The UK’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission has issued bizarre interim guidance on the implementation of the UK Supreme Court ruling. Here’s what you can do to help.

TW: transphobia, transphobic terms used when quoting official documents. 

On 15 April, in a devastating blow to trans rights, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex alone. 

We are already seeing the negative effects come into play: last night, the EHRC (the Equalities and Human Rights Commission) issued disappointing interim guidance on how organisations should interpret the Supreme Court ruling. 

The guidance states that, in workplaces and services open to the public, trans women should not be allowed to use women’s toilets and trans men should not be allowed to use men’s toilets. It also adds that, in some cases, trans women can be blocked from men’s toilets and trans men from women’s toilets.

While advocating for the exclusion of trans people from all single-sex toilets, the guidance states that “where possible” mixed-sex toilets, washing or changing facilities should be available in addition to single-sex facilities. 

The guidance also ignores – or, more accurately, wilfully undermines – the fact that trans men can be bi or gay and trans women can be bi or lesbians. 

It advocates for the exclusion of trans people from gay and lesbian spaces, stating that, for associations of 25 or more people: “A women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men), and a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans men (biological women).”

At a school level, it states: “Pupils who identify as trans girls (biological boys) should not be permitted to use the girls’ toilet or changing facilities, and pupils who identify as trans boys (biological girls) should not be permitted to use the boys’ toilet or changing facilities. Suitable alternative provisions may be required.”

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by GAY TIMES (@gaytimes)

The context

The Supreme Court’s decision dictates how the 2010 Equality Act – which aims to prevent discrimination based on a number of protected characteristics, including sex – will be interpreted across Britain. 

The ruling was the culmination of a legal battle brought by For Women Scotland – a gender critical group which received a £70,000 donation from JK Rowling to help challenge the Scottish government’s assertion that any woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate is entitled to the same sex-based protections as women assigned female at birth. 

Understandably, the past week has been greatly disheartening and upsetting to trans women – and the wider trans and queer community – as the Supreme Court has opened the door to excluding trans people from single-sex spaces and undermining trans agency and dignity. 

What can be done about it? 

We’re unequivocally of the belief that the UK Supreme Court’s ruling – and the EHRC’s subsequent interpretation and guidance – are grievous attacks on the trans community’s right to simply exist in public. 

The queer community and allies must come together to challenge this – here are some things that can be done. 

Donate: 

Currently, The Good Law Project is fundraising to challenge the Supreme Court’s judgement, arguing that it has placed the UK in breach of its obligations under the Human Rights Act. You can donate here. 

If you have the means, direct your money and resources to the trans community: connect trans people to paid opportunities, donate to trans-led organisations and contribute to trans people’s fundraisers for gender-confirming care. 

Agitate:

Write to your MP! Write to the Prime Minister! Show up to a rally! 

If you’re unsure of how to go about writing to an elected official, the charity Trans Actual has helpful advice on how to write to Kier Starmer, your MP, or the Equalities Minister. 

Whether or not you identify as trans, you can also show up to Trans Pride marches in solidarity – come out for the trans community whenever you can.

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by SISSY ANARCHY (@sissyanarchy)

Participate: 

When it comes to directly addressing trans bathroom access, community solutions are already emerging. 

P Eldridge, Fi Kube and Caitlin McLoughlin, via SISSY ANARCHY, have just launched the Trans Bathroom Access Sticker and a plan for trans bathroom inclusion. 

“We launched this initiative to mitigate the effects of oncoming laws on trans people’s access to public life, which will be severely impacted, particularly as it pertains to access to public bathrooms. Trans people deserve the dignity and respect to leave the home knowing they can access a bathroom, or other spaces where gender is regulated, with simplicity, ease and safety,” say Eldridge and Kube.

The plan encourages workers, trans people and allies, to propose the following to employers:

 1) Allow all trans people to access the business’s bathroom; whether they are customers or not.

