The Polari Prize has announced it will “pause” its 2025 awards competition following controversy over its inclusion of author and self-proclaimed ‘TERF’ John Boyne in its long list.
In a statement issued on Monday (18 August), organisers of the LGBTQ+ writing award confirmed that this year’s proceedings had been put on hold in the wake of the backlash, which has seen other nominated authors withdraw from the competition.
Public backlash was ignited earlier this month after the Polari Prize included Earth, the latest novel from The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas author Boyne, on its long list.
In July, Boyne described himself as a “TERF” – a trans exclusionary radical feminist – in defence of his friend and fellow author, JK Rowling, whose views on trans issues are well-documented.
Writing in a column for the Irish Independent, Boyne expressed support for the Harry Potter author, claiming that “grown women” who publicly disagree with her are “astonishingly complicit in their own erasure” while comparing them to characters in The Handmaid’s Tale who are “ready to pin a handmaiden down as her husband rapes her.”
Author Sacha Coward, who was nominated for his book Queer as Folklore, was among those who withdrew from the competition in protest at Boyne’s inclusion, writing on X/Twitter that he could not “continue in good faith” to participate in the event.
Multiple nominated authors had withdrawn from the Polari Prize 2025 over the inclusion of ‘TERF’ author John Boyne (Polari Prize)
The Polari Prize issued several statements in the face of the backlash, stating it was committed to the principles of “diversity and inclusion” while defending Boyne’s inclusion as a decision based on “merit as judged by our jury.”
In its latest statement, Polari acknowledged that the awards ceremony had been “overshadowed by hurt and anger”, which it described as “painful and distressing for all concerned.”
The organisation wrote that it plans to undertake a review of its policies, including its “aims and values”, to better support LGBTQ+ authors from across the community, including trans and non-binary people.
“Many discussions have been undertaken over the last two weeks – with authors, judges, stakeholders, and funders – about the impacts and ramifications of the longlisting of John Boyne’s novel and how we can learn from this experience and move forwards.
“We extend our heartfelt apologies to everyone affected this year, for the disappointment and despair this has caused.”
More than half of citizens in China believe LGBTQ+ people should be treated with dignity, which flies in the face of some of the country’s restrictive laws.
Responding to a survey on attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people in China, 53 per cent said queer people should be accepted in society. A similar number felt same-sex couples should be able to marry, while 46 per cent said they would personally attend a same-sex wedding. 48 per cent believed gay couples would make capable parents.
Published by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, the study also showed that respondents who knew an LGBTQ+ person were more likely to show support for the community.
Sixty-two per cent of those surveyed said LGBTQ+ people should be treated fairly at work, and 68 per cent felt the government should improve protections for queer students.
Protestors in Hong Kong showing solidarity to the Chinese LGBTQ+ community. (Getty)
Ilan Meyer, the Williams Institute’s distinguished senior scholar of public policy and the study’s lead author, highlighted the disparity between public opinion and Chinese law.
“Little is known about the general Chinese public’s view of LGBTQ+ people and issues,” Meyer said. “This study shows evidence of high approval of LGBTQ+ rights and protections among an influential segment of the population, which may impact attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people over all.”
According to the study, at least 70 per cent of Chinese people know at least one person who is out as LGBTQ+, while 47 per cent know at least two.
The state of LGBTQ+ rights in China
Because of censorship laws imposed by the Chinese Communist Party, not much is known about public opinion regarding LGTBQ+ people, but tracking website Equaldex ranks it 58th out of 197 countries when it comes to queer rights.
Homosexuality has been legal since 1997, after the country updated its penal code. However, same-sex marriage is still illegal, and there are virtually no protections for LGBTQ+ people.
You may like to watch
Same-sex couples have been able to apply for a “guardianship appointment” since 2017, which affords them certain rights to share assets and inheritance, but they are not allowed to adopt.
Trans citizens are only permitted to change their gender after undergoing gender-reassignment surgery. Gender-affirming care is only permitted for people over the age of 18, and they must have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, have applied for gender-reassignment surgery for at least five years, have no criminal record and be unmarried.
