When I arrived in the UK six years ago as an asylum seeker, I was stunned by how LGBTQI+ friendly the country seemed. Compared to Ukraine and Russia – where I had previously lived – it felt almost like time travel.
I’ve known I was trans since I was four years old. But it was only here, in the UK, at the age of 24, that I finally felt safe enough to come out.
Since then, much has changed. The political climate has shifted. Laws have shifted.
In 2015, the annual Rainbow Map and Index by ILGA-Europe ranked the UK as the most LGBTQI+ friendly country in Europe. But in the latest rankings released on 14 May, the UK has fallen to 22nd place, with an overall score of just 46 per cent. That makes it the second-worst performer on LGBTQI+ rights in Western Europe and Scandinavia.
This drop isn’t abstract – it reflects growing hostility, dangerous rhetoric, and policies that especially target trans people.
The recent Supreme Court ruling that defines “woman” as “biological woman” under equality law is a particularly cruel institutional decision. Its consequences for trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people may not even be fully visible yet – but they will be far-reaching.
Transmasculine people like me may soon be under direct attack as well. And then, as history shows, the broader LGBTQI+ community often follows. For people already facing multiple forms of oppression – like refugees and people seeking asylum – the danger is even greater.
So as Pride Month begins, we must ask ourselves: What does Pride mean right now? How did we get here—and where do we go from here? What does this mean for LGBTQI+ refugees in particular, and why is it important for the community in general?
You may like to watch
The Cass Review: a turning point
I knew something was deeply wrong when the Cass Review was published in April 2024, and the NHS began blocking transgender youth from accessing gender-affirming care.
Outside the LGBTQI+ community, few people seemed to care. Even many liberals and left-leaning voices accepted it as “reasonable”.
But this decision has already caused immense harm. The review was widely criticised by both UK and international experts, but the damage was swift – especially for transgender kids. As a former trans child myself, I know the mental health cost of being denied gender-affirming care. I still live with that impact today.
And it always starts the same way: The first attacks come for LGBTQI+ youth, because they are not taken seriously because they are considered to be “too immature” to think for themselves. Just like refugees, who are seen as “barbarians” from less developed societies.
Those at the intersection suffer the most.
A dangerous shift in politics
Despite its history as a progressive party, many trans activists now say Labour is doing more harm to LGBTQI+ people than recent Tory governments.
Labour is even continuing the particularly dangerous for LGBTQI+ people anti-immigration policies introduced under Rishi Sunak. Prime minister Keir Starmer recently said the UK is considering sending rejected people seeking safety to third countries.
As someone who has worked with LGBTQI+ refugees globally, I can say: This is extremely risky for trans people.
Trans people seeking asylum already face daily harassment, even within refugee communities. Most third countries lack the legal protections they need. Deportation could cut them off from hormone therapy or vital healthcare.
And all this is happening as far-right movements gain more support. The rise of the transphobic, anti-migrant Reform Party, the far-right riots last summer, and increasing global conservatism are life-threatening for LGBTQI+ refugees.
“It should be not about past victories, but present dangers,” Ayman Eckford writes (Ayman Eckford)
Sometimes the threat is physical – being attacked for looking non-White and gender non-conforming. Sometimes it’s quieter but just as harmful – denial of healthcare, legal protections, or safety.
As an expert by experience for the mental health charity Rethink, I know how hard it is to access therapy even for cisgender, straight British people.
Now imagine being a trans person seeking asylum. You’re under constant pressure, facing daily dehumanization – and if you finally reach out for help?
The therapist might be transphobic. Or xenophobic. Or both.
Maybe you can’t fully express yourself in English.
Maybe the waiting list is too long.
In the end, the suicide risk for trans and LGBTQI+ refugees is terrifyingly high. And still, much of the broader LGBTQI+ movement stays silent.
Pride as Protest: What Must Be Done
So what does it mean to celebrate Pride in this context?
In recent years, Pride has become a celebration – of victories, of corporate support, of police apologies. But we must remember: Pride was born as a protest. Today, it must return to its roots. It must be about resistance.
It should be not about past victories, but present dangers.
