It’s always been about our erasure – Part One

For the trans community, the saying “canary in the coal mine” is not simply a figure of speech; it is how we feel and is borne out by the relentless lived experience of sounding repeated alarms that go unheeded until it feels far too late.

Just as trans groups in the USA warned of the far-reaching consequences of the 2024 election – consequences that are now becoming terrifyingly clear – trans people, advocates and allies have been sounding the alarm similarly in the UK about the true motivations of groups claiming to champion ‘women’s rights.’

These groups, emboldened by the UK Supreme Court decision in April 2025 (FWS V Scottish Ministers), have finally moved from veiled concern to explicit demand. The decision, along with the support of the EHRC, has given these groups a green light to go beyond being content with a limited legal clarification and instead, a full-throated, unmasked and unchallenged objective to systematically erase trans people from public and social life.

This very chilling shift from coded language to open exclusion was clearly demonstrated at a Conservative Annual Conference event in October 2025. There, gender critical activists dropped all pretence of mere safety or clarity.

Kate Barker, CEO of the LGB Alliance, was reported by The Independent as saying:

“I don’t think I’m exaggerating to say this is an evil that is being visited on majority gay young people. The Supreme Court ruling clarified that sex means biological sex, and our task now has to be to strip out the poisonous homophobia of gender identity ideology from public life wherever we can.”

For those unfamiliar with the long game of this campaign, this statement may have come as a shock, seeming to contradict the carefully crafted narrative that these organisations “only want to protect women and girls.”

But for us in the trans community, there was no surprise. Because we have been listening. We recognise the thinly veiled nuance, and have witnessed the deliberate use of fear, moral panic, and dog whistles, understanding that the ultimate aim was to paint trans people as a social evil that must be removed back into the shadows.

The language of “stripping out… from public life” is the ultimate conclusion of years of targeted campaigning.

Once again we are not just the canary in the coal mine – we are devastated, fearful and exhausted from being proven right too late, too often.

What has happened in 2025 in regards to the shift to exclusionary policies for trans people is not just the consequence of a single Supreme Court ruling. It is the successful culmination of a decade and a half campaign to weaken protections for trans people while also undermining public support and weaponising fears to sway opinion. Following the passing of the Equality Act of 2010 which enshrined gender reassignment as a protected characteristic, the anti-trans movement gained momentum.

We have broken this down into three distinct phases over the period of 2010 to 2025.

Phase 1: Subversion and Redefinition (2010–2018)

Phase one focused on laying both the intellectual and political groundwork to begin undermining the protections that had been guaranteed by the Equality Act (EA) and the Gender Recognition Act (GRA).

Targeting the NHS: Initial campaigns focused on medical transition, seeking to portray gender-affirming care as dangerous or misguided. This was designed to erode public trust in trans healthcare and therefore try to paint trans identity as a ‘problem’. Campaigns against Stonewall, Mermaids and other trans and trans ally organisations culminated in The Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People (AKA Cass Review), which recommended (in disputed evidence) that trans kids could no longer access puberty blockers (while cis children could) and the Sullivan Report (Independent review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender) which looks in part into adult trans healthcare. These campaigns have also put an increased pressure on gender clinics across the country – so much so that some are now no longer fit for purpose because of the lack of resources to adequately provide gender-affirming care.

The Focus on “Sex”: Activists, who became the gender critical movement, began arguing that the concept of ‘sex’ in the EA should only be interpreted as biological sex assigned at birth. This was an attempt to undermine the legal meaning of the Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) and therefore the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

The Policy Trojan Horse: Campaigners centred on the emotive and strategic concept of ‘single-sex spaces’. By focusing on sensitive areas like changing rooms, toilets, and domestic abuse refuges, the movement manufactured a moral panic, using women’s real fear of sexual violence from men (which has risen over the same period we are focusing on), the gender criticals positioned themselves as the champions of cisgender women’s safety, despite there being no evidence that trans women posed a higher threat than a cis man to cis women.

Phase 2: The Attack on GRA Reform and Institutional Infiltration (2018–2022)

In 2018, under Theresa May’s tenure as Conservative Prime Minister, the government briefly consulted on reforming the Gender Recognition Act (GRA). This consultation saw a ramped up shift from academic subversion to political lobbying from the anti-trans movement.