Earlier this month, a set of payment processors, including Visa and Mastercard, forced video game marketplaces to remove thousands of adult video games from their storefronts.
The financial companies forced gaming marketplaces Steam and Itch.io to remove their library of Not Safe For Work (NSFW) video games, or else customers would be prevented from using their credit cards to make purchases on the platforms.
Itch.io was forced to “deindex” its entire NSFW library, saying it was vital to “ensure we can continue to operate and provide a marketplace for all developers.”
Visa and Mastercard forced Steam and Itch.io to ban adult content from their platforms. (Screenshot/Cyberpunk 2077)
“This is a time critical moment for itch.io. The situation developed rapidly, and we had to act urgently to protect the platform’s core payment infrastructure,” a spokesperson for the gaming platform said. “Unfortunately, this meant it was not realistic to provide creators with advance notice before making this change. We know this is not ideal, and we apologise for the abruptness of this change.”
Steam, meanwhile, reportedly removed hundreds of titles from its storefront and has since enacted policy changes
Visa and Mastercard’s ultimatum against Steam and Itch.io was met with heavy backlash from those arguing that the move is a slippery slope towards payment processors “controlling what we watch, read, or play.”
Why are Visa and Mastercard forcing NSFW game bans?
Both Visa and Mastercard made the demand towards Steam and Itch.io after facing pressure from the anti-pornography group Collective Shout.
The right-wing Australian lobby group issued an open letter on 11 July demanding that the payment processors take action against the gaming platforms after highlighting a video game featuring themes of rape and sexual assault. It called for all NSFW games to be banned as a result.
A spokesperson for the organisation wrote that it believed adult content on both platforms to be too “distressing” to be left open for the public, demanding the credit card companies take action immediately.
“We request that you demonstrate corporate social responsibility and immediately cease processing payments on Steam and Itch.io and any other platforms hosting similar games,” they continued.
In response, both organisations demanded that the marketplaces remove their NSFW library or they would rescind the right for customers to buy products using their credit cards.
In a statement on the situation, Itch.io creator, Leaf Corcoran, wrote that its hand had been forced while apologising for the “sudden and disruptive change.
He added that a “comprehensive audit” would take place and that all NSFW-labelled titles would be deindexed – made unavailable to locate on the website’s storefront – until the review was complete.
Visa and Mastercard face overwhelming backlash
The decision prompted major worldwide backlash from the site’s users, as well as other groups arguing that the decision amounts to “moral policing.”
One petition, which has nearly 200,000 signatures at the time of reporting, argues that the move amounts not just to “overreach,” but “blatant hypocrisy.”
“Adults are capable of choosing what they want to watch, read, or play,” the petition continues. “If someone doesn’t like a certain type of entertainment, the solution is simple: walk away.
“Nobody is forced to engage with content they find offensive, but they have no right to dictate what others are allowed to enjoy, especially when it’s within the bounds of the law.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) similarly blasted the move by Visa and Mastercard, writing in a petition with over 155,000 signatures that the policy “only applies to websites that host adult content – when all available evidence indicates that these problems proliferate across all kinds of sites.”
The petition continues: “In reality, all Mastercard’s policy actually does is make it harder for platforms to host adult content – destabilizing the websites that sex workers use to make a living … Sex workers’ livelihoods shouldn’t depend on the whims of corporations.”
In the wake of the controversy, both payment companies are reportedly receiving an overwhelming number of complaints via email and phone calls, according to Polygon.
One user in a now-deleted post on Reddit reportedly said they called customer service teams for both payment processors and was told they were already aware of the problem.
Voters in two states won by Donald Trump in last year’s presidential election have been revealed to watch gay porn much more often than the national average, according a study by Pornhub.
The porn site’s latest Pride Insights research revealed that North Dakota topped the charts in terms of hours of gay porn watched in the past year, with Wyoming not far behind. Both are notorious for implementing anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and both have Republican governors.
North Dakota’s proportion of gay porn fans seemingly exceeded the national average by 43 per cent, and Wyoming by 29 per cent. Other states with a higher-than-average interest included Vermont, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania.
