TACC

@tacc.org.uk

4022 Followers 246 Following

TACC is an intersectional organisation started in 2024, dedicated to advocating for trans rights, addressing transphobia, and unofficial EHRC watchdog. ❤️Donate: http://alturl.com/ipg2h 🌴 https://linktr.ee/tacc_uk

Video of a comic strip talking about the manufactured panic around Lia Thomas, the text reads:
[...]
Her overall best US ranking in the men's competition was 11th after placing 1st and 2nd in several events, including the 200 and 500 yard freestyle between 2017 and 2019.

In 2019, she started HRT as part of her transition. Her performances dropped dramatically. She ranked 65th in the 500 yard free and 554th in the 200 yard free. Overall, her US ranking dropped to 63rd.

After the COVID shutdowns, Lia competed in women's events. She placed 1st in several races. Her times were around 6.4% slower than her previous best in the men's competition[...]
Lia finished joint 5th with Gaines in the 200 yard freestyle final[...] Her time of 1:43:50 was entirely unremarkable.

Lia didn't dominate women's swimming. She ranked 44th in the USA overall in 2021 and dropped to 46th in 2022 before retiring[...]

A blank comic book stip

TACC stands with Amnesty International UK.

For years, organisations like Sex Matters have claimed their voices are being silenced. They have presented themselves as champions of free speech, arguing that gender-critical beliefs are excluded from public debate and marginalised by institutions.
Yet when one of the world's most respected human rights organisations published research that challenged their campaigning, their response was not to engage with the evidence or publish a rebuttal. Instead, they publicly declared that they were prepared to sue for defamation.
Freedom of expression cannot be a principle that applies only when you agree with what is being said. If you demand the right to criticise others, you must also accept their right to criticise you.

I am writing on behalf of the Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective (TACC) to ask the Committee to
consider an issue that raises significant concerns for freedom of expression, parliamentary scrutiny and the
ability of civil society organisations to contribute to public debate.
Earlier this month, Amnesty International UK published a report entitled A Growing Threat: The Anti-rights
Movement in the UK, which examined a number of organisations campaigning on issues relating to
equality, LGBT+ rights and reproductive rights.
The report has since been removed from Amnesty International UK's website. In its place, Amnesty has
published a statement confirming that the briefing has been temporarily withdrawn while it undergoes an
internal review, while reaffirming its commitment to campaigning for the rights of women, LGBTQI people
and trans people.
Following publication, several organisations named in the report, including Sex Matters, and LGB Alliance,
have publicly stated that they had challenged the report and that, and they suggested their intention to
bring defamation proceedings, had it remained published. Amnesty has not publicly stated whether its
internal review is connected to these correspondence.
Regardless of whether these events are directly related, the situation raises broader questions that we
believe Parliament should examine.
Human rights organisations, charities, academics and campaign groups all play an important role in
informing public debate and assisting Parliament in its scrutiny of legislation and public policy. If
organisations become reluctant to publish evidence-based research because of the prospect of expensive
legal disputes, there is a real risk that matters of public importance will go unreported or unpublished.
This is not a question of whether one agrees with Amnesty International UK's conclusions [...]

I am writing to express concern about the apparent chilling effect that threatened defamation proceedings
may be having on charities and civil society organisations publishing research on matters of significant
public interest.
Earlier this month, Amnesty International UK published a report entitled A Growing Threat: The Anti-rights
Movement in the UK. The report examined organisations campaigning on issues including transgender
rights, abortion and wider equality law, and made a series of recommendations to regulators, including the
Charity Commission.
The report has since been removed from Amnesty International UK's website. In its place, Amnesty has
published a short statement confirming only that the briefing has been "temporarily removed" while it
undergoes an internal review, while reaffirming its commitment to campaigning on the rights of women,
LGBTQI people and trans people.
Following publication, several organisations named in the report, including Sex Matters, and LGB Alliance,
have publicly stated that they had challenged the report and that, and they suggested their intention to
bring defamation proceedings, had it remained published. Amnesty has not publicly stated whether its
internal review is connected to these correspondence.
Whether or not those events are directly related, they raise an important question that extends far beyond
the substance of Amnesty's report.
If charities, researchers and civil society organisations begin withdrawing publications because of the
prospect of costly legal disputes, there is a risk that public interest research will increasingly be shaped not
by evidence, but by who has the greatest resources to threaten litigation.
Freedom of expression does not only protect popular opinions. It also protects the ability of organisations
to publish research, contribute to public debate and criticise powerful interests without facing
disproportionate legal pressure[...]