 2) Display a vinyl window sticker that declares your bathrooms are safe, accessible spaces for trans people. 

Community solutions like the Trans Bathroom Access Sticker allow individuals to make positive changes to support trans people – and encourage businesses to send a message of solidarity. 

“We need businesses to become advocates for the safety of trans people because right now, across the UK and beyond, trans people are facing unprecedented political attacks. We ask businesses to purchase the sticker and feature it on the facade of their business, showing they are a safe place for trans people to use their facilities, whether they are customers or not,” add Eldridge and Kube. 

“This small act sends a BIG message: You see trans people. You support trans people. You are a safe space for trans people to use basic facilities.”

For further info, and to buy the Trans Bathroom Access Sticker, click here.

The post EHRC says trans people shouldn’t be included in gay or lesbian spaces appeared first on GAY TIMES.

The US President’s first actions have waged a war on queer rights. But the community is fighting back.

When President Trump assumed office on 20 January, 2025, he began signing a stack of executive orders taking aim at LGBTQIA+ rights, DEI and migrants. 

In order to learn more, we’ve compiled a running list of the executive orders targeting LGBTQIA+ rights, as well as a list of the lawsuits challenging these directives.

[Editor’s note: This is a developing story and this article will be updated as and when further developments arise]

What is an executive order?

Executive orders are a kind of written directive, signed by the president, that orders the government to take certain actions. 

However, it’s worth noting that an executive order doesn’t override the Constitution or federal laws or statues – but it does set the tone and priorities in policy.

(Statutes, FYI, come from Congress and are then signed by the president – but Congress can override vetoes which come from the president.)

A summary of Trump’s anti-LGBTQIA+ executive orders

• 20 Jan: ‘Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government’, an executive order which attempts to end legal recognition of trans and non-binary people under federal law, with wide-reaching consequences with regards to single-sex spaces, X gender markers, employment and more. It also seeks to house all incarcerated trans women in male prisons and discontinue their access to gender-affirming care. 
• 20 Jan: ‘Ending Radical and Wasteful DEI Programs and Preferencing’, an executive order which targets DEI “mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities” throughout federal government.
• 20 Jan: ‘Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid’, an executive order that ordered a 90-day freeze on foreign aid spending and handed further control of USAid to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. This has had a major impact on the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), severely disrupting the provision of HIV-related care globally. On 6 February, Rubio issued an “emergency humanitarian waiver” to allow HIV medication to be distributed abroad. However, a State Department document posted online by UNAIDS on 6 February and then updated on 10 February indicated that the provision of PrEP would still be restricted, stating: “Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) should be offered only to pregnant and breastfeeding women (PBFW; see section above) during this pause of U.S. Foreign Assistance.” It also noted that: “People other than PBFW who may be at high risk of HIV infection or were previously initiated on a PrEP option can not be offered PEPFAR-funded PrEP during this pause of U.S. Foreign Assistance or until further notice.”
• 27 Jan: ‘Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness’, an executive order which takes aim at trans people serving in the military. As of 14 February, the US Army stated that trans people would no longer be able to enlist and that it would no longer perform or facilitate “procedures associated with gender transition for service members”. Openly trans people were first able to legally serve in the US military from 25 January 2021. 
• 28 Jan: ‘Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation’, an executive order which instructs agencies to block gender-affirming care for those under 18. You can read more about this here. 
• 29 Jan: ‘Ending Radical Indoctrination In K-12 Schooling’, an executive order which directs the Departments of Education, Defense, and Health and Human Services to work with the Attorney General to make a plan to strip funding from schools which promote education “based on gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology” and calls for the prosecution of teachers who respect trans children’s gender identities and efforts to socially transition.
• 5 Feb: ‘Keeping Men Out Of Women’s Sports’, an executive order which attempts to ban trans women and girls from sports at the school and collegiate level and encourages athletics associations to revise their rules so as to bar trans women from participating in female sporting categories. You can read more about this here.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by GAY TIMES (@gaytimes)