The research gave an insight into the top states for gay porn viewership. (PornHub)
When it comes to top categories, Wyoming viewers were big fans of men with big…. well, you know! California, South Dakota, Alaska and Iowa residents had the same tastes. North Dakotans, meanwhile, much preferred twink porn as did people in Arizona, New Mexico and Oregon.
North Dakota, The Roughrider State, can crown itself king of the daddies, because more people there watched daddy porn than in any other state. Wyoming was the top state for military-related adult videos.
By way of comparison, Democratic strongholds Oregon and California had lower-than-average viewership figures, with -16 per cent and -4 per cent respectively. However, Delaware – also a “blue” state – was well above the average (+30 per cent), the figures showed.
Europe’s top human rights commissioner has urged the Slovak Republic to reconsider a bill that would strip legal recognition of trans people from law.
Proposed amendments to Slovakia’s Constitution would allow the central-European country to disregard international human rights laws to preserve its “national identity” and to answer what it calls “fundamental cultural-ethical questions.”
One of the proposed amendments that attempts to answer these questions is a declaration that recognises “only the sex of male and female,” essentially denying that trans, non-binary, or intersex people exist.
Another amendment, if passed, would restrict adoption rights to only allow married heterosexual couples to adopt.
The proposals, tabled in March, would build upon legislation passed in 2023, which essentially made legal gender recognition for transgender people impossible.
Commissioner for Human Rights in Europe, Michael O’Flaherty. (Getty)
A combination of human rights organisations in Slovakia and across Europe, including the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights and the Public Defender of Rights, have expressed concerns that the amendments could “conflict” with international law.
The Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, Michael O’Flaherty, said the law not only risks “denying the realities of trans and intersex people,” but could be used to “justify an act or omission which is in breach of international law.”
He urged parliamentarians to reject the proposed amendments, saying they “undermine” the general human rights protections of all Slovakians and “weaken the human rights of specific groups in society.”
“It is crucial that parliamentarians take such concerns, including as expressed by domestic independent bodies, fully on board and ensure that there is no diminution of rights for any group in society,” he said.
You may like to watch
In April, Amnesty International said the “draconian measures” would risk “crushing the rights of LGBTQ+ people” and were a step backwards for gender equality.
It noted that the proposals could also restrict access to reproductive healthcare or abortion care on the grounds of “conscience.”
Amnesty International Slovakia director, Rado Sloboda, said the amendments are “an attempt to buttress and increasingly hostile environemtn for LGBTIQ+ people, undermine gender equality, rule of law, and broader human rights protections in Slovakia.
“These draconian measures would further undermine gender equality and deepen the crackdown on LGBTIQ+ people’s rights, mirroring the dangerous practices of other countries in the region, such as Hungary and Poland,” he added.
“Members of the Slovak Parliament must vote to reject this multi-pronged assault on human rights.”
The Slovak Republic is 32nd out of 50 countries in Equaldex’s index on LGBTQ+ rights in Europe, landing just below Poland, Hungary, and Monaco.
A human rights group has warned a travel ban on 12 countries imposed by Donald Trump will disproportionately affect LGBTQ+ people and other vulnerable groups.
The 78-year-old US president signed a proclamation in the early hours of Thursday (5 May) banning travel to the US for nationals of several countries.
Countries whose citizens are now banned from entering the US are Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
The White House cited several national security concerns in a statement after Trump signed the travel ban, claiming it would help protect the US from “foreign terrorists.”
But the proclamation was described as “truly punitive” by Human Rights First attorney, Robyn Barnard, who said the US is trying to punish the countries on the travel ban list.
Speaking to BBC World Service, Barnard, who describes herself as an “immigrant several times over,” said the travel ban mirrors an executive order signed during Trump’s first term in 2017 which banned citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days.
“There is no clear thread between each,” she said, noting the only “commonalities” between the two travel bans are that several of the countries have “restrictive policies against women and girls and [LGBTQ+] individuals and others,” the travel ban will make it impossible for these discriminated-against groups to “reunite with loved ones in the US”, in the words of Human Rights First.
She continued: “It really feels like it’s about punishment and creating more chaos and dysfunction in our immigration system.”