For years, Sex Matters has portrayed itself as a victim of censorship. According to its public messaging,
gender-critical voices are supposedly excluded from civil society, silenced by institutions, shut out of
debate and denied freedom of expression. Every disagreement is framed as an existential attack on free
speech.
Yet the moment a major human rights ('non-anti-rights') organisation publishes research that is critical of
them, their response is not to publish a rebuttal, commission alternative research, or engage with
Amnesty's arguments. Instead, they boast that they were prepared to sue Amnesty International for
defamation.
The irony is difficult to ignore.
This letter repeatedly invokes freedom of expression, dialogue and human rights. It speaks of "constructive
dialogue", complains that Amnesty failed to engage with them, and insists that differing views should be
respected. Yet the same letter proudly declares that had Amnesty not withdrawn its report, Sex Matters
intended to drag one of the world's best-known human rights organisations into court.
Apparently, freedom of expression is a universal principle right up until somebody expresses an opinion
they don't like.
This has become a familiar pattern. When gender-critical organisations are criticised, they frequently
respond by claiming persecution. They argue that disagreement amounts to censorship, that criticism
amounts to discrimination, and that being called out for their campaigning somehow infringes their human
rights. But criticism is not censorship. Being challenged is not being silenced. And having your views
scrutinised is not an attack on free speech.
Freedom of expression cuts both ways. If Sex Matters believes it has the right to publish reports, lobby
government, intervene in court cases, criticise public bodies and campaign against the rights of
transgender people, then Amnesty International has the same right to analyse those activities and reach
conclusions that Sex Matters dislikes[...]

I will always stand with you. You are seen, you are valid, you are loved xxx

Screenshot of a copy of the book "Stonewall: The Definitive Story of the LGBTQ Rights Uprising that Changed America", a gift message was included that reads "Since you've forgotten what Stonewall stands for, here's a reminder of the history behind your name. From Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective"

Attach this document:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1psgpYr3XD-lgAq_uxdOjnGTezcnFIeDS/view?usp=sharing

The Email:

Dear [Enter relevant honorific or salutation],
Please find attached a letter regarding the Supreme Court's judgment in RR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the implications this may have for public authorities considering implementation of the EHRC Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations.
We would be grateful if this correspondence could be forwarded to the relevant legal, governance, equality, and policy teams for consideration.
For further information, please respond to info@tacc.org.uk
Yours faithfully,
[Name]

Please add the name of the public body you have emailed to this form once sent, so we can keep a log: https://forms.gle/G5mgb2R45JQBWMCZ7

"Dear Member of Parliament,

We are writing on behalf of the Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective to draw your attention to the attached open letter from more than 40 women's organisations across the United Kingdom opposing the Equality and Human Rights Commission's draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations.

The letter has been coordinated by Not In Our Name (NION) Women, a women's collective whose wider open letter supporting trans women and calling for evidence-based approaches to tackling violence against women has attracted more than 100,000 signatories.

The attached letter is significant because much of the public discussion surrounding the draft Code has proceeded on the assumption that restricting the rights of trans people reflects the wishes of women as a whole. The organisations signing this letter challenge that assumption directly. They argue that the draft Code does not address the root causes of violence against women, risks increasing scrutiny of gender non-conforming cisgender women, and undermines long-established trans-inclusive services that have operated successfully for many years.

We also wish to draw the Committee's attention to the level of parliamentary concern regarding the draft Code. As of 7 July, Early Day Motion 240, the fatal prayer seeking to annul the Code under the negative resolution procedure, has attracted 164 signatures. Based on our analysis, this makes it the most supported Early Day Motion of the current Parliament, the most supported EDM introduced in the last five years, and one of the most supported fatal prayer motions in recent parliamentary history, with support from Members across multiple political parties.

Given the Committee's role in scrutinising matters relating to human rights, we hope you will consider the concerns raised by the organisations represented in the attached letter, alongside the significant level of parliamentary concern about the draft Code."

