselves in doing so, including groups such as Trans Kids Deserve Better Scotland, who note that policymakers have actively ignored young trans people by “by shutting trans bodies and voices out of every room that matters [and] pretending we don’t exist.”
This weekend also sees the publication of an interview I did for the Herald about the UNCRC article. In this, I discuss the findings of my research with Cal. I also reflect more generally on the situation faced by trans studies researchers, in which it is increasingly hard to conduct trans-positive research even as the UK government and funding bodies throw millionsofpounds at anti-trans researchers.
We end the interview with key three takeaways regarding what can be done to protect the rights of trans children, in Scotland and beyond:
“Number one would be to genuinely consult with young trans people and ask what they want and need. They deserve real and meaningful consultation.
“Number two is that there is a huge amount of knowledge that already exists, both on young trans people’s experiences and on how to consult with young people. Draw on the knowledge that already exists.
“And number three is to acknowledge that there is a trans-eliminationist movement. Acknowledge that there is an active attempt to stop anyone from doing the first two things.
“There’s an active attempt to stop any anyone taking seriously what young trans people have to say about their own lives, and an active attempt to stop any accessing of existing knowledge, and that comes from a place of prejudice.
“One of your starting points has to be acknowledging that that exists.”
In the wake of the Football Association effectively banning trans women from playing even at an amateur level, it’s been heartening to see a lot of serious community organising happening around inclusive football. A lot of this has been led by women who have already been frustrated for years with the institutional sexism of the FA, and their effective control over many local pitches.
This gig will be raising money for those fighting back against a corporate, exclusionary approach to football, and working to build something much better in its place.
Plus, it’s a stonking line-up. If you’re local, come and see us all play!
Prior to its publication, there were some concerns about the Levy Review being a sort of Cass Review for adults, leading to further massive restrictions in trans people’s access to healthcare. I witnessed active catastrophising in some quarters, with social media posts calling medication stockpiling. I don’t think this kind of rollback was ever on the cards with Levy, but I do understand why people were concerned. Trans people’s trust in the NHS and political processes is – justifiably – at rock bottom.
There were also a minority who hoped that the Levy Review might result in significant improvements to how trans people are treated by the NHS in England. I don’t think that was ever realistic either.
In reality, Levy does acknowledge some of the problems with English gender clinics, focusing especially on capacity issues, inefficiencies, and long waiting times. It offers a series of recommendations relating largely to the practical operation and delivery of gender services (the hint is in the title!) QueerAF asked me what I thought about it for their coverage of the Levy Review, and I told them this:
These measures may still result in a few improvements. NHS England hope Levy’s recommendations will contribute to “clinical effectiveness, safety, and experience”. I am not entirely convinced. But perhaps the waiting lists can be a bit shorter and fairer, especially with the opening of new clinics and introduction of a national waiting list.
Why is the Levy Review like this?
Levy did not truly seek to understand, let alone confront, the real scope of the problem in trans healthcare services, sticking instead to the very narrow scope of the brief provided by NHS England. Deeper issues he ignored include open discrimination from healthcare practitioners, as well as gatekeeping, pathologisation, and dehumanisation baked into the design of the gender clinics. These all harm patients, while also wasting clinical time and resources.
When I started my PhD on trans healthcare in 2010, such issues were not widely understood outside of certain trans community settings. That is no longer the case.
There have been multiple reviews and consultations undertaken by NHS England over the past 15 years, including in 2012, 2014-2015, and 2017-2019. There was also a review undertaken by the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee in 2015.
Then there’s the research I undertook for that PhD, later published in my book Understanding Trans Health. Here, I argued that long waiting lists for gender clinics are not simply a result of underfunding or bureaucratic inefficiencies, but also an inevitable outcome of the gatekeeping system. By positioning trans healthcare as a specialist matter, and forcing patients to prove over and over again in psychiatric evaluations that they are “really” trans, you create unnecessary roadblocks and bottlenecks for care.
There have been a lotofotherstudies undertaken since. The most notable might be the massive, rigorous, and extremely detailed final report of the Integrating Care for Trans Adults (ICTA) project, published in 2024. This was funded by the UK government through the National Institute for Health Research, and has been roundly ignored by NHS England.
All this research and commentary highlights those same problems ignored by Levy: discrimination, gatekeeping, pathologisation, and dehumanisation.
My feeling is that neither NHS England nor Levy were interested in these issues. In fact, they are not really interested in understanding trans people at all.