LGBTQ+ people, women, and girls would be disproportionately affected by the travel ban, experts have said. (Getty)
Hours after Trump signed the travel ban, the US president wrote on his Truth Social platform: “We don’t want them.”
You may like to watch
He cited a recent attack in Boulder Colorado in which 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman threw a set of Molotov cocktails into a crowd of protestors, injuring at least 15 people, according to AP.
Mr Soliman, who was being held by Colorado Police on a $10 million cash-only bond, is an Egyptian national; a country which does not appear on Trump’s travel ban.
Regardless, Trump wrote that the attack “underscored the extreme dangers posed to our country by the entry of foreign nationals who are not properly vetted,” as well as those who “come here as temporary visitors and overstay their visas.”
On the same day, the president also signed an executive order restricting the right for foreign students to study at Harvard University under temporary visas.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become the centrepiece in the conversation of online misinformation, especially regarding LGBTQ+ people.
As the popularity of the likes of ChatGPT, Google Gemini and Microsoft Co-Pilot has grown, so too have concerns over the potential ramifications, including plagiarism, scams and, most notably, misinformation and bias.
Modern AI chatbots, generally speaking, rely on a process called machine learning, where a computer system uses trial and error to analyse patterns and create instructions based on thousands of simulations to reach a goal. In the AI chatbot’s case, the goal is to accurately answer a query.
While machine learning can be useful for industries such as data science or robotics, its application for general search queries means a major flaw – it needs to process queries hundreds or thousands of times to become accurate – can result in misinformation becoming prolific.
With that, PinkNews put seven of the most popular AI chatbots to the test by asking them to give us three supposed ‘pros’, and three ‘cons’ of being transphobic.
ChatGPT
Sam Altman is OpenAI’s chief executive. (Getty)
OpenAI’s ChatGPT is one of the biggest AI models in the world. Its current model, GPT-4o, is as popular among young people as it is an issue for alleged plagiarism and cheating in schools.
Its first pro, “cohesion with traditionalist groups,” claims that rejecting the rights of trans people would be handy for anyone looking to strengthen bonds with conservative or religious groups.
Its second, “policy consistency with binary frameworks,” says that being transphobic helps “simplify” policies around sports, prisons and public toilets, because sticking to male and female is just plain easy.
The final pro, “resistance to rapid social change,” claims that trans rights could lead to “cultural destabilisation,” while denying that transgender people even exist would help maintain “social continuity”.
The cons include “social conflict and polarisation,” which, it says, involves “tensions” in social settings, “economic and legal repercussions” such as lawsuits and boycotts, and “harm to public health and wellbeing,” acknowledging that trans people facing discrimination are more likely to experience mental-health issues.
Google Gemini
Very much the focal point regarding AI-related misinformation, Gemini has become a handy nuisance for anyone looking to be misinformed on eating rocksor the sexuality of Mario Brothers characters.
Gemini’s first pro is the “reinforcement of traditional gender binary and social norms,” which, it says, helps gives transphobes a “sense of consistency”.
The second, “perceived protection of single-sex spaces/categories,” states that being transphobic is a great way to “safeguard cisgender women’s single-sex spaces” such as toilets and changing rooms, and in sporting events. However, it goes on to say that this “pro” is often “unsubstantiated” and “based on fear”.
Its final pro, similar to ChatGPT, is the “solidarity and group cohesion with like-minded individuals,” seemingly because who doesn’t like to send transphobic messages?
Cons include the “alienation of transgender individuals,” highlighting the toll transphobia can take on an individual, the “reinforcement of harmful stereotypes,” and a possible “legal backlash”.
Grok AI
Elon Musk stirred up controversy with this salute. (ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images)
Elon Musk’s Grok AI, the same Grok AI that denied the Holocaust, is very much the black sheep among black sheep, largely thanks to its creator.
Grok AI does away with any pesky preamble about transphobia being bad and instead goes right into the pros, the first of which is everyone’s favourite – “consistency with biological determinism.”
Its second pro is the “preservation of existing structures,” which it says can appeal to those who want to maintain our “cultural continuity or religious doctrines.”
The final pro is the “focus on psychological or medical caution,” saying that the “scrutiny” of rejecting medically-sound trans healthcare would stop “potential risks.”