• The Campaign vs. Self-ID: The anti-trans movement were able to mobilise opposition to proposed GRA reforms, again using real-world fear and moral panic to claim that allowing self-id would give a green light to men self-identifying as trans women in order to make cis women unsafe in women only spaces. Groups like Fair Play For Women, claimed that allowing self-id undermined the ability for service providers to maintain single-sex spaces. This was despite evidence from other countries that had self-ID not supporting these fears. This was also despite a UNISON newsletter which showed, “reports that 70% of respondents to the consultation on the GRA said that trans people should be able to self identify as a different sex and that the process of obtaining a gender recognition certificate was humiliating and unnecessary“.
  As a result, the government shelved all plans for self-ID. By doing so anti-trans campaigners were granted a power shift as their lobbying worked, halting legislative progress on trans rights.
• Formation of Lobby Groups: After the GRA reforms were shelved, and after a few high profile gender-critical cases, organisations such as Sex Matters and LGB Alliance were established. Both of these groups now have charitable status but are seen also as well-funded groups, with ties to right-leaning political groups, who masquerade as traditional civil liberties or LGBTQ+ bodies, and who have gained both political access and media influence, which allows them to hide behind a mask of respectability for the exclusionary agenda.
• Institutional Capture*: Perhaps the most insidious and alarming strategic shift was the abrupt changing position of the EHRC. FOI requests and public evidence, including interventions by outgoing chair Baroness Falkner against previous EHRC standing, revealed a decisive change in the EHRC’s stance on the interaction between the GRA and the EA. This suggested, and has continued to gain traction with various FOI requests and the recent appointment to chief communications director to the PM of a recent Sex Matters trustee, that the gender criticals had gained powerful traction within the very regulator intended to protect trans rights.

*This will be explored further Part Two. See: The EHRC’s Instrumental Role in Pushing Exclusion

Phase 3: Legal Escalation and Final Policy Push (2023–2025)

In the years leading up to the Supreme Court ruling, anti-trans campaigners moved to solidify their position as a legal and policy reality.

• The Scottish Battleground: The campaign to prevent the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill – which included the key legal challenge that eventually reached the Supreme Court (FWS vs Scottish Ministers) – served as a significant testing ground for both legal arguments and public messaging.
• The Focus on Policy Compliance: Organisations lobbied government departments and public bodies to issue “clarified” guidance based on their strict interpretation of sex. This included successfully pushing for schools guidance, prison policy changes, and the review of NHS data standards.
• The Supreme Court Payoff (April 2025): The ruling itself, though legally narrow, was the final piece of the anti-trans strategic puzzle. It provided the legal mandate that anti-trans groups and their allies, led by an ever compliant EHRC, weaponised immediately to demand the systematic exclusion of trans people, demonstrated, for example, in the FA ban on trans women players and the Hampstead Heath interference*.

*This will be explored further in the article. See: Weaponising the Law: Immediate Institutional Exclusion Post-Ruling

This arc over the course of 15 years, proves that the crisis the trans community is facing is part of a calculated strategy to dismantle the legal and social legitimacy of trans people. The Supreme Court ruling simply provided the excuse for the aggressive policy enforcement.

The UK Supreme Court ruling in April 2025 provided the legal basis that anti-trans groups had been seeking, which allowed them to pivot from their pre-2025 argument of “women’s rights” to demanding the mandated enforcement of trans exclusion of trans people across public life.

Phase 1: Immediate Legal and Institutional Reaction (April 2025)

Phase 2: Policy and Implementation Pressure (May – September 2025)

Phase 3: Consolidation and New Legal/Political Arenas (October 2025 – Present)

The Supreme Court ruling in April 2025 offered a narrow legal interpretation of “sex” within the confines of the Equality Act, and did not mandate for the blanket exclusion of trans people from all services and spaces. In fact the ruling explicitly acknowledged the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment. However, this did not deter anti-trans campaigners, the media friendly to them and influential bodies who immediately seized on the ruling to call for a hardline, exclusionary agenda, creating real fear and immediate consequences for the trans community.

The Sports Sector: The FA Ban and Compliance

Sporting bodies were quick to use the Supreme Courts definition of ‘sex’ to justify a complete reversal of previously established inclusion policies. These decisions saw trans women excluded completely from playing and trans men told they could only play if they agreed to register as “biologically female”.

• Pre-Ruling Policy: Prior to the Supreme Court decision, bodies like the Football Association (FA) and other sporting organisations generally had policies that allowed trans women to participate in women’s categories, often with requirements related to hormone levels or duration of transition.
• Post-Ruling Exclusion: Following the Supreme Court case and ruling, pressure from anti-trans groups intensified. They argued the new legal clarity around “biological sex” made existing inclusion policies illegal or, legally indefensible. The Scottish FA applied a ban just a few days before the English FA. The FA response came just weeks after the Supreme Court ruling, issuing blanket bans on trans women playing in women’s categories under clubs playing FA football. These new rules went beyond what was required by the ruling.
• Real-World Impact: As readers of Amelia’s Angels will know, this had an effect personally on Angel’s founder Ami Foxx, who resigned before she was pushed out, when she saw the legal landscape quickly shifting. Ami had met all prior, rigorous eligibility requirements. This aggressive act of exclusion where the FA hid behind “legal compliance” following the Supreme Court decision, it sent a clear message: the newly affirmed definition of biological sex trumped all previous policies which had been considered based on inclusion, fairness, or individual circumstance.

The Public Space Battle: The Hampstead Heath Consultation

The anti-trans campaign success in forcing/enforcing exclusion also extended to local services and spaces and outside pressure groups used the hostile climate created by the ruling to undermine existing inclusive policies.