It is therefore no surprise that Levy not only ignores widely-documented problems, but also repeats factually inaccurate claims, such as that the growth in patient demand for gender clinics is “not well understood”. Quite aside from what we have learned from all of the research and commentary noted above, this growth was forecast back in the 2000s by the education and advocacy organisation GIRES, in a study funded by none other than the Home Office.
The really bad stuff(and how to protect your data)
For all the limits of the Levy Review, I feel most of the recommendations are somewhat positive and may help people a bit. On balance, it’s mostly okay.
However, there are a few real points for concern.
Firstly, Levy argues that a first assessment for medical interventions should always be undertake by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. As all the research on trans healthcare services has shown time and time again, this is both unnecessary and unhelpful. It compounds the pathologisation of trans people, wrongly positions trans healthcare as a “specialist” matter, and creates expensive bottlenecks for treatment.
Secondly, Levy insists that gender clinic patients should be referred by GPs, and should not be able to self-refer. This is intended to help with the problem of patients ending up on a waiting list with no information for clinical staff on who they are, what they are looking for, and what their healthcare needs might be. However, the recommendation ignores the widespread issue of transphobic GPs refusing to provide referrals, as well as the fact that not everyone will have a GP (see, for example, the fact that trans people disproportionately experience homelessness, or that we are more likely to avoid healthcare providers due to justified fears of abuse). The problem Levy is trying to address could have been tackled in a more sensitive way, for example through NHS England providing a short referral form that prospective patients can fill in when seeking an appointment at a gender clinic.
Finally, there is the issue of future research. Citing Alice Sullivan’s transphobic report on sex and gender, Levy calls for more data collection on patient outcomes. Here Levy fails to acknowledge the urgent need to build trust before trans patients can be confident the NHS will not misuse our data. Moreover, as Trans Safety Networkhave noted, NHS England have committed to addressing this through expanding the role of the National Research Oversight Board for Children and Young People’s Gender Services. Trans Safety Network report that the board includes members associated with anti-trans medical groups, including the Society for Evidence-Based Medicine (SEGM), who are listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and CAN-SG. It’s little surprise therefore that the National Research Oversight Board has recommended that clinicians working with young trans people attend SEGM and CAN-SG conferences, ensuring the further spread of transphobic disinformation, pseudoscience, and hate.
We also suggest you email your GIC the following to ensure your opt-out is clear and ask to have a note of this added to your care record. I do not give my permission for any aspect of my patient data to be submitted to, or collected for, the purpose of any research or non local audit without my express permission in writing being obtained in advance.
Emails should include your name, DOB and NHS Number to assist your GIC admin in finding your record. If you have been referred but not been seen by a GIC, you can still contact the GIC you were referred to.
Could it be better?
The failings of the Levy Review are not inevitable. There are numerous international models of better practice. For a strong example, see the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa’s 2025 Guidelines for Gender Affirming Care in Aotearoa New Zealand. This recommends treatment under an “informed consent” model. Here is some of their guidance on this for adult patients:
Being transgender is not a mental illness, and it does not impair capacity to consent to treatment. If a doctor or nurse practitioner has sufficient knowledge, skill and professional scope to initiate GAHT [gender-affirming hormone therapy] in an adult patient:
– There is no requirement for all people to be assessed by a mental health professional prior to starting GAHT
– For many transgender adults, GAHT can be initiated in primary care, without the involvement of secondary or tertiary care.
But we need not even look overseas for better. The Welsh Gender Service has seen a growing shift towards the provision of hormone therapy for trans people in primary care settings, supported through close collaboration with community organisations and GP practices. This has proven to provide a better experience for trans patients and has improved the efficiency of the service from an NHS perspective. The ICTAreportdescribes what this looks like in practice.
Case Study 4 in Chapter 4 reports on the establishment and initial development of regional primary care clinics, spread across Wales, which take responsibility for prescribing and monitoring HRT for trans adults following assessment at the specialist gender clinic. This is the most significant initiative we studied to address lack of integration between an assessing gender service and arrangements for prescribing and monitoring HRT. The key features are as follows. Their effectiveness and efficiency would appear to be of wider relevance to other gender services and NHS primary care commissioners.
