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.
A “warm-hearted” London-based scientist was lured on Grindr before being killed and dismembered, police in Colombia have said.
Alessandro Coatti, 38, was last seen leaving his hostel in Santa Marta on 4 April.
The microbiologist, who had recently left his role at the Royal Society of Biology (RSB) after eight years as a senior policy officer, had told staff at his hostel that he wanted to learn about the local flora and fauna.
On 6 April, Coatti’s head, hands and feet were found in a suitcase near the Sierra Nevada Stadium. His other body parts were found the following day in a suitcase by the Minuto de Dios Bridge, the day after his legs were found a coffee bag in the Villa Betal neighbourhood.
Police, who initially thought Coatti’s death could have been linked to a violent war between two rival gangs in the city, now believe he was lured to his death by a group of thieves who target their victims on Grindr.
A coroner determined that he died of blunt force trauma to the head.
‘Loved by everyone he worked with’
The RSB remembered Coatti, who was also known as Ale, as someone who was “funny, warm, intelligent” and “loved by everyone he worked with”.
Tribute adds that he “will be deeply missed by all who knew and worked with him”.
A memorial page, organised for Coatti by RSB, features a memory wall of comments from people who knew him.
You may like to watch
One person wrote that he was a “delightful person toward with” and “warm-hearted”.
Another wrote: “He was knowledgeable, insightful and brought a warmth and humour to his role. Ale often had a mischievous twinkle in his eye before saying something that made me laugh.”
“Words cannot adequately express the profound sorrow I feel for a beautiful life cut so short,” someone else shared on the page.
Speaking to The Daily Mail, local human rights activist Vera Salazar said there have been 13 similar murders in the region in the last year.
In a statement posted on X, Santa Marta mayor Carlos Pinedo Cuello offered a reward of 50 million pesosfor information in the case.
The post was captioned: “The Santa Marta District Mayor’s Office emphatically rejects any act of violence and reiterates its commitment to defending public space and the safety of public officials who work towards a more orderly and safer Santa Marta for everyone.”
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time Grindr has been linked to the death or harm of an LGBTQ+ individual. Last year, a 20-year-old was found guilty of bludgeoning an army veteran he met though Grindr to death with a hammer, as well as the attempted murder of another man he met on the gay app.
A Grindr spokesperson has previously told The Guardian that the company was aware of attempts to misuse its service but said they worked hard to ensure “a safe and authentic environment, free of harmful and fake accounts”.
In the documents, the NEC is urged to vote in favour of postponing the National Women’s Conference because it would be at “significant risk of a legal challenge” following the judgement if it were to go ahead – as it had in the past – on the basis of self-ID, adding given the “proximity” to the ruling it may result in “protests, direct action and heightened security risks”.
“This would also represent a political risk which would be likely to feature prominently throughout conference week,” the document also reads.
The leaked papers went on to warn that Labour would face “significant risk of direct and indirect discrimination claims succeeding” if it continues to use positive action measures such as the National Labour Women’s Committee and women officer roles based on self-identification.
The NEC is urged in the documents to vote in favour of using a biological definition of ‘sex’ to “mitigate the risk of legal challenge” going forward.
You may like to watch
“Pending a wider review, all positive action measures relating to women in the Party’s rules and procedures shall be interpreted on the basis of biological sex at birth. Guidance shall be issued to all Party units and relevant stakeholders to this effect,” the document reads. “The Party will work with individuals and local parties affected by the judgment to resolve specific cases with sensitivity and compassion, acknowledging the significant effect the judgment will have had on many people.”
Further to this, it is recommended to the NEC that the women’s conference is postponed in “light of the legal and political risks” because “the only legally defensible alternative would be to restrict attendance to delegates who were biologically women at birth (including trans men)”.
LGBT+ Labour: “Equality and positive action is all about increasing diversity”
In response, in a joint statement issued by LGBT+ Labour’s trans officer Georgia Meadows, Labour for Trans Rights and Pride in Labour the content of the leaked proposals was condemned “unreservedly”.