Lawsuits challenging Trump’s anti-LGBTQIA+ executive orders

• 26 Jan: An incarcerated trans woman, known pseudonymously as Maria Moe, challenged a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy which would see her moved to a male prison and her gender-affirming care discontinued, on the grounds that this would expose her to an “extremely high risk of harassment, abuse, violence, and sexual assault.” Her lawyers via GLAD Law, NCLR, and Lowenstein Sandler LLP filed a complaint in federal district court in Massachusetts. On the same day, the court granted a temporary restraining order which would allow her to remain in a women’s facility and retain access to medical care while the court considered further relief. 
• 30 Jan: Three incarcerated trans women, known pseudonymously as Jane, Mary and Sara Doe, sued the Trump administration, arguing that the ‘Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government’ executive order’s directive to discontinue their gender-affirming care and re-house them in male prisons violated the US Constitution and federal law.
• 4 Feb: After their medical care was disrupted, two trans young adults, and five trans adolescents and their families, launched a federal legal challenge to Trump’s ‘Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation’ executive order. 
• 6 Feb: Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Trump’s administration’s ban on military service by trans people. It was filed on behalf of six actively serving trans service members, a trans person seeking to enlist and Gender Justice League.
• 7 Feb: Working with the ACLU, seven trans and non-binary people filed a federal lawsuit challenging the State Department’s refusal to allow changes to gender markers on passports, arguing that this is in violation of their constitutional rights. 
• 10 Feb: An incarcerated trans woman, known pseudonymously as Jane Jones, filed a federal lawsuit after being temporarily transferred to a male lockup and subjected to solitary confinement. While Jones was returned to the low security women’s camp where she had previously resided, she is seeking a permanent injunction from a judge to prevent being transferred to a male facility in future.
• 12 Feb: Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, two trans teenagers attending school in New Hampshire, had previously sued state education officials over state law barring their participation from girls’ sports at their public high schools. On 12 Feb, their lawyers at GLAD Law and the ACLU of New Hampshire filed an amended complaint to expand the case nationally so as to challenge Trump’s ‘Keeping Men Out Of Women’s Sports’ executive order.

Stay tuned for further updates about the outcome of the above lawsuits.

The post All the LGBTQIA+ lawsuits (we know of) against the Trump administration appeared first on GAY TIMES.

Yesterday (5 February), US President Trump signed yet another executive order targeting the trans community.

After taking aim at trans women’s access to single-sex spaces and undermining youth access to gender-affirming care, Trump is also homing in on trans women and girls in sport.

The executive order, named ‘Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports’, takes immediate effect and concerns school, university and grassroots sports. 

The order announces an intention to effectively ban all trans women and girls from female locker rooms and female sports. It also announces a desire that athletics associations and governing bodies change their policies to bar all trans women from competition in female sports, regardless of any measures taken to lower hormone levels.

More concerning still, it announces an aim of implementing these norms in international sports, by stating an intention to: “promote, including at the United Nations, international rules and norms governing sports competition to protect a sex-based female sports category”

Despite the extreme measures announced within the document, the number of out trans athletes is minimal. In December 2024, the NCAA president said in Senate testimony that he was aware of fewer than 10 trans athletes out of the 500,000 NCAA athletes competing at the college level. 

What is an executive order?

Trump has issued around 40 of them since coming into office, but what exactly is an executive order?

As per the ACLU, the power to issue executive orders is granted to the US president in Article II of the Constitution. These are a kind of written directive, signed by the president, that orders the government to take certain actions. 

However, it’s worth noting that an executive order doesn’t override federal laws or statues – but it sets the tone and priorities in policy. Statutes, FYI, come from Congress and are then signed by the president – but Congress can override vetoes which come from the president.

The post Trump’s latest executive order takes aim at trans women in sport appeared first on GAY TIMES.