The regional clinics were largely staffed by GPs, located within established GP practices and funded by the local NHS. They took responsibility for prescribing hormones, monitoring blood tests and titrating doses immediately following assessment, aiming to pass service users on to their usual practice after around 12 months, on the basis that their doses and prescriptions would by then be stable. This arrangement avoids the costly and damaging difficulties in communication between GICs and primary care practices over blood tests and dosage changes, experienced by many people attending other GICs. It also frees up gender specialists to devote more time to assessments, rather than review appointments for people already on hormones. Local clinicians, however, worked in an integrated way with their specialist colleagues, attending joint training on trans health care, and holding regular joint clinical consultations.
Further advantages emerging from this arrangement include the regional clinics rapidly becoming established as having GPs confident in prescribing under shared care with a GIC, whether based on a full GIC assessment or on the basis of a ‘harm reduction’ bridging prescription. These more knowledgeable GPs can then advise and educate colleagues in their own and neighbouring practices. Above all, both service users and GPs involved in these regional clinics were enthusiastic about how they brought HRT for trans people into the mainstream of primary care. Doctors in the regional clinics helped service users deal with a range of health issues, and hormone therapy came to be experienced as part of primary care, rather than something specialised, difficult, or in any way stigmatised.
The Welsh model is still far from perfect. However, it proves that there is no need for NHS England to keep asking the same tired questions and presenting the same tired answers. Yes, we deserve better than the Levy Review: but more importantly, positive change is both realistic and possible.
Last month I returned to the fabulous Red Medicine podcast to talk all things Wes Streeting. I joined the socialist writer Jonas Marvin and host Sam Kelly to discuss the UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care’s political background, possible motivations, and current challenges.
Red Medicine always offers a great deep dive into health-related topics of the day. Streeting’s alignment with transphobic pseudoscience and conversion proponents means that obviously I had a lot to say about his impact on trans healthcare. However, our conversation was offered a great opportunity to grapple with the wider context of Streeting’s ideology and actions, discussing wider matters such as class, party politics, and trade unionism: highly relevant given current discourse around the proposed strike by resident doctors! I also talk a little about my encounters with Streeting in the 2000s, back when I was a campaigner with the National Union of Students’ LGBT and Women’s Campaigns.
You can listen to Red Medicine through all the major podcast platforms – or through the link below.
You can also hear me talking about the Cass Review on a previous episode of the podcast in June 2024.
Back in October I caught the train down to Coventry to visit my old stomping grounds at the University of Warwick. The occasion was the 20th Anniversary of Warwick Anti-Sexism Society (WASS), a student campaigning group at the university. Technically WASS was 21 this year, but whoever let technicalities get in the way of a good celebration?
Co-hosted by the Centre for the Study of Women and Gender, the event brought current WASS members, including WASS president Izie Lopez-Scott and Students’ Union sabbatical officer Ananya Sreekumar, together with former students and feminist academics, including founders Sam Lyle and Cath Lambert, and early member Maria do Mar Pereira.
As I arrived on campus, it occurred to me that I must have been one of longest-running members of WASS. In contrast to the likes of Sam and Cath, I never played an organising role, instead on volunteering my time with Warwick Pride (the LGBTUA+ society), Rocksoc (for the metalheads), and later also Bandsoc (for whom I still occasionally judge the university’s annual Warwick Battle of the Bands). Nevertheless, after originally joining WASS way back in the academic year of 2005-2006, I maintained an on-and-off membership through my undergraduate, masters, and PhD degrees, finally leaving in 2016. During that time I attended numerous talks, workshops, protests, and occupations as a member of WASS, and joined fellow members as a delegate to Women’s Conferences hosted by the National Union of Students.
I wasn’t quite sure how it would feel to participate in the anniversary event. I anticipated it would be somewhat nostalgic.
Certainly the event served me nostalgia in spades. A WASS exhibition featured numerous t-shirts, hoodies, zines, posters, and pamphlets produced by the society from 2004 to the present day. I brought along a couple of zines from the 2010s – Sam brought along a huge amount of old material, much of which dated back to my undergraduate days. In a panel discussion, we reflected together on the context in which WASS was formed, why it felt so difficult and important to name yourself as a feminist in the early 2000s, and how the society’s early campaigns reflected the priorities and debates of the day (lads’ mags!feminism for men!Page 3!)
But my main takeaway was the way in which our actions can echo through time, informing and influencing others in ways we might never be aware of.
When Sam and Cath founded WASS, they were focused on the present. They didn’t think much about how it might provide a way into activism and feminist thought for hundreds of people over two decades. Looking at the exhibition, speaking in a session about what had changed and what happened, it felt clear to me that we are living in a world shaped hugely be the world of 00s feminism, even amidst an enormous misogynist backlash.