Not “love is love,” but “the lives of our queer and trans siblings are at risk.”
I know that for many people — even some within the LGBTQI+ community — lives like mine don’t matter.
But history shows us: The erosion of human rights always begins with minorities.
Just as the attacks on trans kids marked the start of broader attacks on LGBTQI+ people in the UK, the targeting of trans refugees and LGBTQI+ people seeking sanctuary is not the end of the story of oppression —it’s only the beginning. But we may change this story, and this is what Pride Month should be about.
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.
A trans charity in Scotland has labelled the ban on trans women using female toilets in Scottish parliament an “unworkable” decision which will prevent trans folks “from participating in Scottish democracy”.
Following the UK Supreme Court ruling that the definition of ‘sex’ in the 2010 Equality Act refers to ‘biology’, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) – which oversees accommodation at Holyrood – decided that as of Monday (12 May) use of “all facilities designated as male or female” will be based on “biological sex” to be “in line with the Supreme Court judgment”.
Alongside designating single-sex spaces as solely based on biology, gender neutral facilities, open to anyone, will also be installed in Holyrood.
Presiding officer Alison Johnstone said: “As Scotland’s legislature, it is vital that the Parliament fulfils its legal responsibilities.
“Our officials therefore took immediate steps following the publication of the judgment to review it in detail and to consider its implications for services and facilities at Holyrood.”
Johnstone said it was important to make this change now “not only to ensure we fulfil our legal responsibilities, but to give clarity to all those using the building” and ensure “confidence, privacy and dignity” for both staff and visitors.
In response, Scottish Trans and Equality Network wrote a letter to the SPCB condemning the decision as “rushed” and “unworkable” as well as one which will “exclude trans people from participating in Scottish democracy, whether as staff or as visitors to the Parliament”.
The letter went on to say the change will “make trans people feel significantly less welcome at Parliament”.
Trans people already avoid public toilets frequently – 80% of trans people have avoided them due to fear of being harassed, being read as trans, or being outed. Policies to restrict the use of toilets on the basis of “biological sex” and/or to insist that trans people must use separate, segregated facilities from others will make this worse,” the letter reads.
You may like to watch
“Trans people have been using toilets in line with our gender identities across Scotland and the UK for decades. Changes to policy and practice to restrict trans people’s access to facilities on the basis of our “biological sex” after the Supreme Court judgment will profoundly change trans people’s ability to participate in public life as who we truly are.”
It adds: “We cannot understand why this decision has been described as one that will bring “confidence, privacy and dignity” to everyone. It will not do so for trans people. It will exclude us and segregate us in the heart of Scotland’s democracy.”
A Scottish Parliament spokesperson said, as quoted by The Independent: “Holyrood provides a wide range of facilities so that it is an inclusive and welcoming space for all.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling had an immediate effect in law and after careful consideration the SPCB announced interim steps to ensure it fulfils its legal responsibilities.
“This included taking into account EHRC’s interim update to organisations.”
The killing of the ‘world’s first out gay imam’ Muhsin Hendricks has sent shockwaves across the world, particularly among LGBTQ+ Muslims.
Hendricks was killed in an execution-style hit in broad daylight on Saturday morning (15 February) after the car he was travelling in, near the coastal city of Gqeberha in the country’s Eastern Cape province, was ambushed. He was 57.
A hooded figure was captured on CCTV getting out of a pick-up truck that had blocked Hendricks’ vehicle before firing shots through the window.
There have been no arrests but deputy justice minister Andries Nel has said the authorities are “hot on the heels” of the suspects. While the exact motive for the killing remains unclear, the incident has left LGBTQ+ Muslims fearful.
Speaking to PinkNews about the killing of the South African imam, UK-based queer Muslim Al asked if someone like Hendricks, who was known around the world, can be killed out in the open, then “what about the rest of us?”
Al went on to say: “People have framed this as an issue that occurs in other spaces, not in the UK, [but] too often queer Muslims in the UK are suffering death threats, abuse, physical violence [and] torture at the hands of family and the greater community.