Idaho House lawmakers are calling on the US Supreme Court to overturn the landmark 2015 decision to legalise same-sex marriage across all states. Will they succeed?

Since Trump’s reelection in November  –  which saw a 700% increase in LGBTQIA+ youth crisis calls – anti-LGBTQIA+ voices in government and everyday life have been emboldened. 

In the days since assuming office, Trump has signed a number of executive orders taking aim at DEI, as well as targeting the trans community: banning them from the military, removing ‘X’ gender markers and barring their access to single-sex spaces which correspond with their gender. 

While Trump hasn’t yet tabled marriage equality as a topic for discussion – and, in fact, has recently appointed the gay, married billionaire Scott Bessent as his Treasury secretary – Republican lawmakers in Idaho are taking aim. 

On 27 January, Idaho’s House voted 46-24 to pass a joint memorial to reject the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v Hodges which legalised same-sex marriage across the US aiming to “restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman.” It has now passed to the Senate. 

Idaho’s Constitution has a trigger law meaning that marriage equality could immediately be outlawed once federal protections disappear. 

The memorial was proposed by GOP state Rep. Heather Scott, who argued that the measure was a matter of “restoring the issue of marriage and enforcement of all laws pertaining to marriage back to the several states and the people.”

In 2013, Sue Latta was among the four Idaho lesbian couples who filled Latta v. Otter, a lawsuit in the US district court which challenged Idaho’s state ban on same-sex marriage. In 2014, it was ruled that Idaho’s marriage laws banning same-sex marriage were “unconstitutional”.

Speaking to GAY TIMES, Latta shares that she was disheartened by the recent attacks on marriage equality in her state, and frustrated with the lack of consideration for the logistical problems it may cause.

“In Idaho, same sex couples have been getting married since 2014, that means there are thousands of married couples that this will affect in Idaho and tens of thousands across the country. I wonder if any of the legislators advancing this attempt to overturn Obergefell have thought this through at all,” Latta says.

“What are the legal ramifications of undoing all those marriages? Will the state be required to pay the legal fees involved in these dissolutions, splitting property, child custody? Or do they leave us married and no one gets to get married going forward? And how do you reconcile that with equal protection?”

Latta also notes the harm that such political attacks can inflict on the queer community, while noting the lack of meaningful change on urgent issues such as the wealth gap. “The attacks on LGBTQ+ rights completely disregards the real harm these efforts cause to real people and real families, all for blatant political pandering to ‘the base’,” Latta explains. “This is a just a distraction from the complete lack of leadership on issues that affect us all, climate change, lack of affordable housing, the growing chasm of wealth inequality, and on and on.”

So, should we be concerned? Well, a joint memorial does not carry the force of the law and, instead, acts like a petition – as it stands there’s a long way to go before marriage equality is overturned. 

Bill Mitchell, the Idaho policy counsel for Legal Voice argues that the measure is primarily to promote a culture of discrimination. “For two decades, Idaho lawmakers have ignored calls from community members to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in Idaho’s Human Rights Act,” Mitchell explains. 

“Today, Idaho remains one of 18 states without statewide anti-discrimination protections for LBGTQ+ people. That means you can be fired from your job, lose your housing, or be refused service because of who you are. The only purpose of this year’s memorial on marriage equality is to further entrench this culture of discrimination. It does nothing to change the law.”

As marriage equality is constitutionally protected, state lawmakers can’t overturn it. The only way for it to change would be for the Supreme Court to hear a legal case presenting the issue and voting in a majority to overturn the decision. 

Normally the Court is hesitant to reverse decisions, but various commentators have noticed that, in his closing comments in the ruling which overturned Roe, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the Court could “reconsider” major cases involving “substantive due process precedents” – which would include marriage equality. 