There is something here about the complexity of wins, and the importance of work over time. It is not simply the case that the world gets better or worse. At the event, we discussed the growing cultural impact of violent misogynists from the manosphere. Sam highlighted how rates of femicide remain extremely high, half a century after the second-wave feminist movement kicked into gear. Equally, we reflected on how there is far more mainstream acknowledgement, understanding, and support for survivors domestic violence than there used to be even 20 years ago. This matters: it provides more people with a way out, a route into rebuilding their lives with the support of their families and communities.
Similarly, even as racist rhetoric dominates mainstream political discourse, feminist movements have increasingly learned from the difficult discussions around intersectionality that have taken place across years, decades. Meanwhile, other social movements have got better at acknowledging sexism, and embracing feminist ideals. WASS was originally an all-white, all-cis, non-disabled collective, which struggled to build alliances with other student liberation groups. This has not been the case for years. Key issues for student feminists at Warwick in 2025 include the genocide in Gaza, and fighting back against the university’s attempts to implement anti-trans policies. Warwick’s liberation movements frequently collaborate and cross-advertise events, and current students described how activists were often involved simultaneously in anti-sexist, anti-racist, and pro-queer groups.
A young man at the event asked me how campaigners stay motivated when there is so much rollback. I said I was inspired by the fact that we can still help people, that we can still create ideas and resources that it turns out are useful to others years, decades later. This was illustrated perfectly by the most unexpected story I heard that day, from an early career academic who thanked me for my old writing on TeachHigher.
A decade ago, TeachHigher was the University of Warwick’s attempt to advance insecure employment on campus, and undermine trade unionism. Branded as “a more consistent approach to the employment of hourly paid staff who work in different departments”, TeachHigher would provide a framework specifically for casual teaching contracts, offering an alternative to full-time, salaried lectureships. As a “wholly-owned subsidiary” of Warwick, it would technically be a separate company, while still funneling profits directly back into the university. This meant workers contracted through TeachHigher would be unable to benefit from collective bargaining with the University and College Union (UCU). The intention was to expand the model already used by Unitemps, another Warwick-owned subsidiary which “offers flexible staffing solutions” (often zero-hour contracts) across the higher education sector.
An enormous struggle over TeachHigher happened in 2015. The scheme was pushed aggressively by management, and opposed vociferously by hourly-paid teaching staff: the very people TeachHigher intended to contract. In subsequent years, I spoke and wrote about how this model for internal outsourcing was defeated through collective action on the part of students and staff. Workers such as myself carefully scrutinised the university’s proposals, identified pressure points within our own departments, found allies amongst more securely employed faculty, and organised accordingly. We effectively took over our local UCU branch, while also planning outside of its structures. Loopholes in existing casualised contracts enabled us to circumvent the UK’s anti-union laws, through moves such as departmental teaching boycotts. Multiple departments declared that they would refuse to participate in the TeachHigher pilot. The final straw came when UCU announced a national demonstration on a University of Warwick open day, which would have been an enormous embarrassment to the institution.
The successful campaign against TeachHigher brought student groups such as WASS and Warwick Anti-Racism Society together with staff bodies such as UCU. Due to the unequal impacts of casualisation, we recognised – as my late, great colleague Christian Smith put it – that “TeachHigher is sexist, and TeachHigher is racist”. We built on tactics developed in previous years. For example, the idea of protesting on an open day was developed by the 2013 Protect the Public University campaign, which grew out of the 2011 Occupy Warwick encampment. WASS members, naturally, were involved in both.
The defeat of TeachHigher was an enormous win for campaigners. Not only was the scheme withdrawn: we also negotiated pay rises, better terms and conditions for all casualised staff, and pathways towards more secure contracts for some.
Yet by 2025, there was very little institutional memory of TeachHigher. For all that we won, many teaching staff remained on casualised contracts, and Unitemps continued to prosper. Meanwhile, the vast majority of those involved in the struggle have moved on, to live and work elsewhere. The university was largely under new management, and there had been an enormous turnover within human resources as well as student bodies. For those who even know the dispute happened, it can be hard to find concrete information. News platforms delete old stories, and enshittificationmakes it harder to use search engines to find those that remain.
At the WASS Anniversary, I learned that a key source of information on TeachHigher today can be found in my past blog posts.
