It’s always been about our erasure – Part Two

The UK anti-trans campaign is not merely a homegrown, grassroots phenomenon; it has looked to the US and deliberately adopted the political blueprint perfected by US right-wing groups and politicians over the past two decades. Starting with the election of George W. Bush, the Christian Right’s influence at the heart of government both at a Federal and State level, ramped up. This was then accelerated by the US Supreme Court decision of Citizens United V FEC. The flow of dark money escalated the agenda of these groups and influential figures who during the Obama years used their strategy in a furious backlash against marriage equality. This momentum, was then adopted under the guise of the Tea Party, which is in itself the basis for the current Republican political agenda under Donald J. Trump. That agenda was ultimately codified by the powerful Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which has resulted in an unprecedented legislative war: in recent years, hundreds of anti-trans bills have been introduced in Republican held states, restricting everything from healthcare to sports participation – a blueprint which the anti-trans movement in the UK is attempting to replicate seeking to replace legal shading with the same model of systematic, institutional exclusion.

Exporting Policy and Panic

The UK anti-trans movement has in many ways modelled itself after the Republican strategy in both messaging and the way it has pushed for legislative changes. You can see many similarities in the examples detailed here.

• The Sport Ban: Following the Supreme Court ruling, several UK sport’s bodies implemented widespread bans, such as the one implemented by the English and Scottish FA’s (see part one). These mirrored legislation successfully enacted across conservative US states, providing UK groups with a highly emotional wedge issue and tested legal arguments.
• Targeting Healthcare: The focus on “banning gender-affirming care for minors,” using terms like “mutilation” and “sterilisation,” is a direct reflection of the rhetoric and subsequent legislation pushed by US Republican governors and legal groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). This is a strategic attempt to criminalise health care.
• ‘Parental Rights’: The US push for trans targeted versions of the “Don’t Say Gay” laws of the 1990’s is intended to require teachers to “out” students to their parents. The RSE guidance for schools in England passed in 2025 in the UK, has been dubbed ‘Section 28 2.0’ and essentially means teachers are not allowed to teach students about “about the concept of gender identity”. This is seen as a clear move to strip young trans people of autonomy and support.

The Financial and Ideological Nexus

Ass in the US, the UK anti-trans movement, is backed by a substantial, flow of money across the Atlantic and ideological coordination that gives UK groups an substantial voice.

• Dark Money: Journalists and academics have documented billions of US dollars being funnelled into “anti-trans” groups, with significant amounts directed toward actors in Europe and the UK. This allows anti-trans groups to, wage legal battles, and run long-term political campaigns that far outweigh the capacity of UK LGBTQ+ and human rights organisations. For example, groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a US Christian legal group with significant reach, has increased its spending in the UK in recent years.
• The Heritage Foundation and Project 2025: One of the most explicit link is the previously mentioned connection to the Heritage Foundation, the architect of Project 2025. While the Heritage Foundation and groups like Sex Matters claim operational independence, their policy goals are nevertheless similar: enforcing a binary definition of sex across public life, the removal of trans people from the military, and the dismantling of diversity and equality initiatives (DEI).

Beyond 2025: The Broader Threat

The success of the UK anti-trans movement in 2025 is not the end; it is a vital part of the wider transnational anti-trans movement.

The US strategy has been to use the trans community as the start for restricting broader rights, including the anti-abortion movement and same-sex marriage. By successfully redefining ‘sex’ and normalising the idea of state-sanctioned exclusion, the stage has been set to roll back:

1. Women’s Rights and Body Autonomy: The legal frameworks that have been used to exclude trans women can be used to limit the rights and bodily autonomy of cisgender women, especially in areas of reproductive rights and workplace equality.
2. LGBTQ+ Rights: Campaigns against ‘gender ideology’ are not limited and are therefore inseparable from campaigns against same-sex marriage, comprehensive sex education, and much more. This is a broader attack on sexual and gender freedom.

When we gave our warnings, we were never doing so to protect just our rights. We foresaw the wider implications of what was happening and how the deployment of a powerful, deeply funded anti-equality political machine would use us as the test case – the canary in the coal mine, but people did not listen. Now, society is sadly bearing the consequences.

April 2025’s Supreme Court ruling did more than provide a legal definition; it served as the impetus for anti-trans groups to remove the mask they had been hiding behind of “protecting women’s rights” and instead, implicitly call for explicit trans exclusion, backed by the threat of legal challenges. The campaigners leveraged the ruling to pressure institutions into compliance, even before new statutory guidance was legally mandated.

The Pivot to Explicit Exclusion: Sex Matters and the EHRC Guidance

Before the ruling, the campaign message focused heavily on the need to protect women’s “sex-based rights”. Post-ruling, the messaging from groups like Sex Matters and their allies immediately pivoted to using the ruling as a weapon to demand the literal removal of trans people from single-sex services.