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/47293
30-10-2014 Ed Miliband - Labour https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2848 Firefighters' Pension Scheme (England) Regulations 2014 (S.I., 2014, No. 2848) 284 supporting signature(s), 1 withdrawn signature(s)
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/26571
24-01-2005 Paddy Tipping - Labour https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3372 Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 3372) 252 supporting signature(s), 0 withdrawn signature(s)
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/45266
26-02-2013 Ed Miliband - Labour https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/257 National Health Service (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) Regulations 2013 (S.I., 2013, No. 257) 214 supporting signature(s), 1 withdrawn signature(s)
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/29007
10-10-2005 Lord Howard of Lympne - Conservative https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/2091 Licensing Act 2003 (Second appointed day) Order 2005 (S.I. No. 2091) 193 supporting signature(s), 7 withdrawn signature(s)
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/50240
27-02-2017 Tim Farron - Liberal Democrat https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/194 Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (S.I., 2017, No. 194) 187 supporting signature(s), 0 withdrawn signature(s)
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/7496
10-11-1992 Lord Mandelson - Labour https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/2595 The Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment (No.2) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No.2595) 166 supporting signature(s), 0 withdrawn signature(s)

Conclusion While transgender women exhibited higher lean mass than cisgender women, their physical fitness was comparable. Current evidence is mostly low certainty and has heterogenous quality but does not support theories of inherent athletic advantages for transgender women over cisgender.

I hear what my noble friend says, but the ruling made clear that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex. That has implications for gender recognition certificates, which no longer change one’s sex for the purposes of the Act. We will look at gender recognition reform, but we are clear that we will always support single-sex spaces based on biological sex. Everyone throughout society deserves dignity, respect and protection when using public services and healthcare. That will be our position. Our priority is that services ensure that they are complying with the law. This ruling has now provided clarity to service providers, and we also have the guidance.

Labour office in Cambridge, with a trans flag that has been placed on the wall and a Toilet in front of the door that says "NO TRANS SEGREGATION"

Gift note from TACC which reads "For Bridget: since the promised clarity appears to have gone missing somewhere between the Court and the EHRC, please accept these with our compliments."

We are raising funds for urgent legal and care-related support before the deadline.

Money raised may be used for:

* urgent solicitor and barrister advice
* evidence review
* legal letters before the 31 July deadline
* possible injunction or pre-action work
* support for families challenging inaccurate outcome letters
* care-related costs if families are forced to seek safe alternatives
* practical administration needed to organise evidence and protect families’ privacy

Families are trying to act responsibly and urgently. We need legal advice to understand whether the deadline can be paused while errors are corrected, whether the process has been lawful and fair, and how children can be protected from avoidable harm.

We write on behalf of the Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective about a matter of immediate and
grave public concern. We have seen recent reports1
that young people and families have received NHS
letters stating that endocrine care, including blockers and HRT, is being fully withdrawn within seven weeks
(31 July 2026), and that forced medical detransition is being imposed. If that report is accurate, this is not a
technical change in commissioning. It is coercive state action with direct, foreseeable consequences for
trans children and young people.
Particularly concerning is the apparent convergence between Government policy and the stated objectives
of organisations that have argued that transition itself has become "ethically untenable" following the
Supreme Court's judgment in For Women Scotland2
. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information
requests3
indicate sustained engagement between the Department of Health and Social Care and
organisations including Sex Matters, LGB Alliance and Transgender Trend.
The legal and human rights stakes here are serious. The Supreme Court itself recognised4
that the trans
community is “historically and currently a vulnerable community” which Parliament has sought to protect.
The Human Rights Act brings into UK law rights including the right to life, the prohibition on inhuman or
degrading treatment, respect for private and family life, and protection from discrimination, while the
Equality Act expressly protects the characteristic of gender reassignment. A policy that compels withdrawal
of medically indicated care, or forces young people into detransition, raises profound questions under all
of those protections.
The clinical case is just as damning. TransActual reports5
that more than 80 clinicians, researchers and
academics have signed an open letter6 warning that NHS England’s evidence reviews on gender-affirming
hormone therapy have no clear rationale, ignore previous and ongoing research[...]

[...]
As this is a serious allegation, made in a parliamentary setting and presented as a statement of fact, we would be grateful if you could provide the evidence on which this claim is based.

Specifically, we would welcome details of:

• The instances in which women or girls have demonstrably lost medals or podium positions as a result of sporting bodies acting unlawfully or in breach of the Equality Act.