Old wins echo down the years. Temporary gains are gains nonetheless. I would guess that every one of us who benefited from the TeachHigher defeat is better off now as a result. Personally, I found myself in a better place financially to finish my PhD and continue an academic career. I also learned an enormous amount about the practicalities of collective organising. I know I have draw on those gains repeatedly over the last decade to continue supporting others in turn.
Even if pay rises for casualised staff were eroded over time, the fact that we fought and that we won can continue to inspire workers facing similar struggles. Just as TeachHigher was inspired by Protect the Public University, which was inspired by Occupy Warwick, which was inspired by the Red Warwick occupations of the 1970s as well as the US-led Occupy Movement, the Spanish Indignados Movement, and the Arab Spring. These long influences don’t just happen: they rely on people writing things down, saving artifacts, and remembering together.
The funny thing is, I had no idea anyone might find my old blog posts on TeachHigher useful after so many years. I was one small part of a far larger movement, and have been involved in so many other campaigns since. Nevertheless, through chronicling events it turns out that I created a resource that remains useful to this day.
At the WASS Anniversary, I was reminded how important it is to commemorate our local histories of activism, and to share what we have learned along the way. Social progress is neither linear, nor guaranteed. But if we imagine there might be a better future around the corner, and act accordingly, then we might change the world in ways we cannot possibly anticipate.
In summer 2026 the World Community Development Conferencewill be coming to Scotland! I am part of a group of lecturers from the Community Development programmes at the University of Glasgow who are helping to organise this event.
Running from 29 June to 2 July 2026, the conference will be a space for connection, critical reflection, creative exchange, and global solidarity. It will be rooted in the values of justice, participation, community empowerment and human rights and underpinned by Community Development’s emphasis on collective initiatives for collective outcomes.
Conference Themes and Guiding Questions
We invite submissions aligned with one or more of the following core themes. To support your thinking, we offer the following open questions:
1. Challenge
This theme centres on critiquing and confronting systems of injustice and advocating for policy and funding to support rights-based Community Development.
What are the most urgent challenges facing communities and how is Community Development responding?
How are issues of power, inequality, technology, marginalisation or oppression being confronted and addressed?
2. Change
This theme is about co-creating new approaches through collaboration and future-focused dialogue, while strengthening the resilience of practitioners and communities in complex environments.
What new ideas, or practices are driving meaningful change in your work?
How is resilience being built in communities facing political oppression, social or economic inequality, or the ill effects of climate change?
How are human rights and Community Development being used as tools for accountability?
3. Collective Action
This theme explores community organising through inclusive, participatory, and justice-driven practices and connecting across borders to build solidarity.
How are people coming together to organise, mobilise, and demand justice?
What examples of effective collective action can you share, and what impact is it having?
How can we ensure that Community Development is oriented towards collective justice rather than exclusion?
Presentation Formats
We welcome a wide range of formats, including:
Conference Paper: Research or practice-based presentations (20 minutes)
Facilitated or creative workshop: Participatory, performative or creative workshops by individuals or groups (1 hour)
Lightning talk: A concise presentation highlighting a key issue or insight (5 minutes)
Poster presentation: Digital or multimedia posters showcasing projects or research
Creative and participatory formats: Including book launches, exhibitions, and cultural events
Submission Requirements
Please submit a 300-word abstract or a 3-minute video of your proposed contribution, including:
The topic and framing of your contribution
The format of your presentation
The relevance to one or more of the conference themes
Author/s name(s), organisation/institution, contact information (e.g. email address, mobile/telephone number).
This week I took the long train down to the south of England for my friend Robyn’s funeral. She died very suddenly three weeks ago, aged just 32.
Robyn gave so much love to the world, and was so loved in turn. Around a hundred and fifty people crammed into a small building for the service. There weren’t enough seats for everyone, so many stood at the back and sides of the room. I sat on the floor. More attended online.
We shared stories from Robyn’s life, learned from each other, cried together. Like many funerals, especially for young trans people, it was absolutely gutwrenching. It also helped move us towards closure. It was good to be in community together, to think and speak not just of Robyn’s past, but of our collective futures. Robyn lived life to the absolute maximum. Surely we could take inspiration from her example.
Robyn at Manchester Punk Festival 2024. Photo by Chris Bethell for The Guardian(!)
After the funeral, I stayed the night with queer friends in rural Surrey. We went for a curry, toasted Robyn, caught up about our lives. We talked about work and about books and about art and about holidays we wanted to take. That evening I felt tentatively more at peace with the world.
