The Trans Round-Up: headlines we’re following (September 2025)

Welcome to our third edition of “The Trans Round-Up: headlines we’re following“. At Amelia’s Angels we cover a lot of the issues that are affecting our community but there’s so much else going on, we can not cover everything BUT we are watching, reading & gathering information.

So here’s other news you may have missed.

In The News

Stories and issues we covered at Amelia’s Angels:

Trans advocacy at Amelia’s Angels

Trans Joy you missed at Amelia’s Angels:

Amelia’s Angels Founder Ami Foxx nominated for Trans Community Champion Award

Wes Bleeping Streeting

Summary: Health Secretary Wes Streeting has been making a few waves in September. First he addressed a NHS England LGBT+ Health Annual Conference in London here he – without blinking from the absolute irony, said;

“Evidence shows trans people have higher rates of mental health conditions, including depression, when compared to the general population. Longer wait times only steepen this pain…Over 42,000 people are still waiting, often for years, for their first appointment at adult gender dysphoria clinics. That’s 42,000 people who are hurting, anxious, and exhausted. This breaks my heart… 42,000 or more individuals should not be feeling invisible, misunderstood or unsupported.”

Given that Streeting and the Labour government have done nothing to address waiting times and instead have enacted policies that have only made trans peoples lives worse, including banning puberty blockers for trans children based on the widely disputed Cass Report and moving forward with an EHRC code of practice that if passed as is, will exclude trans people from many walks of life, to say Streetings words were taken with the biggest eye-roll and middle finger, is an understatement.

As Aly Gibbs of Assigned Media wrote:

“If Streeting’s motivation was to ensure that trans youth were receiving evidence-based, safe, effective treatment for gender dysphoria, he would have given his support to the affirming care model that nearly every medical professional on the planet stands by. He wouldn’t have taken puberty blockers away from trans kids, because we’ve been prescribing them since the 1980s without any significant adverse effects. He wouldn’t have rushed to dismantle trans healthcare by weaponizing the heavily biased Cass Report.”

Streetings speech at the NHS England LGBT+ Health Annual Conference, was seen by some as him flexing his muscles to potentially put his hat in the ring if embattled PM Kier Starmer was forced to resign. Streeting has long been seen as a successor to Starmer.

But Streetings attempts to extend, what The Guardian called “an olive branch to the trans community” were quickly overshadowed when it emerged he had spoken to the online community Mumsnet.

Just days after saying that trans men and women should not have to live their lives feeling unsafe, he told Mumsnet that he felt trans people should be pushed into ‘third spaces’.

He said he was hoping to “….find a way to make sure that trans women are [in] a space that is dignified and safe and inclusive for them, that doesn’t impact on women’s sex-based rights and spaces“. But also claimed – again without irony – that “I’m trying to find a way through on this that maybe not everyone loves but can live with and treats people with dignity and respect.”

Which given that telling trans people and trans women specifically, that they must be excluded instead of an inclusive solution be found and that somehow (???) does not impinge on the Equality Act 2010, really felt like a blow – although given Streetings stance and actions in the past year for the trans community, no one really was surprised that he would go to a ‘critical’ friendly space and tell us again what he really thinks.

His comments were widely lambasted with some accusing his of “segregation” with Reddit members calling the comments out as “blatantly and callously evil“.

Businesses raise concern about “unworkable” EHRC code of practice

Summary: Businesses across the UK have shared serious concerns about what the impending EHRC code of practice could mean and why they feel it is “unworkable“. They have said that they feel the guidance, which is widely expected to mirror the interim guidance issued not long after April’s Supreme Court ruling, will “cause significant economic harm”.

Over 650 organisations which include Ben & Jerry’s, Lush have signed a letter which warns minister for women and equalities Bridget Phillipson and business secretary Peter Kyle that the guidance will force them to “adopt practices that are incompatible with modern business values“. They say it will also force them to “undermine inclusion”.

The letter which has been drafted by Trans Solidarity Alliance and Stonewall “expresses the signatory business’ concerns over proposals to make them responsible for excluding trans people from gendered spaces, with a published draft of the EHRC’s new Equality Act Code of Practice.”

Even outgoing EHRC chair Baroness Kishwer Falkner said that she recognised that implementing the guidance would be difficult:

“I think it’s going to be difficult for duty bearers, service providers, to adapt a ruling which is quite black and white into practical steps according to their own circumstances and their own organisation, which is why we’ve always emphasised they should take their own advice as well as adhering to our code…”

Which begs the question, if it is so “black and white” why would businesses and organisations be worried about implementing, including because of knock on effects that could put them at odds with the Equalities Act 2010.

Backlash against Supreme Court ruling

Summary: The backlash against April’s FWS vs Scottish Ministers ruling has continued with several barristers and a former Supreme Court judge all saying that the ruling has been misinterpreted in such a way that is either coming from a place of misunderstanding or deliberately.

