As some attempt to legislate trans people out of public life, we stand firm in our values and will continue to advocate for, celebrate and protect trans people at every opportunity.
Check out the Good Law Project for more detailed updates on the EHRC guidance: https://goodlawproject.org/were-supporting-a-legal-challenge-against-the-code-of-practice/
Just as an FYI, Good Law Project has recently used some very problematic, and transphobic, language including in an email they sent out this morning which implies that trans women are men.
I have at least one receipt if you need it.
Wait, what?? Oh no!
"Trans-inclusive women’s organisations, for example, are now faced with a stark choice:
Ban trans women entirely.
Stop being a women’s service, and open up to all men."
The phrase "... open up to all men" straight after "Ban trans women..." is highly problematic. Given that GLP is a legal organisation this usage of language implies that as a legal org, they see trans women as men.
It is transphobic wording.
Ooof.
Hugely problematic - from a supposedly supportive organisation.
Makes me look at them in a different light.
I know that at least one complaint has already been made, but yes, very problematic.
@alexadeswift I’ve just this minute had the email drop in my inbox - unchanged.
Just to paraphrase for more context:
> The government’s transphobic code of practice comes into effect today. ...
> The guidance ..., telling organisations that provide services like ... they can no longer be trans inclusive.
> So we’re backing a legal challenge against it.
> The code says that if women’s services let trans women in, they also have to let in men. If a service doesn’t operate on the basis of sex recorded at birth, it continues, it “must be open to all”.
@saxifraga @alexadeswift but yes, the "all" should have been omitted
@ColinKinloch @saxifraga @alexadeswift without the “all” (like “ban trans women or open up to men”) the sentence suggests that trans and nonbinary/genderqueer men are not being served, but in most cases women’s organizations do offer supports to trans and nonbinary men already…
I couldn't even finish reading it I was left so horrified.
Aug 5, 2026, 12:14 PM@alexadeswift @saxifraga Is it possible this was just poorly worded rather than deliberately transphobic?
I am not questioning the sentence, but if the Good Law Project was considered aligned with trans values up to this moment perhaps it is just a (stupid!) error (I honestly don't know - not familiar with them).
It should be pointed out, of course, but personally I would wait for their response before condemning them.
We are just so quick to assume malice these days.
Every day I make a sincere effort to be inclusive in each and every way in my words and actions. Does not mean I always get it right.
It reads as transphobic to me for exactly the reasons I have described multiple times.
@thisislieven @alexadeswift @saxifraga
Given the people I know working for GLP I suspect this is poor wording and that "all men" should be in quotes as they are referring to the wording in the guidance they are legally challenging.
I am wary of jumping on every tiny mistake when people are human and we should look at the general bigger picture.
We have enough enemies not to make more over probable mistakes.
Aug 5, 2026, 12:05 PM@alexadeswift @saxifraga @vagina_museum
Does this quote really imply that the GLP see trans women as men?
The way I read it, they're literally describing the dilemma the Code of Practice creates: organisations are limited to using at-birth sex assignment as the only method of discrimination, and as such they can either ban trans women, or allow all men to join as well, which means not operating as a women's service any longer.
Is it the 'all' in the phrase 'all men' that contains the implication for you? How would you word this in a more inclusive way?
I'm genuinely curious, not trying to start a flame war or push back on the necessity of being critical of organisations' wording in general. (I'm also not trans, so this might be a lack of sensitivity on my part.)
It should be "all genders". The " all" before "men" and coming after "trans women" heavily implies that they see trans women as men, as indeed the vast majority of society do.
Aug 5, 2026, 12:33 PMThank you for the clarification! That makes sense.
@alexadeswift @teun @vagina_museum
That does sound vastly better, I agree.
@alexadeswift @teun @saxifraga @vagina_museum
Or just "everybody".
Aug 5, 2026, 12:28 PM@teun @alexadeswift @saxifraga @vagina_museum
Getting rid of the word "all" would do.
Without the word "all", the meaning is clear, if you allow trans women, you must also allow men.
With the word "all", it very heavily implies that if you allow some men (i.e. trans women), you must allow all men.
Aug 5, 2026, 12:33 PMThank you!
@alexadeswift @vagina_museum saying the quiet part out loud.
There are very few people who actually care about including trans people and actually trust us enough to have self determination