“Young queer Muslims grow up with this fear – and even as we grow into old age we still live with this fear – that one day something like this could happen to us. When it’s happened to the first openly queer Imam, it has been a realisation that it can happen to any of us.”
Imam Muhsin Hendricks was shot dead when the car he was travelling in was ambushed. (RODGER BOSCH/AFP via Getty Images)
A trailblazer in religiously conservative circles, Hendricks was dubbed the world’s first openly gay imam, after he came out in the 90s.
He went on to create The Inner Circle, later known as Al-Fitrah Foundation, which worked to support LGBTQ+ Muslims reconciling their faith and identities and sought to educate other imams, helping them develop an inclusive understanding of gender and sexuality in Islam.
“A lot of unlearning needs to be done [but] it is amazing what the imams come up with,” he said in 2020. “They bring research and context and match it with the religious text, and there are these ‘aha!’ moments.”
Al, a member of the team at Imaan, the UK’s leading LGBTQ+ Muslim charity, said Hendricks was a personal friend and his death had come as a “deep shock” to the community, leaving some feeling the “need to go back in the closet”.
He added: “[Members of the community] feel they need to conform. The trauma that comes with that is so problematic because the work of people like Muhsin Hendricks, in particular, [allowed] people to live [as] their authentic selves.
“Nobody should be left outside their family, community or faith group, and divinity should not be exclusive to one group. Everybody should have access to that, all across the UK and globally.”
“We feel silenced, our words are not doing justice to our feelings.”
In the wake of Hendricks’ death, Imaan is directly supporting the LGBTQ+ community by continuing its many services therapy sessions, in-person and online meet-ups and support groups.
Hendricks’ killing bore all the hallmarks of a hit. (Facebook/ Muhsin Hendricks)
Two leading Muslim organisations in South Africa, the Muslim Judicial Council (MJC) and the United Ulama Council of South Africa (UUCSA), condemned the killing but continue to denounce his teachings on gender and sexuality in Islam, reflecting the view held by many that the Quran prohibits same-sex relationships.
It was initially reported that Hendricks was shot after performing a lesbian wedding ceremony, but his Al-Ghurbaah Foundation released a statementrevealing that he was in Gqeberha to officiate two interfaith heterosexual marriages.
As the BBC’s Johannesburg-based reporter Khanyisile Ngcobo noted, traditional imams in South Africa rarely perform marriages between a Muslim and non-Muslim couple. It is another way Hendricks was at odds with more conservative religious leaders.
Al said the responses of the MJC and UUCSA were the “most hopeful” they have seen among a wave of hatred from within, and outside, the Muslim community. He noted that there had been no similar messages from Islamic organisations in the UK.
“I’d love to see the most major mosques and institutions here talking about this and really taking ownership of how queer Muslims are rejected and not accepted in those spaces, and what they’re going to do to make sure they stop alienating us,” Al said.
“[The] less educated [are] still mocking the cause and mocking his death. This is painful to us.”
Members of Imaan at a EuroPride parade. (Gideon Mendel/Corbis via Getty)
At the time, non-binary practising Muslim Ferhan Khan said the event challenged the idea that Islam was “inherently queer-phobic”, adding: “This is an assumption that’s not necessarily based on fact because if you read the parts of the Quran that supposedly condemn homosexuality, it’s not clear cut.
“For a lot of queer Muslims, this is a difficult one because they might want to retain their faith. They might want to simply be in a space where they are validated for being both queer and Muslim, and that’s what Imaan is doing: serving up a space where you can be… validated for that choice.”
Just over a decade ago, in 2014, TIME magazine declared on its front cover that we were at the “The Transgender Tipping Point“.
The cover itself was simple, a full body shot of actress Laverne Cox – who was then playing Sophia Burset on Netflix game-changer Orange Is the New Black – and a byline for writer Katy Steinmetz, who said in the piece that trans rights would be the next civil rights frontier.
“We are in a place now,” Cox told the magazine at the time, “where more and more trans people want to come forward and say, ‘This is who I am.’ And more trans people are willing to tell their stories. More of us are living visibly and pursuing our dreams visibly, so people can say, ‘Oh yeah, I know someone who is trans.’ When people have points of reference that are humanising, that demystifies difference.”