Oscar Davies, the first openly out non-binary barrister, recently told Pink News that the judgement was never meant to see trans people excluded, but has been used that way;

“A general rule [of equality law] is that you must not discriminate against someone…under Section 29 [of the 2010 Equality Act], you must not discriminate against anyone and that applies for services….You then have what’s called the carve-out, or an exception, to the rule, which in this case is single-sex spaces, which is Schedule 3…in some circumstances, having a separate or single-sex space can be justified….the Supreme Court has said, ‘OK, well, a single-sex space means a space for biological sex,’ but the point here is that these provisions are permissive rather than exclusionary. This is where everyone keeps getting it wrong.”

Baroness Hale, first female president of the Supreme Court, told The Guardian in a wide-ranging interview:

“The supreme court dealt with it as a pure question of statutory construction…reached the conclusion that the Equality Act trumped the Gender Recognition Act….Equality Act allows for single-sex services, either separate but equal or separate and different. It allows for them, it doesn’t mandate them. So there’s nothing in that judgment that says anything about same-sex services. It doesn’t say anything about public toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards. But it has been taken to mean something that I don’t think it does mean.”

The backlash has not been confined to those who practice law. The TUC recently called for legal protections for trans people. In a unanimous motion, delegates at this years conference “argued that the interim guidance issued by the EHRC in response to the Supreme Court ruling is “flawed and inconsistent on the inclusion of transgender, non-binary and gender diverse people in public life, including as employees seeking to impose a duty excluding many workers from single sex spaces in workplaces and public life“. As a result delegates have vowed to campaign for legal protections “campaign publicly on its policy for gender self-declaration” and “work with government to update and improve the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 to achieve social equality for all transgender, non-binary and gender diverse people“.

Stonewall raise concerns about new Starmer communication officer

Summary: Following the resignation of Deputy PM Angela Rayner, Prime Minister Sir Kier Starmer went on a cabinet reshuffle which also saw him bring in new names to Number 10 Downing Street.

One name caused immediate concerns within the trans community: Tim Allan.

Allan, who previously worked in the Tony Blair Labour government, was appointed to oversea the governments internal and external communications strategies. But up until the very morning of his appointment, Allan had been sat on the board of the anti-trans group Sex Matters (see screenshot below).

Screenshot taken by Amelia’s Angels of Sex Matters trustee page for Tim Allan. Includes update at footer of their page that Allan had been on the board up until September 2025 – Allan was appointed to work on Downing Street 1 September 2025.

Stonewall wrote immediately to the Prime Ministers office to express concern, especially when Allan’s appointment comes as the EHRC has submitted it’s full guidance regarding trans people to Bridgette Phillipson and as FOI requests have again seen a worrying pattern of anti-trans groups like Sex matters helping write guidance on many issues that may affect the trans+ and LGBTQ+ communities.

Stonewall said they have serious concerns about the “disproportionate and undue influence” that Allan could be seen as having.

They continued:

“Mr Allan’s appointment, with responsibility for overseeing the tone, tenor and nature of the Government’s communications machinery, raises questions about how the government will deliver its manifesto commitment to “remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and respect.” We urge the Government to re-build trust with the LGBTQ+ community, from a basis of honesty and transparency.”

Politicians back scrutiny of EHRC code of practice

Summary: On 1 September, Amelia’s Angels joined over 100 other trans+ & LGBTQ+ rights groups to call on MPs to demand full parliamentary scrutiny of the new EHRC Code of Practice. The joint statement which was co-authored by Trans Advocacy & Complaints Collective, called for any “change to law or policy that risks the human rights of any group should be subject to proper Parliamentary oversight”.

The statement came with a letter template for members of the public to use to write to their own MP’s and it seems as if the statement as well as those individual voices are very much being listened to, heard and lawmakers are taking action.

First, former Green party leader Carla Denyer MP (Bristol Central) released a letter that she had sent to Bridget Phillipson on her social media. In her post on Instagram, Denyer said:

“…like the many trans people and allies who have written to me about this, am deeply concerned that exclusionary statutory guidance, which could put trans people at risk and force organisations and businesses to discriminate, could be put into place without proper scrutiny from MPs. We haven’t even been allowed to see it yet…“

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Carla Denyer MP (@carladenyer)

Labour MP and trans advocate Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East), also released a letter at the end of August, in advance of the EHRC guidance reching Phllipson’s desk, expressing her worries.

“Forthcoming statutory guidance could have a profound impact on trans people’s lives.I’ve written to the Women and Equalities Minister to urge her to reject anything that undermines trans people’s rights, inclusion, privacy or safety, and for Parliament to have proper oversight.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Nadia Whittome MP (@nadiawhittomemp)

Following that the Liberal Democrats released a letter which at the time it was released (12 September), had 40 Lib Dem MPs signatures on it. Spearheaded by Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove), the letter calls for parliamentary scrutiny “to protect everyone’s rights“.

See the letter below shared on the Trans Solidarity Alliance website.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Trans+ Solidarity Alliance (@transsolidarityalliance)

How You Can Help:
If you wish to speak to your MP, find the letter template here.