LGBT+ Labour and the other groups said the proposals are “not effective ways to ‘clarify’ anything” and will “restrict trans members’ engagement in internal democratic procedures”.
“We would also question whether the exclusion of trans women from Women’s Conference is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim, as trans issues have come up time and time again during the conference, this seems to completely remove trans people from that debate,” the statement reads.
“It is a blatant attack on trans rights and is seemingly an attempt to isolate trans people even further within the Labour Party and the labour movement more widely.”
Calling on NEC members to vote the paper down, the group continued: “Trans people are already greatly underrepresented in British politics, and if passed, this decision by the NEC will further harm trans people’s ability to engage with the democratic process and make them feel unwelcome at a time when the trans community is increasingly under attack.
“Equality and positive action is all about increasing diversity, access and fairness in public spaces. There are no trans or gender non-conforming MPs, and our community is underrepresented both in the Labour Party and across devolved and local governments.”
An emergency protest condemning the Supreme Court ruling was held in April. (Getty)
In their own statement, gender critical Labour organisation Labour Women’s Declaration labelled the decision to potentially postpone the women’s conference a “knee jerk reaction” and warned against “incendiary action as cancelling the single major policy-making conference of the party which focuses on issues affecting women”.
A spokesperson for the the group said: “We are shocked that hundreds of women in the Labour Party might be prevented from meeting at conference because the NEC would prefer to disadvantage all women rather than to exclude the very small number of trans-identified men who may wish to attend the women’s conference.
“The party should not act in fear of threats and demonstrations. We have held fringe meetings for years, often in the teeth of violent threats from trans activists, which we have managed carefully and kept everyone safe.
“It would be exceptionally disappointing if our Party, which strives to be a grown-up and serious political force, and a strong government, could not find the courage to run this conference as planned and run it in accordance with law which was introduced under a Labour government. Women deserve better.”
PinkNews has contacted Labour for comment.
It is understood the Labour Party respects the Supreme Court’s judgment and will comply with statutory guidance once published. Ministers will also consider the EHRC Code of Practice when a draft is submitted following its consultation on changes.
What is the EHRC consultation?
Following the Supreme Court ruling and as part of its interim guidance, the EHRC said it aimed to provide an updated version of its Code of Practice – which will “support service providers, public bodies and associations to understand their duties under the Equality Act and put them into practice” – to the UK Government by the end of June.
The equalities watchdog said it would be reviewing sections of the Code to incorporate the Supreme Court’s judgment and ensure it is in-line with its guidance.
“We are currently reviewing sections of the draft Code of Practice which need updating. We will shortly undertake a public consultation to understand how the practical implications of this judgment may be best reflected in the updated guidance,” the EHRC said.
“The Supreme Court made the legal position clear, so we will not be seeking views on those legal aspects.”
Originally, the consultation was scheduled for just two weeks but following criticism from from the Women and Equalities Committee and trans groups it was extended to six weeks.
The EHRC said the changes were made “in light of the level of public interest, as well as representations from stakeholders in Parliament and civil society” and the consultation will now launch 19 May and conclude on 30 June.
When the Supreme Court issued its 88-page long judgement that the legal definition of ‘sex’ is based on ‘biology’, gender critical lobbying group and controversially registered charity LGB Alliance declared it was a “landmark for lesbian rights in the UK”.
“This matters greatly to LGB people,” CEO Kate Barker said of the ruling. “It is especially important to lesbians, because the definition of lesbian is directly linked to the definition of woman.”
Barker – who once claimed a singular drag queen carrying the Olympic torch demonstrated the “erasure of woman in all spheres of public life” – went on to say the ruling “marks a watershed for women and, in particular, lesbians who have seen their rights and identities undermined over the last decade”.