• The Power of Interim Guidance: Within days after the Supreme Court ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) released interim guidance which, while not yet legally approved (this can only be done via an Act of Parliament), suggested erroneously that the ruling meant trans people would not be allowed to use public facilities aligned with their affirmed gender. Trans rights groups and their allies, warned the advice would effectively exclude trans people from public life, infringing on privacy and dignity.
• Leveraging Legal Threat: Anti-trans campaigners used the interim guidance and the Supreme Court decision to openly and threaten lawsuits against any organisation that did not implement exclusion. The goal was designed to create a climate of fear among service providers (hospitals, shelters, schools, employers) forcing them to adopt exclusionary policies out of fear of being sued for non-compliance even before the full guidance had been passed.
  These threats also saw anti-trans groups threaten to take the Scottish government to court again claiming a “breach in the law” .

• Explicit Language: The tone exponentially shifted following the Supreme Court ruling. It went from saying that the law permits exclusion to declaring that the law mandates exclusion. Anti-trans campaigners fought against any nuance, insisting that any policy that allowed for trans inclusion was now “unlawful” and exposing the organisation to legal action.

The J.K. Rowling’s Women’s Fund: A Litigation War Chest

One of the biggest signals towards legal enforcement was the establishment of the J.K. Rowling Women’s Fund (JKRWF) in May 2025, shortly after the Supreme Court victory.

• Fund’s Purpose: The JKRWF was established as a private fund (not a charity) to offer legal funding support to individuals and organisations fighting to “retain women’s sex-based rights” across public life.
• Strategic Goal: The stated goal was not just to defend cases but to provide women with the means to bring cases that will “make legal precedents” and “force policy change.” This signalled an explicit intent to weaponise the courts by underwriting litigation against institutions perceived to be non-compliant with the new “biological sex” definition.
• Eligibility and Intent: The criteria focus on supporting those who have lost their livelihoods, are facing tribunals due to their gender-critical beliefs, or are “being forced to comply with unreasonable inclusion policies regarding single-sex spaces.” By directly targeting trans-inclusive policies, the JKRWF turned into a litigation war chest designed to enforce the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling across the UK and Ireland.

The combination of the EHRC’s initial exclusionary interim advice and the immediate availability of funding for legal cases, created a powerful incentive for businesses, organisations and institutions to adopt exclusionary policies, regardless of whether the proposed Code of Practice had been approved by Parliament or had the full force of law.

The success of the FWS V Scottish Ministers case at the Supreme Court was immediately amplified and more importantly, deliberately misrepresented by anti-trans friendly media outlets and anti-trans figures, which turned a nuanced legal ruling into a simple, exclusionary slogan. The media’s response was not reporting; it was the opening salvo in the campaign to implement trans exclusion across society.

The Media’s Veto on Nuance

Despite the Supreme Court’s clear warning against triumphalism, with Lord Hodge explicitly saying the ruling not to be considered a “triumph” of one side over another, major media outlets friendly to the anti-trans cause instantly dismissed this caution and running the next day with deeply misleading front-page headlines.

As highlighted by the legal news service LawScot, this media response flew directly in the face of the Supreme Court’s own summary, which stated: “It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy…”

However, the media disregarded the court’s careful limitations.

By deliberately conflating the court’s narrow legal definition of “sex” in the Equality Act with a blanket social and political definition of “woman,” the headlines unleashed a distortion that meant the public was “ill-served” by the information they were getting, setting the one for public perception and understanding thereafter.

The Coordinated Activist and Institutional Response

This framing was validated by jubilant anti-trans activists, who celebrated outside the court with champagne, and swiftly backed by key institutional figures.

• Gender-Critical Triumphalism: Maya Forstater of Sex Matters was quoted using dehumanising language, referring to trans women as “men,” demonstrating a move from the subtle to open aggression. The celebrations was rooted in the belief that the legal ground was now clear for exclusion.
• Immediate Fear and Warning: The concerns of trans people were starkly realised. Victoria McCloud, the UK’s first openly trans judge (who was denied the right to intervene in the case), declared that the ruling would be “the kicking-off point for a very enhanced push for overt restrictions on the rights of trans people.” Similarly, Scottish activist Ellie Gomersall warned that organisations would see the result as “justification or vindication to discriminate further against trans people.”
• Institutional Overreach: These fears were confirmed when just days after the ruling, the now outgoing chair of the EHRC, Baroness Falkner, appeared on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme to suggest the ruling meant trans women could be excluded from public toilets, sports, and women’s hospital wards. This was immediately seen as a massive “overreach,” going beyond what the Supreme Court had ruled, therefore blurring the lines between the judicial decision and a policy mandate for exclusion.

The result of combining media distortion with the authority of institutional figures, anti-trans campaigners successfully took a specific legal finding and converted it into a broad cultural and political instruction: Trans people must be excluded.

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).