Christopher F. Stoll, Senior Staff Attorney at National Center for Lesbian Rights, emphasises that this is unlikely to come into play in this instance. “Although Justice Thomas has suggested that the Supreme Court reconsider its freedom to marry decision, the Court ordinarily is very reluctant to overturn its previous decisions,” Stoll explains. 

“In 2017, for example, the Court reaffirmed same-sex couples’ freedom to marry in a case involving Arkansas’ refusal to issue birth certificates naming both spouses as parents. Chief Justice Roberts joined the majority in upholding the Court’s freedom to marry decision, even though he had not supported recognising the freedom to marry for same-sex couples initially. If other members of the Court share a similar view, it’s unlikely that the Court will reconsider the freedom to marry, at least not anytime soon.”

Understandably, queer people across the US are concerned about the precedent that the memorial in Idaho might set. However, it’s worth noting that a blanket ban on same-sex marriage looks unlikely. “Same-sex couples have a constitutionally guaranteed right to marry in every state,” says Stoll. “The only way that could change would be for the Court to hear a legal case presenting that issue. Currently, there is no sign that a majority of the justices are inclined to reconsider the Court’s freedom to marry decision anytime in the foreseeable future.”

Furthermore, actions by the Biden administration would ensure that even if the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision is overturned, same-sex marriages performed in one state would have to be legally recognised in others. “Even if the Supreme Court were to overturn its marriage equality decision someday, that would not mean that couples would be unable to marry in every state,” Stoll adds. 

“Many states will continue to permit same-sex couples to marry, and federal law will continue to require all states to respect those marriages. The Respect for Marriage Act, which was passed by Congress and signed by President Biden, requires the federal government and all states to recognise the marriages of same-sex and interracial couples as long as the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed.”

Going forward, it’s possible that, similar to what is happening in Idaho, we will see more challenges to marriage equality from various state lawmakers. However, these don’t undermine the right to equal marriage and are mostly designed to stoke fear among the LGBTQIA+ community and emboldened ant-LGBTQIA+ factions. 

“Although it’s possible that legislators in other states could propose similar resolutions, those measures are just political stunts,” says Stoll. “Only the US Supreme Court can change the law that allows same-sex couples to marry, and there is no sign they are likely to do so anytime soon.”

The post Republicans in Idaho have challenged marriage equality. Should we be concerned? appeared first on GAY TIMES.

Today (28 January) Donald Trump signed an executive order titled ‘Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation’.

The order takes aim at so-called ‘chemical and surgical mutilation’ for under-19s: a term which is used throughout the document to describe gender-affirming care by way of hormone therapy (such as puberty blockers and ‘cross-sex hormones’) and surgeries (such as top surgery or bottom surgery). 

Specifically, it states: “it is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called “transition” of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”

The order follows a suite of state-level bans on gender-affirming care for minors, with 26 states having passed laws restricting its provision by December 2024. Indeed, gender-affirming care for youth is a popular culture wars topic and the wording of Trump’s order plays into this – making reference to “countless children” accessing this care and referring to the care itself as “destructive and life-altering procedures” and “irreversible medical interventions”.

However, this is far from the case. Gender-affirming care has been shown to have positive outcomes for trans patients: hormone therapy leading to better depression outcomes and surgical interventions leading to reduced suicidality and better quality of life. Detransition rates are also low, with the highest estimate sitting at 8%. 

The insinuation that gender-affirming care for minors is widespread is also fundamentally untrue. 

On 6 January, JAMA Pediatrics published a peer-reviewed research letter which showed that the percentage of US teens receiving gender-affirming care via private insurance was very low, sitting at around 0.1%. For reference, the research used a data set of private insurance claims from 2018-2022 that included more than 5 million US teenagers.

“The total number of youth who had any diagnosis of gender dysphoria was less than 18,000,” Langdon Hughes, one of the letter’s co-authors, explained to NPR. “Among those folks, there were less than 1,000 [youth] that accessed puberty blockers and less than 2,000 that ever had access to hormones.”