Despite Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge specifically counseling against certain factions “reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another,” gender critical activists view the outcome of the Supreme Court case as a decisive victory for all women over so-called ‘gender ideology’.
However, in the days and weeks that have followed the Supreme Court ruling, it has quickly become clear that many women who are not trans – who are in the court’s definition born as ‘biological women’, identify as women and women and live their lives as women – will likely be disadvantaged by the court’s decision because they do not fit into narrow, often white and western, definitions of what constitutes as ‘woman’.
Transgender people and their allies stage a protest march in Westminster in support of trans rights following this week’s UK Supreme Court unanimous ruling that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex, in London, United Kingdom on April 19, 2025. (Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images)
Sparked by a trans-inclusive definition of womanhood in Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 – which sought to diversity the number of women on public boards in the devolved nation – the Supreme Court decisionwas the culmination of a years-long legal battle between gender critical Scottish group For Women Scotland (FWS) and the Scottish government about how the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ is defined and applied in the 2010 Equality Act.
After traversing many different appeal processes, the case finally ended at the UK’s highest court and concluded the definition does not include trans people.
“The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex,” Lord Hodge said in his oral reading of the ruling.
The decision is expected to have wide-ranging implications for the trans community, as well as organisations, public bodies and services who may be forced to update their policies on single-sex spaces, inclusion and discrimination. Some, including the Football Association and the England and Wales Cricket Board, have already taken steps to bar trans women from taking part in female matches.
In the wake of the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) – the UK’s equalities watchdog – issued interim guidance which said single-sex spaces must be based on biology whereby a trans woman must not be allowed to use a female toilet and a trans man not allowed to use a male one. However, the guidance also adds that, in “some circumstances,” trans women should also be banned from the men’s facilities and trans men from women’s facilities.
When asked to clarify this point by the BBC, the EHRC directed the broadcaster to a section of the Supreme Court ruling which states trans men could be excluded from women’s facilities “where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken” in the context of a female-only space, such as a toilet.
In essence, when a trans man looks, well, too much like a man (because he is one) or when a trans woman looks, well, too much like a woman (because she is one), they can be totally excluded from gendered spaces and be forced to only use a unisex facility – assuming one is available.
If the circumstances which would see trans men – who are defined by the court ruling as ‘biologically female’ – banned from female toilets is all about ‘masculine appearance’, then where does this leave masculine, cis women?
Whilst the Supreme Court case is supposedly about ‘protecting’ the interests of all women, this exception – in itself – shows there is only interest in protecting certain kinds of women. Namely, women who ‘look’ like women: traditionally feminine women with long hair, hips and visible breasts, who dress and talk and walk in a way that is ‘expected’ of women and who have no trouble moving through the world as one.
By contrast, there are plenty of other women out there who constantly have their gender and presentation policed by strangers for not fitting into the narrow and misogynistic definitions of what a woman should be. Women who are tall, have short hair, broad shoulders and square jawlines. Women who wear clothes from the men’s section and have deep voices and body hair. Women who are “incorrectly female,” Hannah Gadsby famously said.
Writing for Refinery29 in 2022, Yassine Senghor exemplifies this as “a dark-skinned Black, fat, masculine-presenting dyke with a shaved head who tends to lean towards clothing gendered as men’s” and said she has always been told she is “doing ‘woman’ wrong”. Similarly, in a different article for the publication, architect Martha said she has been made to feel that she is “failing at womanhood” and even when she presented more femininely was questioned about her gender.
Such slim definitions of what is correct or incorrect womanhood rooted in patriarchal beauty standards are – ironically enough – what feminists have actually spent decades fighting against, so that women have the choice about whether or not they want to shave their legs, wear make-up or put on dresses or *gasp* trousers.
The Supreme Court ruling will, very likely, cause butch and masculine lesbians to face increased harassment in single-sex female spaces simply because of how they present themselves. This is not a fictitious, dystopian musing by one dyke about the rights of others in her community, this is something we have already seen – and are continuing to see – when it comes to women do not fit into the confindes of traditional femininity and gender.