“The Transgender Tipping Point” was a phrase, Jude Ellison S. Doyle noted for Xtra Magazine on the cover’s 10th anniversary, that quickly became ubiquitous across the media, with – often more than not cis – academics and cultural commentators alike pointing to the piece as an example of a paradigm shift on trans visibility and representation in public life.
But, as many more have since pointed out, the catch-all-ness of the phrase is oversimplified and ignores the intersectional struggles and delicate nuances of trans people’s lives that go far beyond ‘being visible’. It also became somewhat of an ironic joke between trans folks who had to wake up the day after that edition of TIME hit the shelves go about their lives, this supposed-watershed moment of greater visibility not helping them pay their bills, access gender-affirming care or walk through the streets without fear.
“If trans people have ‘tipped’ in any direction, it’s backward,” Doyle wrote.
For activist Raquel Willis, co-founder of the Gender Liberation Movementalongside Eliel Cruz, the fight for trans rights and universal bodily autonomy has to move past the visibility era to be truly impactful.
“This idea of simply using visibility as a means to bring about the kind of culture and society that’s going to receive trans folks with the respects that we deserve is over,” she told PinkNews, “and so we have to be thinking in new ways about how to protect ourselves, our voices, our histories and our brilliance without relying on a lot of the institutions that have really pushed the visibility vehicle.”
You may like to watch
Speaking exclusively with PinkNews, Willis and Cruz discussed the organisation, intersectionality and the need for radical defiance in a second Trump presidency.
Activists with the Gender Liberation Movement protest in the House Cannon building, including Chelsea Manning (bottom right) and Racquel Willis (bottom left), on December 5, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Maansi Srivastava for The Washington Post via Getty Images)
The Gender Liberation Movement (GLM) describes itself as an “emergent and innovative grassroots and volunteer-run national collective that builds direct action, media, and policy interventions centering bodily autonomy, self-determination, the pursuit of fulfilment, and collectivism in the face of gender-based sociopolitical threats”.
Mace, a Republican representative from South Carolina, admitted her proposal to ban trans folks from spaces such as bathrooms and changing rooms on Capitol Hill which match their gender was put forth solely in response to Democrat Sarah McBride joining Congress as the first out trans person.
McBride condemned the move as a “blatant attempt from right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing”.
“Half of us went in understanding that we were facing arrest in order to really send a message, particularly because some elected leaders, even some people potentially in the movement spaces, queer people, might see bathrooms as a side issue and not important,” Cruz said.
“But we see bathrooms as the inroad for a larger anti-trans project to eliminate trans people from public spaces and so this was important for us to say, ‘this is the line’ and we’re not allowing this to move forward without a response.”
In a bathroom that was located close to Mace’s office, the protesters held a banner that read “flush bathroom bigotry” and chanted “Speaker Johnson, Nancy Mace, our gender is no debate” and “Democrats, grow a spine! Trans rights are on the line!”, calling out the Dems lacklustre criticism of Mace’s proposal in the wake of their party’s defeat to Donald Trump’s MAGA 2.0 campaign.
“It was really disappointing to see the lack of fight that […] Sarah McBride put forth with these attacks – understanding that she is coming into a new role in a historic way – but also understanding at some point we have to get beyond this idea of career politicians saving us,” Willis said.
“Let’s just be clear, I know for me, I would never be able to – as a Black trans woman – simply say that bathroom access is a ‘distraction’. I come from folks who experienced acutely Jim Crow in the US South and so for me, all of these attacks on our access to public spaces and navigating societies is rooted in a long fight for collective liberation within this country.”
Willis added she was concerned by the lack of support McBride was given by leading Democrats and “what kind of signal that sends to trans youth who are already fearful of the incoming Trump administration”.