Another research letter published by JAMA Network Open on 27 June 2024 demonstrated that gender-affirming surgeries are rarely performed on trans youth. It also found that cis minors and adults had higher utilisation of similar gender-affirming surgeries than their trans counterparts.

The post Trump issues executive order to prevent gender-affirming care for minors appeared first on GAY TIMES.

The human cost of Trump’s culture wars are impossible to ignore as vital protections are stripped away from trans people.

TW: This article contains mentions of transphobia, transphobic violence and sexual assault.

One of the cruelest tricks in the transphobic toolkit? Framing trans people as some invincible, mythical threat to cis safety. 

Trans folks aren’t a danger to cis society, it’s very much the other way around. Research suggests that between 50 and 66 per cent of trans people experience some for of sexual abuse or sexual assault in their lifetime. Trans people are four times more likely to be the victim of violent crime than cis people. 

The political pressure to exclude trans women from single-sex spaces is justified by erasing both their humanity and their lived experience – as women, and as people especially vulnerable to violence themselves. 

We can see this dynamic playing out in the executive orders signed by Trump last week, the implications of which are becoming clearer with time. In particular, Trump’s so-called ‘Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government’ order is positioned as an attempt to “defend” cis women. 

There is an obvious irony to Donald Trump – someone who has publicly been publicly accused of sexual misconduct by at least 26 women – claiming to have women’s best interests in mind. And when we look at the small print of this order, it’s clear that they do nothing to end violence against women in any meaningful way and instead just open up the trans community to further violence. 

When we look into the fine print of the ‘Defending Women’ order, there is a note of particular concern – the ways that trans people may become further vulnerable to sexual violence. 

Below, we talk to a legal expert and a trans advocacy charity about what trans people and allies need to know. 

Trans people in prisons

Section 4(a) of the executive order introduces a blanket rule requiring the federal Bureau of Prisons to house trans women in male prisons and detention centres, regardless of their personal circumstances. 

This replaces a policy that has been in place for more than a decade, mandated by a Prison Rape Elimination Act regulation, which enabled prison officials to make individualised decisions about housing placements, depending on safety and security concerns for the individuals involved. 

The removal of this policy could have grave implications for trans people’s physical and sexual safety while incarcerated, explains Shannon Minter, legal director, NCLR.  

“We all want prisons to be safe and secure. The policy ordered by President Trump undermines that goal by mandating a categorical rule that overrides the discretion of prison officials,” he says. “This dangerous rule would do nothing other than increase sexual assaults and cause upheaval in our nation’s prisons.” 

For Minter, the change is a serious safeguarding setback. “For over ten years, prison officials have had the discretion to make individualized housing decisions to protect transgender women from severe violence in men’s facilities,” he explains. “Corrections experts agree that case-by-case assessment is crucial for safety throughout the prison system and oppose any blanket rule that would eliminate their ability to make individualized determinations.”

Trans people’s access to spaces for survivors of sexual violence

Section 4(b) of the executive order stipulates that The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall “submit for public comment a policy protecting women seeking single-sex rape shelters”. 

Elsewhere, in Section 4 (d) the order states the following: “Agencies shall effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.”

In short, trans women will be blocked from accessing federal-funded services aimed at female sexual violence survivors while all trans people will be barred from federal-funded spaces appropriate to their gender. Given that trans people experience high levels of sexual victimisation, barring them from spaces where they can access support could be hugely detrimental. 

According to Advocates for Trans Equality, a trans advocacy charity, the order opens the door for discrimination within protective services. “The recent changes stemming from Trump’s executive orders pose significant barriers to trans people’s access to spaces designed to support survivors of sexual violence,” said a spokesperson for the charity. “These policies threaten to undermine protections for trans people by enabling discrimination in shelters and other protective services.”