And then I looked at my phone. And I learned that another young friend, Jessica, had also just died.
***
It’s a shit time to be trans. Many people are saying this.
But then again, when has it not been a shit time?
Eight years of moral panic have taken an enormous toll. In the UK, as in many other countries, our civil rights and our access to public services, public spaces, and public life are all being rapidly rolled back. Politicians and influencers fall over themselves to promote anti-trans violence and praise one another’s incendiarytakes. We are less safe at work, at home, in hospitals, in schools, and in the streets.
Trans people often die young, including too many of my friends. Sometimes (all too often) we die by suicide, driven to despair in a world full of hate and malice. Sometimes (mercifully less often in the UK) we are murdered, usually in incredibly violent ways. Other times, it’s more complicated. I think of Denise, who died a sudden death from melanoma. I think about Elli, who died of Covid-19. And now I also think about Robyn and Jessica, who each died suddenly of apparently natural or accidental causes.
These days, the high rate of untimely trans death can feel like a consequence of the trans panic. Certainly I believe it’s making things worse. However, this phenomenon pre-dates the current political situation. Trans people disproportionately died young in the 2010s, at the time of the so-called “tipping point“. Trans people disproportionately died young before this too. Sociological theory can tell us why.
A decade or so ago, I worked for a couple of years in Warwick Medical School. I was there to teach medical students about social determinants of health. The basic concept is that our general health is affected enormously by the context in which we live. This includes factors such as the resources and services we do and do not have access to, and barriers we might face in attempting to access healthcare services or otherwise look after ourselves
So, it’s not a coincidence that – for example – life expectancies are shorter in poorer neighbourhoods, or that Black women are more likely to die in childbirth. There is nothing inevitable or biological about any of this, something intrinsically different about poor people or Black people. The issue is that entire groups of people are more likely to experience particular kinds of illness, and more likely to die of things others might survive. This is because of the social disadvantages they face, and because of the discrimination they experience at the hands of bigoted doctors and nurses.
There is a massive scientific literature on social determinants of health. I’ve contributed to it myself, co-authoring a recent study showing an association between transphobic microaggressions and poor mental health among trans people. For this reason, I know it’s no coincidence that so many of my trans friends have died untimely deaths. Trans people are more likely to have worse health because of transphobia. They are less likely to receive timely and effective treatment because of transphobia. This means when trans people are seriously ill, we are on average less likely to survive. I see this when I look at the academic literature, and I see this every day in the lives trans people I know.
I see the impact of transphobia when I look at Robyn’s life and death. Her health deteriorated significantly in her final years. She was afraid to seek help from doctors though: and for good reason, given the discrimination she and many of her friends experienced in NHS services. I wrote my entire goddamn PhD thesis on this problem.
Things were even worse for Jessica. I witnessed so many organisations and institutions in her home city of Coventry failing her time and time again. I could fill whole books with accounts of the violence done against her. She was failed by her school, her church, a political party she gave so much energy to, the council, the local hospital, the psychiatric ward, the housing association. Just last year I sat helplessly on the other end of the phone while she attempted suicide, doing the best I could in this moment to ensure that she was not alone.
The institutional failings experienced by Robyn and Jessica and so many others are the result not just of ignorance, but of actively malicious transphobia and transmisogyny. I believe these factors contributed significantly to their untimely deaths.
How can any of us expect to find hope and purpose in the face of such violence?
***
In recent months I have noticed an uptick in trans doom-posting. By this I mean trans social media posts, blog posts, and videos which dwell entirely on negative feelings and convey a sense of hopelessness.
A prominent example is Shon Faye’s recent essay, well, it’s over, which she describes as “a brief eulogy for the ‘trans rights’ movement”. Shon observes that powerful transphobic movements in the USA and UK are succeeding in many of their aims. They have spread fear and disinformation far and wide, made allies of mainstream politicians and media platforms, and enacted bans on trans healthcare. Now they are attempting to criminaliseour very existence, as part of a campaign to eliminate us altogether.
Shon’s conclusion appears to be: well, that’s it. We’re all fucked.
“Today I doubt I will see another progressive measure (either in legislation or healthcare policy) put in place for trans people in my lifetime. Who knows what may yet be taken away.”
I very much empathise with her account of trying to talk about this in any way with cis friends and family:
“their instinct is to try and generate hope or minimise despair [which] typically minimises the gravity of the situation and the depth of my grief and exhaustion and fear – increasing my resentment.”