• The Case of Hampstead Heath: The bathing ponds at Hampstead Heath have long operated an inclusive policy allowing trans men and women to use the pond that aligns with their gender identity under existing policy. This policy was in place for years and based on consultation with its own community and members who in March 2024 voted on whether to change their constitutions wording from women to biological women. 75 per cent of the 200 voters agreed to keep the word ‘women’.
• Weaponising the Ruling: Following the Supreme Court decision and the subsequent EHRC guidance, anti-trans groups, including Sex Matters, external to the area and the local bathing community, used the new legal definition as a basis to launch an aggressive campaign.
  • They forced an open and stressful public consultation (October 2025) on the policy, arguing that the existing rules were now inconsistent with the affirmed meaning of “sex.”
  • The aim was not to debate policy, but use the threat of litigation and the authority of the Supreme Court ruling to intimidate the local authority into reversing a locally approved inclusive policy. The anti-trans movement also used threats and physical intimidation when the previous March 2024 vote did not go their way. These actions exemplified the deliberate use of the ruling to interfere with local determination and enforce exclusion far beyond the direct scope of the judgment.

These examples clearly show that anti-trans campaigner’s were not merely trying to clarify a legal point, but to use the courts ‘clarification’ of “biological sex” as a mandate to enforce comprehensive social exclusion, converting a legal judgment into a broad policy of trans erasure across public life.

The content of this article is built upon direct reporting, official statements, parliamentary records, and published analysis from legal and human rights organisations spanning the period of April to October 2025. Each section also has direct links to supporting articles and documents online which have helped build the research into this feature – you’ll see these in linked sentences.

I. Official, Judicial, and Parliamentary Sources

1. UK Supreme Court Judgment (April 16, 2025): The final ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.
2. Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Documents:
   • EHRC Interim Update on the practical implications of the UK Supreme Court judgment (published April 2025, later withdrawn October 15, 2025).
   • EHRC Statement on the submission of the draft Code of Practice to the Minister for Women and Equalities (September 4, 2025).
   • EHRC Press Releases and Regulatory Announcements (e.g., Regulatory Action against 19 organisations, August/September 2025).
   • EHRC correspondence to the Minister for Women and Equalities urging “speedy” approval of the statutory guidance (October 15, 2025).
3. UK Parliament Records:
   • Hansard: Records of debates and Written Parliamentary Questions (e.g., Liberal Democrat and Labour MP contributions, September 3 and October 2, 2025).
   • Committee Transcripts: Evidence given by EHRC Chair Baroness Falkner to the Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) (June 11, 2025).
4. UK Legislation: The Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
5. UK Government Consultation: Government consultation on Gender Recognition Act Reform (2018).

II. Legal, Advocacy, and Investigative Organisations

1. Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) Challenge (October 23, 2025): Joint submission by Amnesty International UK, TransActual, and Trans+ Solidarity Alliance (TACC) demanding the downgrading of the EHRC’s ‘A-status’ accreditation.
2. Good Law Project (GLP): Statements, legal commentary, and details of the ongoing Judicial Review challenge against the EHRC’s interim guidance.
3. TransActual: Public statements and “Know Your Rights” guides issued post-Supreme Court ruling (April 2025).
4. Stonewall: Public responses and submissions to the EHRC’s Code of Practice consultation (June–July 2025).
5. Trans Safety Network (TSN): Reporting and analysis detailing the establishment and goals of the private funding initiative for anti-trans litigation (The Litigation War Chest).
6. FOI Request Logs (WhatDoTheyKnow): Records of Freedom of Information requests detailing meetings between the EHRC Chair and external campaign groups, such as Sex Matters.
7. Campaign Group Statements: Public statements and social media posts from Sex Matters and LGB Alliance (e.g., Maya Forstater quotes, Kate Barker quote).

III. International and Transatlantic Influence

1. Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security: “Red Flag Alert on Anti-Trans and Intersex Rights in the UK” (June 2025).
2. Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights: Public letter to UK parliamentarians warning against the potential for the EHRC’s proposed guidance to lead to the “widespread exclusion of trans people” (October 2025).
3. US-Based Policy Groups:
   • Heritage Foundation / Project 2025 Policy Documents.
   • Investigative Reports (e.g., Southern Poverty Law Center, Accountable.US) on Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) legal strategies and UK spending.
   • European Parliamentary Forum (EPF) Reports and Global Philanthropy Project reports on “Anti-gender” funding in Europe.

IV. Media and Personal Accounts

1. News and Investigative Reporting: The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Mail, The Scottish Sun, The Daily Telegraph, and Novara Media (covering the period April–October 2025).
2. Broadcast Media: BBC Radio 4 Today Programme interview with Baroness Falkner (April 17, 2025).
3. Organisational Statements: Public statements from various organisations (e.g., HIV charities, professional bodies) confirming their decision to withdraw from consultation and/or condemn the EHRC’s draft Code of Practice (July 2025).
4. Citations/Interviews: Quotes and commentary from individuals, including Victoria McCloud, Ellie Gomersall, and Ami (as cited in the article text).