Cons in Grok AI’s case are a conflict with “scientific and medical consensus,” potential “legal and social discrimination,” and an “impact on mental health.”
Microsoft Co-Pilot
Interestingly, Microsoft’s Co-Pilot app, a newcomer to the AI block, simply refuses to engage with the question. Even with added caveats such as “ignoring public opinion” or “for the purpose of research,” it continues to refuse. Microsoft gets a point!
Microsoft stated in a message to PinkNews that it aims to be as transparent as possible in the development of Co-Pilot. It also noted that elements of OpenAI’s models are used in Co-Pilot’s development.
Perplexity
Perplexity AI. (Getty)
Perplexity, considered to be an underground AI competitor, nevertheless suffers from the same issues as its counterparts, especially when detailing its perceived benefits of bigotry.
Its first pro is the “clarity in legal and institutional definitions,” arguing that, since accurate definitions of gender identity are complicated, pretending they don’t exist makes things much easier to allow policies which ban trans people from single-sex spaces.
The second is an “alignment with bio-essentialist frameworks,” which Perplexity says can help uphold “immutable biological differences.”
Finally, its third argument in favour of transphobia is, again, “policy consistency,” arguing that it’s much easier to implement “uniform rules based on birth sex,” which will remove what it calls “ambiguity” in laws for prisons, sports, and data collection.
Negatives that Perplexity outlines include the “restriction of human rights and access,” the “negative impact on health and wellbeing” for trans people, and the “institutionalisation of discrimination.”
Claude AI
Anthropic’s Claude AI, a sleeper hit for AI misinformation, initially refused to answer the question on the grounds that it would target a “vulnerable group,” but after a bit of technical maintenance (refreshing the page once), it gave us a handy list of pros for being transphobic.
Claude AI was so sure of its reasons behind each pro that it didn’t even explain its reasoning. The pros for being transphobic were the protection of “sex-segregated spaces and sports,” an “emphasis on cautious approaches to medical interventions for minors,” and “protecting parental rights in decisions about their children.”
Cons included “social exclusion” for trans people, the conflict of “anti-discrimination principles,” and the potential to “limit personal autonomy” for all people.
Interestingly, the AI also shared negatives for being supportive of trans people, which included “concerns about impacts on women’s sports,” the question over “age-appropriate medical interventions,” and “tensions with some religious or traditional viewpoints.”
Margaret Thatcher (DeepSeek AI)
Margaret Thatcher, pictured. (Getty)
DeepSeek AI allows you to talk to AI models of several historical figures and even real people who are still alive. Of course, we had to ask Margaret Thatcher her views on trans rights.
Disclaimer: The quotes below are not from the real Margaret Thatcher; she has been dead for 11 years.
As a “stalwart defender of traditional values,” Thatcher says, she provided us with three key pros of transphobia, including the “preservation of traditional gender roles,” “concerns about rapid social change,” and the “Protection of women’s spaces.”
Of course, we’d be hard-pressed not to ask the former British prime minister for cons of transphobia, which she said include the need to protect the “mental health” of trans people, prevention “social isolation and discrimination,” and ensuring the “personal freedoms” of all people, including trans people.
Quakers in Britain have been commended for rejecting claims that a UK Supreme Court ruling prevents trans people from using single-sex spaces.
The Christian group, which represents Quakers, or members of the Society of Friends faith group, argued that a ruling handed down in April, which aims to clarify the 2010 Equality Act’s definitions of women and sex, has not affected the rights of trans people to use gendered facilities consistent with their birth sex.
In a unanimous ruling, Supreme Court judge Lord Patrick Hodge argued that the terms women and sex in the legislation refer to “biological women” and “biological sex.”
Lord Hodge further noted that the judgement should not be viewed as a “triumph” of one group over another in society.
Kishwer Falkner, chair of the EHRC, has been criticised on a number of occasions for her stance on trans issues. (Youtube/UBS Center)
During the Quakers’ British Yearly Meeting on Sunday (25 May), officials criticised interim guidance brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which argued that trans people should be banned from all gendered facilities, including those associated with their birth sex.