Shon concludes that she doesn’t want to hear “fucking platitudes” – “there’s time for hope later”. For now, she wants time to grieve. I’ve seen similar sentiments shared by other authors on various social media platforms, including posts from extremely popular trans meme accounts.
I understand intimately where all of this is coming from. Just look at everything I said earlier about social determinants of health. I recognise the violence we are subject to, and its costs. This post too is written from a place of deep grief.
But there is also the question of where and how we grieve. We do need space to vent and to despair. But we also need space to process, and figure out what happens next. Ideally, we need places and times we can do this collectively, rather than just being isolated as individuals. Robyn’s funeral offered this.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t talk about what is happening to us. What I am concerned about is the individualising effect of public platforms, and the parasocial relations we hold with high-profile accounts. We tend to consume doom-posting on our own, on a phone. We often have no-one to process it with, and little context beyond the content in front of us. In this way, doom-posting offers only a partial account of reality, and no way out from despair.
And there is a way out. We find it in community.
***
Look, I have a great deal of respect for Shon Faye. I have a hard enough time navigating the consequences of my own very minor microcelebrity. Shon has to tackle a great deal more attention: from trans people looking for someone to idolise and/or tear down, from cis readers who project heroic expectations onto her, and from haters who see her as the antichrist or something. She’s great on camera, and a brilliant writer. I would recommend her book The Transgender Issue to literally any cis reader. I also recognise that her blog post comes from a place of incredible pain.
At the same time, I am concerned that many trans people and allies are putting way too much energy into engaging mainstream institutions and liberal systems on their own, individualistic terms, rather than looking to the alternative power and support we can build in our communities. Notably, a lot of Shon’s post talks about civil society, legislation, lobbying, and the role of organisations such as Stonewall. This is definitely a realm in which “trans rights” face a seemingly terminal decline. But it is also not the first place I would look for real, grounded hope.
You can find a similar energy in Jules Gill-Peterson’s dire essay Reject Trans Liberalism, which is referenced by Shon. Jules’ piece simultaneously criticises the trans liberation movement for being about more than transition, while also insisting that preparing ideologically sound documents for the US supreme court is a radical act. It posits a false and ahistorical dichotomy between transsexuals (good, pure, radical) and transgenders (bad, elitist, liberal). The essay does not consider how gender diverse people might work together or support one another across our differences. This contrasts with existing critiques of trans liberalism already advanced by activist-scholars such as Nat Rahaand Mijke van der Drift. Again, don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge fan of Jules’ previous work. But as trans people, and especially as trans women, we owe each other so much more than this.
Now, I’m hardly without fault. This very blog is replete with examples of myself and others putting untold hours into lobbying politicians, participating in public consultations, advising the National Health Service and so on and so forth. In her post Stepping Over The Line, Josie Giles, who once again I admire greatly (look, I just fucking love trans women) argues that:
“Theoretically, an army of well-resourced energetic activists could simultaneously engage in state-centred advocacy and also do grassroots politics. In practice, it doesn’t happen. In practice, state-centred pseudo-organising dominates the social media feeds and the limited energy reserves of an already depleted community, and absorbs what little money is available to pay for the salaried self-licking ice-cream cone of the lobbying profession.”
Sick burn!
Meme acquired via one of them social media platforms we’ve all heard so much about.
I do disagree with Josie a little. Unlike Shon and Jules and also Josie, I transitioned in the early 2000s. This was well before the tipping point, and before most trans civil rights even existed in law. I remember how we fought successfully for changes that genuinely improved many people’s lives. I feel it will always be worthwhile to use what levers we can to minimise the harm caused by those who have power over us. Lobbying is the most accessible form of activism for some people. I still have an auto-reply on which encourages every damn cis person who emails me at work to contact their MP.
But Josie is completely right that many if not most trans people can and should be putting a lot more of our energy into grassroots politics. This must necessarily involve re-imagining what our worlds could look like, using what we already have as a basis from which to build. I know from lived experience that we can not only survive in the absence of certain civil rights and recognition, but also see material improvements in our lives when we come together. I met Jessica because we built trans-led community services in Coventry from the ground up.
Similar points are made by Roz Kaveney, who first came out over 50 years ago. In her criminally underrated 2022 poetry collection, The Great Good Time, Roz does reflect on the violence faced by young trans women in her youth. However, she also details the vibrant lives they lived together, the joys they experienced, how they shared housing and clothes and had each others’ backs. In a short forward to the book, she notes:
“I observed a lot of bleakness creeping into trans social media and thought it my job as a community elder to remind young people that things have been, if not worse, then at least as bad in different ways”.