• The evidence that women or girls have suffered financial losses or lost earnings as a consequence of sporting bodies failing to comply with the Equality Act.

• The cases to which you were referring when you stated that women or girls "may have even been injured" due to sporting bodies not complying with the Equality Act.

• Any assessments, reports, legal findings, regulatory decisions, governing body investigations, or other evidence that support the assertion that sporting organisations have failed to comply with the Equality Act in the manner described.

We note that there is a significant difference between arguing that sporting bodies should adopt a particular policy and alleging that they have acted unlawfully. Your statement appeared to make the latter claim.

Given the seriousness of the allegation, and the fact that it was made during a parliamentary committee session, we believe it is reasonable to ask for the evidential basis underpinning it.

We would therefore appreciate any sources, data, case studies, legal decisions, or other material that informed your remarks.

If the statement was intended to reflect a general concern rather than specific evidenced cases of non-compliance with the Equality Act, we would be grateful if you could clarify this distinction...

Ever since my young daughter came out just after starting school, I have had the privilege of meeting many wonderful trans people of all ages. Through her and the community, I have learned so much about the beautiful reality of human diversity. I am full of admiration for trans people who face such heavy prejudice yet continue to authentically be themselves, and to see the amount of resilience they have had to build. If there is one thing I want every trans kid and adult to hear is that you are brilliant just as you are. You bring so much love and joy into the lives of those around you. As an ally and a parent of a trans kid, I will continue to do absolutely everything I can to stand by you and support you. You will never, ever be alone.

Tim Farron accepts £75,000 from evangelical group despite director’s gay conversion tweet

"HENDERSON, Alasdair Iain"

Email to MPs highlighting our concerns of the CoP, including the impact it will have on all women.

There is no other you. In all the variations of possible outcomes, it's only you that emerged. In all the universe, it's only you with your eyes and your mouth and your name in all the same order. You will always be you. And no one else - in the history of everything that has and will be - will be you. There is nothing that could be grown or made that compares to the importance of that. Do what you can - no more and no less - but accept and love the person you are. You are unique. You are beautiful. And you are worth everything.

One comment stating; "In which case train and compete with the men where males belong.", in which we responded with "There are so many things wrong with this comment; some can be resolved by just picking up a biology book.

We are intrigued, though, by the fact that all women have said no. Was this a poll of all women? The funny thing is that most women in sports are supportive of trans women competing. This has been shown regularly with the responses of teammates when exclusionary policies are introduced."

Image showing 3 women diving into the pool, with a text overlay: "After the COVID shutdowns, Lia competed in women's events. She placed Ist in several races. Her times were around 6.4% slower than her previous best in the men's competition."

Cartoon of Lia Thomas with purple hair, smiling and holding a trophy, making a peace sign. Background features a trans flag and text about sports inclusivity.

TIME CHANGE. Oxford For Trans Rights, March for Trans Rights, Saturday 30th. Assemble 15:00 at Bonn Square, March at 16:00

EMERGENCY TRANS DEMO:
11AM - 23 May 2026
Parliament Square, London

TRANS RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK!

TRANS INCLUSION ISN'T DISCRIMINATION
BRING YOUR BANNERS AND FLAGS

The draft Code will be laid before Parliament in both Houses for a 40-day period, in line with the Equality Act 2006. If neither House disapproves the draft within this time period, the Code currently in force will be revoked by means of a negative procedure statutory instrument and the new Code will be commenced by a separate statutory instrument.
I have therefore laid the Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations in Parliament today, with an Explanatory Memorandum, in line with the Equality Act 2006.

His response: "I feel sorry for you. You don't understand what a human being is, and you don't understand society. Perhaps 20% of the people in the world are sympathetic to
trans ideas, and they become less sympathetic the more trans people make unreasonable demands. You need a psychiatrist.
I am an anti-transgender activist. I write about it every day on the internet, and I will continue to do so until I die. I look forward to the day when all the world
rejects the narcissism coming from trans people.
I've wasted enough time on you."