A transgender rights supporter takes part in a rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the court hears arguments in the US v. Skrmetti a case about Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for minors and if it violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee on December 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
Prior to this moment of “radical defiance” – the phrase Willis uses to describe what is needed of protest and civil disobedience at this time – GLM had been fighting for the right to bodily autonomy for trans and cis folks alike; namely access to abortion and gender-affirming care. Having worked previously with those that organised the Brooklyn Liberation March and national Women’s March, in September the group led the first-ever Gender Liberation March in Washington D.C. and at the start of this year launched as an official national organisation to further its work.
Cruz said those involved were “collective” of “queer and trans creatives from nonprofit and advocacy world, as well as folks who are in the art world and fashion world”.
“We really started to think about what was needed in terms of bringing together a larger collective of folks fighting around bodily autonomy and self determination,” Willis said of formalising the organisation, “particularly thinking about the attacks on abortion access and the attacks on access to gender affirming care. That kind of led to this plan for our march in September and from there we realised that we needed this work to continue going on and needed to continue to be the glue between these various movements.”
For many, access to abortion and gender affirming care might be thought of as different social issues impacting distinctly different groups of people; things to campaign for separately but not together. This line of thinking is similar to how trans rights and women’s rights more widely are often framed by the right-wing press as in direct contrast with one another when instead they are not opposites sides of a coin but rather intricately intertwined.
New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez noted this in response to Mace’s bathroom ban, telling reporters in November that such restrictions endanger “all women and girls” because “people are going to want to check their private parts in suspecting who is trans and who is cis”.
“The idea that Nancy Mace wants little girls and women to drop trou in front of, who, an investigator, because she wants to suspect and point fingers at who she thinks is trans is disgusting. It is disgusting. And frankly, all it does is allow these Republicans to go around and bully any woman who isn’t wearing a skirt because they think she might not look woman enough,” AOC added.
The intersectionality between the two issues hence sits at the very core of the GLM’s mission because “many of the same forces and entities that are targeting access to abortion are also targeting access to gender affirming care”, Willis said.
Cruz explained: “In the United States, legal precedents are being used to try to pass one another. So these connections are already there in terms […] of those who are making these attacks and for us it was important to marry the different groups of people that people may not necessarily talk about in the same ways.
“Really bringing those connections together in a very intentional way.”
People gather outside the Lincoln Memorial for a People’s March rally in Washington, D.C., United States, on January 18, 2025. (Photo by Nathan Morris/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Ahead of Trump’s return to the White House, Cruz said GLM has been having a number of internal conversations about what form their work will take but it is about “being a little bit nimble and prepared for preparing for the worst, and doing some safety planning and contingency planning”.
Cruz went on to say whilst “Trump is awful” and “put us through it the first four years” the Democrats have “not been the best” either, noting the fact Roe vs Wade fell under a Dem administration and just before Christmas president Joe Biden signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 which contained an anti-trans healthcare clause for children of members of the armed services.
“There’s a lot of catastrophising that we can think about under Trump and without remembering that we’ve kind of already been dealing with a lot, even underneath the Dem administration,” Cruz said.
“We really to lean on our history and our elders. We have been through really horrific eras before and we have gone through it. Our community knows how to build together and come together and keep each other safe.
“So [we] can look at the reality of what’s to come and also remember who we are and our roots and our background, and know that we will get through it together whatever may come.”
Willis echoed this, noting that “before you could simply be as open about who who you are and your identity” leaning on mutual aid networks was a vital resource.
“We have always had organisations, particularly on the grassroots local level, that have fed and housed and closed and safeguarded our people,” she explained.
“Somewhere along the way, we forgot that those entities are the lifeblood of our movement.
“So, it’s remembering that and also being willing to heal some of those past fissures between various parts of our movements and communities and embrace the fact that we’re going to need unlikely accomplices moving forward so we have to be letting go of some of this capitalistic ego around what work a group may own versus another.
The British Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) has announced that transgender women will be banned from competing in some domestic tournaments.
The LTA oversees the domestic game, so the rule changes do not apply to international matches which are played on British soil, including Wimbledon, or other events such as an internal club tournament, where venues will decide on their own rules.
However, the updated policy on transgender and non-binary participation means trans women and people assigned male at birth won’t be allowed to play in the women’s category in matches against players from another club or county.