Continuing, they stress that trans-inclusive policies are vital for ensuring the well being of trans survivors. “Trans people already face disproportionate rates of violence and assault, and limiting their access to safe, affirming spaces only compounds the harm they experience. Ensuring trans-inclusive policies is essential to creating a system where all survivors are supported and safe, regardless of their gender identity.”

Resources for trans survivors 

Sexual violence against the trans community is a sad reality, one which isn’t being helped by the Trump administration. However, there are resources out there to help. 

• FORGE: A charity which provides support to trans and non-binary people impacted by sexual violence, which also offers a range of self-help resources. 
• National Sexual Assault Hotline: A hotline which provides free, confidential support 24/7 by phone (800.656.HOPE) in English and Spanish.
• The Trevor Project: 24/7 emergency helplines available at 1-866-488-7386 via chat www.TheTrevorProject.org/Get-Help, or by texting START to 678-678.

The post Trans people face endemic sexual violence. Under Trump, it could get worse appeared first on GAY TIMES.

Four decades on from its original release, Sophie Wilkinson speaks with Melanie Chait, the director of the 1985 documentary Breaking the Silence.

WORDS SOPHIE WILKINSON

Lesbian mums might be a normal part of LGBTQIA+ culture, but it’s not always been this way. As I recently uncovered for a BBC Radio 4 documentary Missing Pieces: The Lesbian Mothers Scandal, family court judges from the 1970s to the 1990s frequently took custody off of lesbians.

Before the advent of artificial and then donor insemination, women would marry men, as was expected of them, have kids, then realise that they were lesbians. They’d divorce, and while there was no specific law banning lesbian mums from keeping custody, judges’ discretion ruled. So lesbians were often considered unfit mothers simply on the basis of their sexuality. During my research I came across at least 30 women affected, but the true number is likely far higher.

While there was no specific law banning lesbian mums from keeping custody, judges’ discretion ruled. So lesbians were often considered unfit mothers simply on the basis of their sexuality.

In the documentary, women whose children were taken from them, as well as children affected, speak of the traumatic impacts of being separated, and most of them want an apology from the Government. The Government’s official response was: “The law in the 1970s and 80s reflected societal attitudes of the time. We now recognise those societal attitudes as deeply discriminatory, and our heartfelt sympathies are with all those who suffered as a result. While we cannot comment on the decisions of judges in individual cases, the government is committed to ensuring equality and fairness in today’s justice system.” As a result, a petition has been set up to call for a Government apology.

Back then, organising was different. Support groups and phone lines were set up to help the plight of lesbian mums. And awareness was boosted in 1985, when Melanie Chait’s feature-length documentary, Breaking the Silence, was aired on Channel 4. In it, she speaks to a range of lesbian mothers to find out how they parented, how they lost custody and the sometimes years-long battle to try and regain it.

I called Melanie to find out what it was like making that documentary, how hard it was to get it commissioned and what she thinks should happen to those women and their families still dealing with the trauma of being separated from their own kids.

What first inspired you to make your documentary? 

I was a political activist and filmmaker in the 1980s so, as a lesbian, I felt it was important to document and bear witness to the social injustices that surrounded me. I’d made another documentary, Veronica 4 Rose, for Channel 4, because I’d become aware of the escalation of teenage lesbian suicides, and felt it was necessary to portray positive role models and provide a growing support system. But with Breaking The Silence, I wanted lesbian mothers to feel empowered and to know that they weren’t alone. And it was important for wider society to know what happens to lesbian mothers in custody cases, and to have the normative society’s preconceived ideas about lesbians challenged. 

You’re British-South African, so why was the focus on the UK rather than other countries? 

I wasn’t allowed in South Africa as I was persona non grata [the apartheid Government of 1948-1991 not only treated Black and ethnic minorities as second-class citizens but also banned political activists from free expression and participation] and so I lived in London and was lucky enough to come of age during the growing women’s movement.

How was the film funded and commissioned?

had received huge ratings and publicity, and part of Channel 4’s remit was to provide programming for minorities which in the era of  Mary Whitehouse was usually challenged.