His response: "First of all, I'm not particularly angry. The tide is turning in Western countries now, and the over-reach of trans people is losing support.
"Over-reach" is what it is. The smallest group in the world does NOT have the right to make demands on the rest of us. You don't have the right to demand we love
you when you look and act ridiculous (as tall women with men's faces do). You don't have the right to tell us how to talk. You don't have the right to redefine
words like "gender" and "man" and "woman". You don't have the right to influence children to believe they are trans. You don't have the right to usurp women's
spaces and destroy the level playing field of their sports. You don't have the right to try to get people fired from their jobs when they won't use your pronouns. You
don't have the right to call people who disagree with you "transphobes" or "bigots".
Your note below is pathetic. You are deluded. You are divorced from reality. Saying that a trans woman is a man who feels like a woman, or thinks he does, is not
in any way discriminatory. It is simply true. Human beings are animals, and the gender of animals is determined by their reproductive systems. It is called
"biology".
So am I transphobic? Maybe. For most of my life seeing a comedian in drag pretending to be a woman was hilarious. Now I am expected to stop laughing and
take that seriously?
I have encountered a few trans people in my life, and I treated them respectfully. When a young woman calling herself Timothy came to my home to inspect it for a
government benefit, what I WANTED to do was to shake her and tell her, "Don't ruin your life! Don't cut your breasts off!" But I didn't. I just felt sorry for her.
I am a gay man and a liberal, but I am not stupid. Reality is what it is, and no dissatisfied group can redefine it to suit themselves. If you were smart, you would be
satisfied with whatever acceptance society gives you.
By playing the sympathy card..."

The email we received: "I just read through your glossary of transphobic terms, and I got the biggest laugh of
my life. Most of those terms are simply true! They describe real things! So you think that
ANY term that is not completely supportive of transgender ideology is discriminatory?
What a joke! Clearly, you don't believe that people have a right to their own opinions"

"192.13 we were provided with evidence that one other employee raised concerns
similar to those raised by the claimant during late 2024, which was after
the date on which this claim was presented. However, no concerns were
raised regarding the respondent’s policy regarding trans women’s access
to female only facilities from the issue of the TEP in October 2017 until the
claimant raised her concerns. We note that the respondent had various
methods for employees to feedback on policies, including anonymously
via their intranet and the Freedom to Speak Up process;"

Alt text: "Infographic titled 'Final 3 days! Community Update 7th May 2026.' It lists survey responses: UK total 951, England 766, Northern Ireland 18, Scotland 116, Wales 51. Features website link wp.lancs.ac.uk/transadultspsp and organisational logos on a blue background."

Pink and blue poster with text: "We Need You! Tell us your priorities. We’ll advocate for research funding." Includes websites and logos for advocacy groups.

"one employee was paid over £100k at Sex Matters"

Sex Matters annual report showing income and expenditures for the year ending 30 June 2025. They received over 1.4 million pounds and have over 500k retained.

QR code to our funding page (https://www.zeffy.com/en-GB/donation-form/fund-the-work-of-trans-advocacy-and-complaints-collective)

"I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regarding the keynote speech delivered
by Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson on 19 March 2026, titled 'Speech: EHRC Chair sets out vision for human rights', published
on your website.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/speech-ehrc-chair-sets-out-vision-human-rights
Please provide the following information:
1. Authorship and drafting
- The names and roles of all individuals involved in drafting, editing, or contributing to the content of the speech
(including internal staff, commissioners, special advisers, and external contributors).
- Details of any external organisations or individuals who contributed to, reviewed, or influenced the content.
2. Approval and sign-off
- The internal approval process for the speech.
- The names and roles of those who reviewed and/or approved the final version prior to delivery and publication.
- Any formal sign-off procedures or governance steps required for such speeches.
3. Briefing materials and inputs
- Copies of any briefing documents, speaking notes, policy briefings, or background papers prepared for the Chair in
relation to this speech.
- Any internal summaries of stakeholder input or consultation used to inform the speech.
4. Communications and correspondence
- Internal communications (including emails, messages, or meeting notes) discussing the content, framing, or
messaging of the speech.
- Any correspondence between the EHRC and external organisations relating to the speech.
5. Revisions and drafts
- Copies of draft versions of the speech, including tracked changes or revision history where available.
6. Event coordination
- Any documents relating to coordination with external partners (including Equally Ours) concerning the content or
themes of the speech."

Letterhead of "Trans Advocacy & Complaints Collective" with a formal letter addressed to the BBC Board. The letter raises concerns about a previous complaint response, emphasizing issues with terminology clarity and legal considerations related to discrimination. The tone is formal and assertive. Date: 21st April 2026.