“We are changing our policy to restrict trans women and non-binary individuals assigned male at birth from playing in the women’s category in specified, inter-venue competitions,” an LTA press release read.
“These will be competitions ranging from our national championships through to local county and district leagues, where the purpose is to provide fair competitive opportunities. This policy helps ensure there is a common national standard for all these competitions, which is fair.
“For non-specified competitions within venues, the purpose is primarily to provide fun, social competition to enable people to feel part of their local tennis community and players will be able to familiarise themselves with the policy within their own venue and hence who they are likely to be playing against.
“These will range from weekend social tournaments through to club championships.”
The governing body went on to say: “We want to encourage local venues to ensure they are as inclusive as possible for trans and non-binary individuals, providing opportunities to compete in a friendly environment. In line with this, the LTA’s own local tennis leagues (held in park venues) will remain fully inclusive.
“The policy attempts to balance two responsibilities appropriately but in the knowledge that different people will reasonably have different views as to where that balance should lie.”
You may like to watch
Tennis and padel tennis are “gender-affected sports” where the “average man” has an advantage over the “average woman… [and] this advantage is likely to be retained to a significant degree in trans women, making competition potentially unfair”, the statement continued.
The policy will come into effect on 25 January but will kept under review “in light of any new scientific or other information”, an LTA spokesperson said.
The change come a couple of weeks after the Ladies Professional Golf Association restricted golfers in the women’s category to those either assigned female at birth or, if transgender, “[they had] not experienced any part of male puberty”.
In addition, any trans golfer must have “continuously maintained the concentration of testosterone in their serum below 2.5 nmol/l”, to qualify. The average for cis women is between 0.5 and 2.4 nmol/l.
Historic England is being criticised for funding a queer history trail in Norfolk, prompting right-wingers to describe LGBTQ+ identities as “controversial” and claim it “creates division.”
The trail in King’s Lynn is part of 21 youth-focused projects across the country which are being funded by Historic England, the public body that looks after England’s historic environment and helps people understand and value it, with grants of up to £15,000 ($19,000).
Other projects approved for funding include LGBTQ+ history explorations in rural Staffordshire, Gateshead and Stockport, a podcast about a mosque in East London, and youngsters with additional needs looking at the social history around the oldest cable tramway in Britain.
The King’s Lynn project will “create a trail” through the town centre, focusing on its LGBTQ+ history.
“This will connect to a permanent artwork created in partnership with True’s Yard [fishing museum]. What form this artwork takes will be in the hands of the young people,” the Historic England website revealed.
However, not everyone was happy at the news.
Neil Record, the former director of anti-woke pressure group Restore Trust, told The Telegraph: “The promotion of ‘queer’ history by publicly funded bodies is, in my view highly, inappropriate. It creates division by concentrating on this one controversial aspect of sexuality, whereas history itself is complex and subtle, not best seen through a special-interest lens like this.
“It is also worth noting that homosexuality was illegal in the UK until 1967, so sources of information on sexual preferences prior to this date will be intended to be hidden, and hence could be unreliable.”
This is not the first time public bodies focused on preserving British history have come under fire.
You may like to watch
In 2022, anti-LGBTQ+ members of the National Trust asked their peers to support the banning of Pride events, describing taking part as “unaccountable, divisive and an exercise in virtue signalling… [and] unbecoming in a body which should be dedicated to preserving the nation’s heritage for all and being a faithful steward of its members’ subscriptions”.
Members ignored the plea and voted to continue celebrating Pride. “The National Trust was founded for the benefit of everyone,” a spokesperson told PinkNews in 2022.
“We serve the whole of our wonderfully diverse society and we want to do that to the very best of our ability. This includes supporting our staff, volunteers and visitors to take part in cultural celebrations, including Pride, which they have been doing for many years.”
Two new cases of a more-infectious strain of mpox have been detected in the UK, health officials have said.
The new cases come after the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) announced at the end of last month that a single case of Clade 1b mpox had been detected in the country.
The Clade 1b strain is associated with a more severe disease and higher mortality rates than Clade 2.