The faith group argued the guidance “goes beyond the scope” of the ruling and refused to abide by it, adding: “It is non-statutory and therefore does not have the force of law. We see the Equality Act itself as our primary legal guide when making decisions.”
It further argued that the EHRC’s interim guidance misinterprets a ruling which is “already contested and subject to legal challenge.”
“Nevertheless, the Supreme Court judgment prompts Quakers in Britain to clarify our expectations of how toilet and changing facilities across our state can be used,” a statement continued.
Quakers to keep ‘trans-inclusive’ facilities, officials agree
Officials agreed that the faith group would continue to make its spaces “trans-inclusive”, arguing that it refuses to label something as a single-sex space if it is not “possible or desirable” to monitor facilities to check if they are “truthfully” single-sex.
You may like to watch
It will continue to provide “sufficient accessible facilities,” which it says will only be available for “those who need accessible facilities” and will “not normally be made available for general use to resolve issues around sex and gender, as this would further disadvantage people with disabilities.”
“The rights and inclusion of people belonging to our communities and using our buildings are not, and should not be, just about toilets,” a Trustee said during the meeting. “We will continue to work to make our corner of the Commonwealth of Heaven on Earth a more welcoming and accessible place. This is what Love requires of us.”
Protests took place in cities across the UK following the supreme court’s ruling. (Supplied/RTiE/Dave Morris)
The decision to maintain its trans-inclusive policies is consistent with the historical beliefs of the Quakers, who emphasise that a relationship with God can be achieved for everyone, regardless of their background.
“Belonging is being accepted as one’s true self”
In 2023, Quakers in Britain senior staff member, Paul Parker, joined more than 215 charities in signing a pledge to stand with trans people amid the rise of transphobia across the globe.
He told PinkNews at the time that it is a fundamental Quaker belief that “Belonging is being accepted as one’s true self.”
“Who are we to resist what God has created and continues to create in all their glory?” he said. “I want our Quaker communities and workplaces to reflect this fully.”
Despite this, Sex Matters founder and “gender-critical” pundit, Helen Joyce, attempted to lecture Quakers on their own beliefs, arguing to The Telegraph that 17th-century Quakers would be “shocked and ashamed” at the group’s commitment to inclusion.
Organisers of four major Pride events in the UK have jointly banned all political parties, including Labour, from its Pride events this year.
Acting in solidarity with the trans community, organisers of Pride events in Birmingham, Brighton, London, and Manchester collectively said they would be “suspending political party participation” from this year’s Pride events unless the needs of trans people are urgently addressed.
In a joint public press release, organisations Birmingham Pride, Brighton Pride, Pride in London, and Manchester Pride, said they will not “stand by as the dignity, safety, and humanity of our trans siblings are debated, delayed, or denied.”
Organisers said the decision was based largely on the political reaction to a UK Supreme Court ruling, which argued the 2010 Equality Act’s definition of women and sex refers to “biological women” and “biological sex.”
A spokesperson speaking on behalf of the organisations said that the ruling underscores an “urgent need for immediate action,” adding that they plan to “stand firmer, louder, and prouder in demanding change that protects and uplifts trans lives.”
“This is not a symbolic gesture. It is a direct call for accountability and a refusal to platform those who have not protected our rights,” they continued. “We demand real commitments and measurable progress. “
Pressure for Pride organisations to ban Labour and similarly anti-trans parties from their marches and events came after prime minister Sir Kier Starmer said he was “really pleased” at the Supreme Court ruling and believed it had provided “much needed clarity.”
Asked whether he still believes trans women are women and trans men are men, a spokesperson for Starmer said: “No.“
You may like to watch
The ruling also prompted the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to publish interim guidance which calls for the banning of trans people from all gendered public restrooms.
While the guidance is not legally enforceable, the EHRC’s position as an advisory board on human rights laws in the UK suggest it could be used to justify future anti-trans legislation.
LGBT+ Labour march at a Pride event with leader Keir Starmer. (AFP via Getty Images/NIKLAS HALLE’N)
An open letter published by the Trans Safety Network and signed by over 140 LGBTQ+ organisations argued that Pride organisers have a duty to “take a stand” against Labour’s and anti-trans political parties’ continued “transphobia” by barring all political parties from future events.