The image shows a typed letter addressed to Kezia Dugdale from the Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective. It expresses concerns over trans rights and media representation, in response to Dugdale's interview. Key points include legal uncertainties, declining healthcare access for trans people, and media hostility. There are mentions of the Equality Act and JK Rowling's statements on trans issues. The tone is concerned and urging.

Text: "To standardscommissioner@parliament.uk <standardscommissioner@parliament.uk>
Dear Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards,
We are writing to make a formal complaint about remarks made by Suella Braverman MP concerning
Steph Richards, a trans woman and Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) holder, in relation to her
role with Endometriosis South Coast.
In public statements and on social media, Ms Braverman repeatedly referred to Ms Richards as “a
man”, described her appointment as “regressive”, and claimed it “erases women” and is “insulting
and inappropriate” for her to speak on endometriosis. These comments were not incidental; they
involved the deliberate and repeated mischaracterisation of Ms Richards’ legal sex and identity in a
manner that was hostile and demeaning.... Under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, a person who holds a full GRC is, 'for all purposes',
recognised in their acquired gender. In Ms Richards’ case, she is legally recognised as a woman, and
her sex is female in law. The repeated public description of her as “a man” is therefore not simply a
matter of opinion or debate, but a denial of her legal status....
In addition, Ms Richards is protected under the Equality Act 2010 by the characteristic of gender
reassignment. The Act protects from discrimination and harassment, including conduct that has the
purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading,
humiliating or offensive environment. Public statements by a senior MP that single out a named trans
woman, deny her legal status, and frame her participation as inherently inappropriate are reasonably
understood to meet that threshold."

"Recess House Rise House Return
Christmas 2026 17 December 2026 4 January 2027
Conference 15 September 2026 12 October 2026
Summer 16 July 2026 1 September 2026
Whitsun 21 May 2026 1 June 2026"

"Our qualified person has been consulted, and in their reasonable opinion,
disclosure of the withheld information would be likely to (i) inhibit the free and
frank provision of advice, and (c) otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of
public affairs. We have therefore determined that the Section 36 exemption is
engaged.
As Section 36 is a qualified exemption, we are required to carry out a public
interest test to determine whether the public interest lies in disclosing the
information or maintaining the exemption. Please find our public interest test
considerations below:
Factors in favour of disclosure
• There is a general public interest in promoting transparency,
accountability, public understanding, and involvement in the democratic
T: 0161 829 8100
E: foi@equalityhumanrights.com
Arndale House, The Arndale Centre
Manchester, M4 3AQ
equalityhumanrights.com
process. Disclosure of the requested information would serve this
interest.
• Following the UK Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland v
The Scottish Ministers, there is a heightened public interest in
understanding the Commission’s engagement with external
stakeholders representing the protected characteristics of sex, sexual
orientation and gender reassignment."

Text: "We are concerned about the extent of the redactions applied to the disclosure, and in particular, the
decision to withhold the handwritten note in its entirety under section 36. The response asserts that
the note was an informal contemporaneous aide memoire, but does not adequately explain why this
material could not have been disclosed in redacted form, or why the public interest in transparency
was outweighed in relation to this specific content.
We do not accept that handwritten notes should be withheld simply because they are handwritten or
informal in character. The form of a record is not, in itself, a sufficient basis for non-disclosure. If the
note contains factual material, summaries of discussions, references to decisions, or other
information relevant to the EHRC’s engagement with external stakeholders, then there is a strong
public interest in disclosure, particularly given the significant public interest in the EHRC’s
engagement with organisations on issues relating to sex, gender reassignment, and the practical
impact of the Supreme Court ruling.
We are also concerned that the section 36 reasoning is overly broad. The response appears to rely on
generic assertions about chilling effects and future candour, rather than a detailed explanation of the
specific harm that would arise from disclosure of the withheld material in this case. As a result, it is
not clear that the public interest test has been properly or rigorously applied to each withheld item.
In light of the EHRC’s role as a statutory regulator and National Human Rights Institution, there is an
especially strong public interest in transparency around how senior leadership engages with external
stakeholders on live legal and policy questions. That public interest is heightened where the material
relates to issues that directly affect trans people’s access to services, safety, and rights under the
Equality Act 2010."