Also monitoring in the news

EHRC is attempting to dodge scrutiny by blocking MP’s from seeing evidence it has used to write it’s code of practice following the UK Supreme Court ruling. In a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by the Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective (TACC), they found that the EHRC

“…will not release its consultation report on the draft Code of Practice until after the Code has been laid before Parliament and has become statutory guidance. That means the analysis the EHRC says supports its changes will be withheld from public and parliamentary scrutiny until after the guidance is effectively fixed.”

This means the EHRC is not willing to allow MP’s who are expected to vote on the legislation, a chance to see what evidence was used and who helped build the guidance/what information was used. There were already concerns that the EHRC’s consultation in the run-up to handing it’s final guidance to the government was effectively being cherry-picked but by concealing the consultation report TACC say;

“A regulator that chooses secrecy over scrutiny hands power to process over people. It also sets a dangerous precedent: that mass consultation can be reduced to data for an algorithm, analysed behind closed doors, and then used to justify binding guidance without meaningful external checks.”

We are reading news that the Scottish Government will add sex characteristics to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. As Scottish Legal News explains:

“If agreed, the regulations will make it a criminal offence to stir up hatred against women and girls, as well as men and boys, because of their sex – which is defined, the government said as “biological sex”.”

Currently undergoing public consultation, which ends 10 October 2025, the government has added the amendment in part because of the UK Supreme Court ruling in April 2025 (FWS vs Scottish Ministers), and will define sex as “biological sex at birth” as per that ruling. The aim is to make it a criminal offence to stir up hatred based on sex, with an emphasis that women and girls face disproportionate harm. In theory this could see protections extended to those assigned female at birth, including trans men, trans masc, non-binary and other gender non-conforming AFAB people. However there are also concerns that because of the focus on “biological sex” trans women could be excluded and mean hostility they face is not treated as sex-based hate.

The EHRC has recently enacted enforcement against 19 organisations to get them to comply with single-sex space policies following a call for input under the previous Conservative government (this took lace between 1 May 2024 to 26 June 2024).

As MimmyMum explains in a blog post about this;

“...then–Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch invited submissions of policies that allegedly “misinterpreted” the Equality Act. The resulting 404 examples were meant to prove that service providers were failing to comply with the law.”

When the submissions were published earlier in 2025, it showed that the majority of equality policies were being implemented properly.

As the governments response at the time detailed:

“Overall, 404 individual pieces of guidance which fit the response criteria outlined on the call for input gov.uk page were submitted. After reviewing these examples, we found that the majority seem to correctly interpret the Equality Act’s single-sex spaces provisions….Approximately 10% of the guidance submitted had text or examples that seem to have misinterpreted the Act’s single-sex spaces provisions…“

However, in August 2025, the EHRC decided to take action.

If certain newspapers were to be believed based on their headlines, it seemed like a LOT of organisations had failed the test and there were sensationalist headlines such as The Times who declared loudly that “Equalities watchdog tells organisations to change single-sex space rules” and The Telegraph stating “NHS trusts and police forces face fines if they ignore law on single-sex spaces“.

The Times and The Telegraph are known to be anti-trans friendly media and many have noted the way they seem to be the point of call when it comes to pushing EHRC’s stances on trans people.

What the headlines did, with no pushback for correction from either the government or the EHRC, was to distort the reality. Again a reminder that 19 organisations contained actual legal errors.

Again referencing the excellent blog post by MimmyMum:

The majority of policies were correct applications of the Equality Act.

Some guidance allowed inclusion of trans people but did not falsely claim it was mandated by law — meaning it wasn’t misinterpretation.

Only about 10% of submissions contained actual legal errors (such as failing to acknowledge that trans people can sometimes be excluded, or misunderstanding exceptions).

It is also important to note all this happened before the April 2025 UK Supreme Court ruling which narrowly interpreted ‘woman” and “sex” as “biological sex”. But did not rewrite law to call for the blanket exclusion of trans people.

This raises concern, not only the way the deeply mistrusted EHRC seems to be actively misleading on the ruling of the Supreme Court, but between it and the anti-trans friendly papers, a dangerous precedent is being set, where the media and a governmental body are bullying change even before it is lawful:

As MimmyMum highlights, the commission can not hand out fines without legal proceedings and that the EHRC is still continuing to push the false narrative that the Supreme Court said trans people must be excluded, which is not what happened. And they’re using the media to do so.

This is about shaping behaviour through fear, not enforcing the law. By releasing vague statements and briefing media outlets known for anti-trans editorial lines, the EHRC is:

Encouraging organisations to pre-emptively adopt more restrictive policies.

Misrepresenting interim guidance as a legal requirement.

Weaponising regulation to roll back trans inclusion.

If you like this post, please subscribe/share/like

Share ‘The Trans Round-Up September 2025.‘ with others

Everything we do: life coaching, support, advocacy etc, is offered free. A few kind people have asked how they can support us; so this is a way to do that if you’d like to. What we’re building here will need funding down the line. We’re immensely grateful for your support. Ami & Dillon.

Support AMELIA’S ANGELS ADVOCACY & Life Coaching

Help Ami get urgent revision surgery after complications

GoFundMe Fundraiser:

Donate now

Read Ami’s Story

Discover more from Amelia's Angels

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.