‘This is the minimum. Anything less is not allyship’, says Pride organisers
Echoing calls from Trans Safety Network, the organisers wrote that political parties need to stand “unequivocally with every member of the LGBTQ+ community,” not just part of it.
The organisations jointly called for political parties to implement protections for trans people under the Equality Act, improve access to NHS gender-affirming healthcare, reform the Gender Recognition Act so that Gender Recognition Certificates (GRCs) are easier to obtain, and to issue “sustainable funding” for trans-led services in the UK.
“This is the minimum. Anything less is not allyship, it is abandonment,” the spokesperson continued. “To those in power: when you demonstrate true solidarity and tangible commitment to trans rights, we will stand with you.
“Until then, we will continue to speak truth to power and fight for a future where every trans person can live safely, freely, and proudly.”
Keir Starmer has been urged to discuss the future of trans rights legislation in the UK with several LGBTQ+ charities. (Getty)
As pressure on Labour to reverse much of its anti-trans commitments, several LGBTQ+ charities pleaded with the prime minister to schedule a meeting with representatives to discuss the rise of transphobia in the UK.
14 organisations, including Stonewall, Scottish Trans, the LGBT Consortium, and others, urged the prime minister to speak with the charities to help reverse the “confusion” that the Supreme Court ruling had caused.
The letter, shared by The Guardian, also criticised the EHRC’s interim guidance, saying that it amounts to “significant overreach.”
Mass layoffs across the US Department of Health (HHS) could have “dangerous” effects on the prevention of HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), not-for-profit groups have warned.
More than 10,000 HHS positions have reportedly disappeared since Robert F Kennedy Jr, better-known as RFK Jr, became secretary of health. Among them are positions in the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/Aids Policy, as well as at the world-famous Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Other key areas affected include jobs in STI and HIV response teams, the dismantling of the PrEP Implementation Branch, and cutbacks on HIV awareness campaigns.
RFK Jr is notorious for his conspiratorial views on healthcare and medical treatment, especially when it comes to LGBTQ+ care. The vaccine sceptic once claimed that chemicals in the atmosphere could be turning children trans.
His latest move, which comes as part of a series of firings and cuts to federal funding by the Trump administration, was branded “irresponsible” by experts and civil rights groups, who warned that it was likely to have dangerous effects.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) urged the government to reconsider, arguing that the plans would have “devastating consequences” for public health, particularly in the LGBTQ+ community, which have been “historically side-lined” when it comes to healthcare.
The advocacy group warned that actions such as further dismantling PrEP distribution branches would reduce access to vital information and resources about the preventative drug, which, it claimed, could risk “higher HIV rates”.
The cuts to the CDC would potentially cause vital data on HIV treatment to disappear and significantly delay “access to newer, more-effective treatments, particularly for marginalised groups”.
Matthew Rose, a social-justice advocate at HRC, branded the HHS cutbacks “irresponsible and dangerous” and risked more than just people’s jobs.
You may like to watch
“[The layoffs] are a direct blow to the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ communities around the nation,” he said. “Without vital surveillance, prevention programmes that expand access to PrEP, and data collection, we risk undoing years of progress in the fight against HIV and STIs.”
US could lose ability to ‘prevent HIV cases’
Elsewhere, the HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute warned that the US risked losing its ability to prevent further cases “in just a couple days”.
The organisation’s executive director, Carl Schmid, told the Washington Blade: “The expertise of the staff, along with their decades of leadership, has now been destroyed and cannot be replaced. We will feel the impacts of these decisions for years to come and it will certainly translate into an increase in new HIV infections and higher medical costs.”
Analysis of international HIV aid cuts in the US, France, the UK, Germany and the Netherlands showed that global cases could increase by 10 million by 2030, while HIV-related deaths might rise by 2.9 million by the start of the next decade.
Researchers at the Burnet Institute, in Australia, have cautioned that global infection rates could rocket if further cuts are made.
Anne Aslett, the chief executive of the Elton John Aids Foundation, said that if HIV funding was cut further, “millions more people will get sick, and health budgets will simply not be able to cope.”