Two new cases of mpox have been identified in the UK. (Hakan Nural/Getty)
Both new UK patients were household contacts of the original patient and are receiving specialist care at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, in London.
You may like to watch
Professor Susan Hopkins, the chief medical adviser at UKHSA, said: “The overall risk to the UK population remains low. We are working with partners to make sure all contacts of the cases are identified and contacted, to reduce the risk of further spread.”
When the first UK case of the Clade Ib strain was announced, health secretary Wes Streeting praised the doctors and nurses treating the patient and said the government was “working alongside UKHSA and the NHS to protect the public and prevent transmission”, adding: “This includes securing vaccines and equipping healthcare professionals with the guidance and tools they need to respond to cases safely.
“We are also working with our international partners to support affected countries, to prevent further outbreaks.”
Mpox is a viral infection transmitted through close contact such as sex, touch, talking, or breathing close to another person, and is part of the smallpox family of viruses. Sufferers will often get a rash, along with other symptoms such as high temperature, swollen glands and chills.
The rash can go through several stages, beginning as raised spots that turn into small blisters filled with fluid that will eventually form scabs and fall off.
Darts player Noa-Lynn van Leuven has qualified for the darts world championships – the first time a trans woman has done so.
Dutch player Noa-Lynn van Leuven, who transitioned in 2021 and has faced controversy for playing against cis women, qualified for her first PDC (Professional Darts Corporation) World Championship on Saturday (19 October) following a 5-3 victory over English star Beau Greaves in the 21st PDC Women’s Series in Leicester.
Van Leuven’s appearance at Alexander Palace in December will mark the first time a trans woman has secured a place in the mixed-gender competition, the largest and most prestigious event in competitive darts.
Commenting on her loss, Greaves said van Leuven “power-housed” her: “Sometimes in darts you’ve just got to allow it to happen and that was one of those days for me. Fair play to her, she played really well and she deserved the win. I fell asleep at times where I should have been hitting more trebles, and she punished me.”
However, not everyone has taken the result with such good grace.
Social media users misgendered the Dutch star, using he/him pronouns and calling her a “man”. Others labelled her a “cheater” and said she “stole a spot from a woman”.
Noa-Lynn van Leuven will play in her first world championships. (PDC Darts)
This is not the first time Van Leuven has been attacked for being a trans darts player.
Earlier this year, she was thrust into the centre of a gender storm after she became the first trans player to win a PDC tour event, the mixed-gender Challenge Tour in Germany, and beat Ireland’s Katie Sheldon in the PDC Women’s Series.
People accused van Leuven of “only being trans to win darts matches”, and tennis legend Martina Navratilova, who has repeatedly opposed trans women competing against cis women, wrote on social media: “No male bodies in women’s sports please, not even in darts. Again, women get the short end of the stick and it stinks.”
Van Leuven’s involvement in the Dutch women’s darts team also prompted two compatriots, Anca Zijlstra and Aileen de Graaf, to quit the national squad, citing disagreement with rules around trans inclusion.
In addition, British darts player Deta Hedman twice refused to take on van Leuven, first at the Denmark Open in May, then in a singles match in July, saying there shouldn’t be “a man in a women’s event”.
Van Leuven spoke out after that, saying that a “lot of people forget that I am also a human being” and telling PinkNews she things got so bad that she didn’t even want to step out of her to house for a while. She has also spoken about getting death threats and being left “haunted” by the abuse.
“In my DMs, on Instagram, it was getting so harsh, from bullying to death threats. I remember going home, I was at Schiphol [Amsterdam airport]. I looked around for one-and-a-half minutes before entering a bathroom because I was getting texts like: ‘If I ever see you walking into the ladies’ room after my daughter, I will kill you’,” she told the i news.
“They still haunt me to this day. It has impacted me massively.”
The Professional Darts Players Association notes on its website that governing body the Darts Regulation Authority (DRA) encourages mixed-gender events in darts with the only exceptions being the Women’s Series and Women’s Matchplay operated by the PDC.
The DRA Trans & Gender Diverse Policy says transgender and non-binary players must be treated with respect, welcomed as any other member would be and accepted “in the gender they present”.