For Lesbian Visibility Week, which came a week after the Supreme Court’s decision, Labour MP Kate Osborne said she is “frequently misgendered”because of how she looks and expressed concern it will only get worse going forward.
“I note that Ministers said yesterday that there will be guidance regarding the Supreme Court verdict. That decision will have a huge impact on my life, on many other cis lesbians and, indeed, on heterosexual women,” Osborne told fellow MPs. “I suspect that I will get challenged even more now when accessing facilities. The impact on my life will be problematic, but the impact on my trans siblings’ lives will be significantly worse.”
Just this week, across the pond, in the United States, a number of headlines were dedicated to an incident involving lesbian woman Ansley Baker who was removed from a female toilet in a Boston hotel by a male security guard after being accused of being ‘a man’ by other women in the facility. The irony that it was a male security guard who banged on the cubical door and removed her when her shorts were not fully done up has not been lost on most in the LGBTQ+ community, it must be noted.
Baker is certainly not the first, nor will she likely be the last, lesbian to face such treatment, with other incidents from recent years including the partner of children’s author Jessica Walton and poet Eloise Stonborough, whilst Martha told R29 she has “some kind of confrontation or experience in a public bathroom every few months” after starting to present in a more butch way.
But, tight confines and strict parameters of what constitutes correct womanliness and the social punishments inflicted when broken are not solely restricted to masculine lesbians, straight women too have subject to such policing.
In 2023, the pregnant girlfriend of Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel actor Erin Darke, was transvestigated by anti-trans pundits on social media because she happens to be taller than Radcliffe and have certain facial features. Transvesigation refers to conspiracy theories that falsely claim individuals, typically women, are transgender and are hiding their “true” gender identity, with Drake accused of ‘secretly being trans’. Transvesitigations are entirely rooted in warped, deeply misogynistic and racist, views of femininity and gender.
Similarly, Olympic boxer Imane Khelif – who was thrust into the centre of a gender storm during the Paris Games – was accused of ‘being a man’ despite the fact she, and Olympic bosses, clarified she is not nor has ever identified as trans. In fact in Algeria, where Khelif hails from, gender-affirming care is banned and public gender non-conformity has the potential to be prosecuted as “indecent” under the 1966 penal code. However, people failed to engage the grey matter in their brains and the conspiracy persisted because, according to the wisdom of users on X/Twitter, Khelif has a strong nose, muscles, is tall and has hairs on her knuckles, so must be male.
Other cis women who are seemingly not woman enough according to transphobes include rugby icon Ilona Maher, tennis legend Serena Williams and former first lady Michelle Obama. Why? Again, because their bodies have dared to exist outside of patriarchal beauty standards, defined and controlled by the the male gaze.
As organisations, public bodies and services across the UK look set to draw up fresh guidelines in response to the Supreme Court ruling we will all do well to remember that gender policing does far, far more harm than ever does any good. At best it can be an irritant for women who move through the world everyday in a more masculine presentation, at its worst it poses an inherent threat to the people such an ill-thought out ruling is supposed to protect; putting woman who do not conform at risk of harassment, abuse and vigliante justice.
As Hannah Gadsby explained when she described herself as being ‘incorrectly female’, she was beaten up for being visibly lesbian and accepted that was what she was worth, because that is what the world told her.
“He beat the shit out of me and nobody stopped him. And I didn’t report that to the police and I did not take myself to the hospital and I should have. And you know why I didn’t? Because I thought that is all I was worth,” she explained during her stand up show Nanette. “And that was not homophobia pure and simple, people, that was gendered. If I’d have been feminine, that would not have happened. I am incorrectly female, I am incorrect, and that is a punishable offence.”
At its heart gender policing just proves – just like their views on the beautiful diversity of gender are narrow – the views of bigots on womanhood are equally as restrictive.