"The word "sex" is only useful as a scientific marker insofar as it describes an individual's sexed body characteristics. Given that many of these (external genitalia, hormone profiles, fat and muscle distribution, blood protein patterns, etc.) are and can be altered medically by many trans people, describing them as "biological males" or "biological females" based on their assigned sex at birth is a deliberate misrepresentation of scientific fact. Even worse, it perpetuates a negative stereotype about trans people that their bodies do not ever require public service attention in accordance with their acquired sex (e.g. breast cancer screening in trans women). "

Trans Day of Visibility 2026

As always, TACC is here to amplify the voices of the transgender, non-binary, and Intersex community. Our voices are continuously ignored, but they will be heard.

On this Trans Day of Visibility, we are sharing some of the voices from our open letter: “Biological Sex” and Its Variants are Transphobic Slurs.

“We provide a range of changing facilities for our users. We provide in all gyms:

1. a. separate-sex communal changing rooms (based on biological sex); and b. an individual use, accessible, gender-neutral changing room.

2. The separate-sex communal changing rooms are designated for use by individuals according to their biological sex.”

On Saturday 11th April the grassroots group @acts_grassroots is organising a series of #OneYearLater protests at 11 locations across the country and internationally to show that the fight is not over and we are not giving up.

The Sex Matters team will be attending as many as we can:

Maya Forstater will speak at the London event (Westminster)
Fiona McAnena will speak in Belfast
Nicole Jones will speak in Edinburgh
Dr Emma Hilton will speak in Manchester.
There are also events in Cardiff, Sunderland (Bridget Phillipson’s constituency) and Plymouth. They all start at 1pm. There will be excellent speakers at all locations and a chance to show up, speak up, meet people and send a message to the government that sex-based rights matter.

Both men and women are welcome.

There are solidarity events in Berlin, Vienna, Düsseldorf and other international locations.

Pink and blue poster with text: "We Need You! Tell us your priorities. We’ll advocate for research funding." Includes websites and logos for advocacy groups.

FOI showing GANHRI submissions to the EHRC

"We’re proud to share that Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective (TACC) is now a member of the Transgender Europe (TGEU) network.
TGEU brings together organisations from across Europe and Central Asia working to advance the rights and safety of trans people. Joining this network connects our work with a wider movement pushing for equality and human rights across the region.
We will make sure the experiences of trans people in the UK are part of a broader international conversation about justice and rights.
We’re excited to work alongside the many organisations and activists within the TGEU network and to continue pushing for change together."

"Update: There are already reports of trans people attempting to take their own lives since this policy update. “First do no harm” is a core principle of medical ethics. DHSC, NHS England, ministers, and academics driving this relentless dismantling of trans healthcare cannot ignore the consequences. How many more lives must be put at risk before those responsible are held accountable?"

Text: "Case 15483842
Thank you for your email about the Commission's unpublished minutes of Board and sub-Board meetings.

In your email you asked us to:

Confirm whether the minutes you listed have been formally approved, and if so, on what dates;
Provide a clear and specific timetable for the publication of each outstanding set of minutes and;
Explain the basis on which FOI requests continue to be refused where publication has been delayed for many months with no defined release date.
For ease of reference, we have copied your request and provided our response to each point directly below.

Confirm whether the minutes you listed have been formally approved, and if so, on what dates.
EHRC Board :

4 June 2025 - approved and now on the website
18 June 2025 - approved and now on the website
2 September 2025 - approved on 17 September 2025
17 September 2025 - approved and now on the website
22 October 2025 - approved and now on the website
19 November 2025 - approved and now on the website
Scotland Committee

4 June 2025 - approved on 9 September 2025
Wales Committee

23 June 2025 - approved 28 August 2025
28 August 2025 - approved and now on the website

2. Provide a clear and specific timetable for the publication of each outstanding set of minutes
We are aiming to publish the outstanding set of minutes as soon as possible.

3. Explain the basis on which FOI requests continue to be refused where publication has been delayed for many months with no defined release date.

Requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are considered on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the circumstances at the time of receipt. Where Board and Committee minutes are intended for future publication at the point of receipt, it may be reasonable to withhold them even where publication has been delayed, provided there was an intention to publish at a future date, whether determined or not, and it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so..."

Image of an update to the article, citing quote source, which reads: "[from Sex Matters website, “The puberty-blocker trial: paused but not yet stopped”]"