As Josie states in Stepping Over The Line, white, middle-class trans people in particular need to understand in this current moment that we are as disposable to the ruling classes as any other minoritised individual. Our strength lies in practical solidarity with others subject to the violence of corporations, fascist movements, and the state. To once again reiterate the point, we need to be in community with one another.
Both Robyn and Jessica’s lives offered perfect models for this.
***
Every single speaker at Robyn’s funeral talked about how much time and energy she put into punk and folk music, building and fixing things, and caring for others. She was a loud, proud butch who was incredibly committed to sustaining community wherever she went. When she saw a need, she sought to meet it. Many of us only wished that she was better at asking for or accepting help herself.
If a trans person needed somewhere to stay, Robyn would put them up. If a trans person needed to move house, or was being evicted or was fleeing a violent relationship, Robyn would turn up with a van. If a trans person was having trouble at work, Robyn would show up online or in person with sensible advice. This attitude inspired Robyn to volunteer with groups such as Reading Red Kitchen, a grassroots project which provides a social foodbank and free community meals for asylum seekers experiencing food poverty. For Robyn, radical politics could never simply be about slogans and demonstrations: it was about cooking, connecting with others, and washing the dishes.
None of this is to say that Robyn was never found at a protest: quite the opposite. When I lived in the south we co-founded Trans Liberation Surrey, a collective which worked to oppose transphobia in a county hardly known for its activist movements. My most treasured memory of Robyn is from this time, when we attended a small anti-fascist demonstration in Wokingham. A coalition of neo-nazis, anti-vaxxers, and climate conspiracists descended on the town to protest a drag queen storytime event for young children. Robyn and I joined other locals outside the library to wave rainbow flags and play upbeat music, enabling families to attend the event without disruption.
Trans Liberation Surrey, at Surrey Pride 2021.
Jessica was also extremely motivated to help others, in spite of her own difficult circumstances. Like Robyn, she was a committed trade unionist. For many years she was also involved in a small political party, before eventually being ejected for challenging the leadership. Her motivation for this was a genuine belief in the possibility of positive political change, and in the potential for people to come together and make that change happen. Later in life she would rediscover her Christian faith as alternative vehicle for community action.
After hearing of Jessica’s death, our mutual friend Charlotte reached out, and we asked one another how we knew her. It turned out Charlotte had also been a member of that political party, and reconnected with Jessica several years later as they both sought new ways to make a difference in the world. In turn, I explained how Jessica and I met while lived in Coventry, and was myself involved in organising trans community social events, meals, and punk nights. Charlotte and I also both knew Robyn. “Christ Ruth,” said Charlotte, “trans lives are so entangled and we often don’t even realise”.
So it is. Right now, Jessica’s Facebook wall is replete with people thanking her for being there as a friend, for providing them with advice, for helping them come out.
In a hostile world, we are everything to one another. In the face of the most horrific hate, our love is so powerful. Such love survives death.
Selfie taken by Jessica.
***
This is where I find hope. At protests and demonstrations, sure, but more importantly in the contexts where we give each other’s lives meaning.
I find hope in community meals, mutual aid, queer bars and queer bookshops and queer gigs. I find hope in small parties, in big Pride events, in quiet meetings at work, in food pantries. I find hope in housing projects and healthcare projects, and in the Glasgow Electrolysis Project, which has created actual jobs for trans women and a vital new service for hundreds of us across the city. We know we are failed constantly by mainstream institutions: rather than seek incremental change, is it not time to re-imagine the clinic, re-think the workplace? Our problems will not be solved by refusing to engage with existing services, nor by creating trans charities that replicate existing hierarchies. We need to find ways to build something new entirely.
I find hope in the fact there are more of us out than ever, more connected than ever. These collective endeavors are all so much more important than anything I personally might write, any research I might do, and certainly any “progressive” policy I might influence.
Doom-posting and finger-pointing cannot deliver any of these things. We need to take the time to connect with one another, especially outside the internet. Yes we need to grieve, but we need so much more than this. We need to actively look after one another, and provide space for rest and recuperation. We need to have each others’ backs. We need to connect across difference, and not (re)create hierarchies of oppression or need.
These are no fucking platitudes. This is my life. This is the lifeblood of our shared communities. This is how we create better social determinants for our goddamn health.