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.”
Southern states in the US are “facing a sexual health crisis”, according to a new study.
The study compared sexual health resources, STD prevalence, reproductive outcomes, abortion policy and reproductive rights by state.
A recent study by adult store Lion’s Den analysed and ranked US states based on their sexual risk factors, identifying “where residents may face higher dangers related to sexual activity and highlighting regional disparities in sexual safety across America”. It’s a timely study, given that relationship experts previously predicted the “politicisation of sex” prior to President Trump’s inauguration.
The riskiest state to have sex is Louisiana, according to the study, with the highest STI rates in the country at 795 per 100K people. Louisiana has a full abortion ban, as per the New York Times, and abortion is banned in almost every circumstance.
The second riskiest state is Mississippi, which leads in teen births at 26.4 per 1000 teenagers who were assigned female at birth. The state also has a full abortion ban. Meanwhile, the third riskiest state is Arkansas, which also has a full abortion ban.
The second-largest state in the US, Texas, is the sixth-riskiest state. The Lone Star State has the least sexual health clinics available, with just 0.4 for each 100K residents. As a result of the lack of medical support, the state also has high rates of teenage pregnancies, with 20.4 for every 1000 teenagers assigned female at birth.
Pete Potenzini, marketing director at Lion’s Den, said: “Southern states face a sexual health crisis where residents are three times more likely to contract an STD compared to New England states, with particularly alarming rates in Louisiana and Mississippi.
“Limited healthcare access compounds these risks, as exemplified by Texas, where residents must travel significantly farther to reach sexual health clinics than the national average. These geographical disparities create dangerous ‘sexual health deserts’ where education, prevention, and treatment remain critically out of reach for vulnerable populations.”
A Norwegian transgender politician, representing the Green Party (MDG), has advocated for transgender Americans to be granted asylum in Norway due to the anti-trans discrimination they are facing in the US.
Karina Ødegård, who is on track to becoming Norway’s first transgender member of parliament, has told Norwegian newspaper Afterposten that the challenges faced by trans people in the US are similar to the persecution experienced by marginalised groups in 1930s Germany.
Referring to the rise of fascism in Europe and the persecution of Jewish people and other minorities, she said: “What would we have done in the 1930s if we knew what was about to happen? That’s where we are now. Then we have to act,” she said.
Ødegård has said that in contrast to the US, the state and healthcare system in Norway helped her to be herself.
“One thing is that you see [in the US] the development of an illiberal democracy. I find that extremely problematic. Then it gets even worse because the Trump administration has singled out transgender people as scapegoats to be hanged and removed,” she explained.
This comes after President Trump signed a raft of executive orders targeting trans people, preventing them from serving in the military, banning trans women from participating in women’s sports, and requiring official documents to only list their gender registered at birth.
LGBTQ+ rights in Norway
Norway is considered very safe for LGBTQ+ people. (Getty)
Norway is generally considered to be a very LGBTQ+ friendly country, as it was one of the first countries to pass an anti-discrimination law that explicitly included sexual orientation in 1981.
Also, same-sex marriage and adoption has been legal there since 2009.
Unfortunately, Norway doesn’t yet legally recognise non-binary identities, nor does it offer gender-affirming care for under-18s, stating a “lack of comprehensible research” despite the majority of Norwegian people believing that it should be accessible.
Norway has laws (The Tenancy Act, the Housing Association Act and the Residential Building Association Act) that all prohibit housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Married and committed same-sex couples are permitted to adopt under Norwegian law, and self-ID is also allowed: to change their gender, trans citizens only have to send a notification to the National Population Register.
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.”
A first-of-its-kind gender euphoria scale study has found, just in time for Trans Day of Visibility (3 March), that an overwhelming majority of trans and non-binary people feel affirmed when allowed to be themselves.
The collaborative study, which helped to create the ground-breaking scale, found that, out of a survey of more than 700 trans and non-binary Australians aged between 16 and 79, 96.6 per cent felt gender euphoria in some capacity.
Researchers from the Swinburne University of Technology, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute (MCRI), and the University of Melbourne, used the data to create the gender euphoria scale – an innovative way to measure a trans person’s affirmation with their gender identity.
Out of the participants, over 85 per cent of respondents said they feel moderate to strong gender dysphoria, while 62 per cent said they feel it on a weekly or daily basis.
Researchers say gender euphoria is ‘key’ to mental health support. (Getty)
Participants were selected by researchers as part of the TRANSform study – a research project by the Trans Health Research Group led by trans and non-binary researchers.
Using responses on a handful of questions around the experiences of the trans participants, the academic cohort created 26 items that measure a person’s gender euphoria based on three core themes – social affirmation, self-affirmation, and community connection.
Gender euphoria a ‘key component’ of mental health support
“The gender euphoria scale could be used to help clinicians focus on assisting clients to experience positive aspects of gender identity, rather than focusing on eliminating gender dysphoria,” Dr Simone Buzwell, researcher at Swinburne, said of the project.
Speaking to Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) News, Transcend Australia chair Tara Laursen described gender euphoria as the sense of joy and affirmation from feeling “right” about your gender identity.
She added that gender euphoria is a “key component” of mental and emotional health for trans and non-binary people – one that isn’t focused on enough.
You may like to watch
“Research has shown that experiencing gender euphoria is associated with lower levels of psychological distress and suicidal ideation,” she said. “When trans people are affirmed through their gender – whether through supportive relationships, healthcare, and/or self-expression – it fosters resilience, confidence, and a greater sense of belonging.”
Researchers also added that the study could help advocate for policies that help prolong gender euphoria for trans people, rather than just ensuring that the community survives.
Swinburne PhD student and MCRI trans health researcher Charlotte Blacklock said that it is vital for research like this to “broaden understandings of gender diversity” by focusing on the positives rather than the negatives.
Multiple LGBTQ+ choirs have performed in protest after the Kennedy Centre cancelled a performance of the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington, DC and the National Symphony Orchestra.
The concert was scheduled for 21 May as part of WorldPride 2025, with the two organisations set to collaborate on a piece titled “A Peacock Among Pigeons” for a Pride concert. In a statement shared on social media last month, the Gay Men’s Chorus said it was “deeply disappointed” by the decision to cancel the event.
In response, eight LGBTQ+ choirs sang “Make Them Hear You” from the musical Ragtime in a defiant performance, which is dubbed as “the unofficial anthem of the Gay Men’s Chorus Washington, DC”.
The video was shared by Manchester Proud Chorus and Oxford Proud Voices last week and featured clips from the Hong Kong Gay Men’s Chorus in China, OutLoud Lincoln, Lincolnshire, QueerArts Rainbow Choir, York, Pink Singers, London, Barberfellas, London, Oxford Proud Voices, Oxfordshire, and Manchester Proud Chorus, Manchester.
The choir wrote: “When we found out the Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington DC’s concert at the Kennedy Center was cancelled, without explanation.
“LGBTQ+ choirs around the world decided to join together, singing in solidarity with our friends,” it continued. “We will not be silenced.”
The Washington-based choir said in its February statement: “We believe in the power of music to educate and uplift, to foster love, understanding, and community, and we regret that this opportunity has been taken away.
“While we are saddened by the decision, we are committed to this work and to our mission of raising our voices for equality for all.
“We are grateful for those who have supported us,” the Gay Men’s Chorus continued, “and we will continue to seek spaces where our voices, our stories, and our music can be heard.”
You may like to watch
The Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington, DC, will instead perform the pre-planned show during its upcoming Choral Festival as part of WorldPride 2025. “We will continue to advocate for artistic expression that reflects the depth and diversity of our community and country. We will continue to sing and raise our voices for equality,” the statement concluded.