On the strength of Veronica 4 Rose I was asked to make more lesbian films. In the 1980s there was research and development money, which meant there was time to find women from all over the UK, not just London. We could represent a cross section of women in terms of age, race, class, region, to show their experience, and also to portray lesbian mothers with well-adjusted children in an attempt to undermine stereotypes.

It was important for wider society to know what happens to lesbian mothers in custody cases, and to have the normative society’s preconceived ideas about lesbians challenged. 

How did you find subjects to speak with?

There’d been a theatre piece called Care and Control by Nancy Diuguid and Kate Crutchley and through that I found women and lawyers beginning to take on the custody battles. I advertised widely through the women’s press and sort of networking available at the time; newsletters, fairs, bookstores. 

What was the environment like for lesbians in the UK at that time ?

Living in London and in the bigger cities was very exciting . There were so many struggles and campaigns, from feminism to anti-racism and nuclear disarmament movements. I think we truly thought we could bring about a new world order. A huge groundswell had begun, and that was just very thrilling. I feel very privileged to have been part of that then, but obviously it was very different in more rural and remote areas.

Courtesy of Melanie Chait

Did you encounter any obstacles while making this documentary?

What was the most poignant moment of the documentary for you?

We managed to obtain permission to film inside the Royal Courts of Justice, which was the first time permission had been granted to film there. And then you see the woman being filmed there, revealing the horrors of what had taken place to them in that very same space, and in a sense, they were claiming back that space and undermining its power.

It felt brilliant and exciting in London [in the 1980s]. There were so many struggles and campaigns, from feminism to anti-racism and nuclear disarmament movements. I think we truly thought we could bring about a new world order.

What did you think of what they disclosed? 

At the time, when an issue was highlighted on TV, it gave it an additional legitimacy. But I mean, change is always slow, and I suppose, as a filmmaker, you are only adding to an emerging consciousness. But by contributing to a developing zeitgeist, it hopefully facilitates a greater understanding.

What was the response like?

There was a huge hunger for lesbian films and TV programmes. Because no matter how awful the stories told, it was recognition that lesbians existed. Until the 1970s the tragically gay feature film The Killing of Sister George was probably the best known. Then in the 1970s, Mädchen in Uniform was rediscovered, also the tragic trope.  By the 1970s there were positive and proud lesbian documentaries coming out of the States made by lesbian filmmakers like Jan Oxenberg and Barbara Hammer. But as far as I can remember no film had been made about lesbian mothers, so Breaking the Silence broke new ground and had a huge response. We had a pamphlet printed for lesbian mothers that was advertised at the end of the film, and Channel 4 was very surprised that it was in such great demand. Jeremy Isaacs [founder of Channel 4] considered it one of the channel’s flagship programmes.

What do you think of the lesbian mum’s request for an apology from the government?

I think it would be wonderful. I think an acknowledgement of what so many women and children lived through would be just very, very appreciated. Whether it would happen, I don’t know. It’s not a difficult thing to do. I think it would just take some respect and humility on the Government’s side to do it.

Listen to Missing Pieces: The Lesbian Mothers Scandal here

The post The ground-breaking documentary which broke the silence on lesbian mothers’ custody struggles appeared first on GAY TIMES.

Reports of treatment being refused or withdrawn are on the rise – and no official figures exist to track the issue.

THIS ARTICLE FIRST APPEARED ON TBIJ (THE BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM)

REPORTER  BILLIE GAY JACKSON
BUREAU LOCAL EDITOR GARETH DAVIES
DEPUTY EDITOR KATIE MARK
EDITOR FRANZ WILD
PRODUCTION EDITOR JOSEPHINE LETHBRIDGE
FACT CHECKER RACHEL SCHRAER

The post Trans people are finding it harder to access life-saving treatment appeared first on GAY TIMES.

For the GAY TIMES’ justice column, “Let’s Create Some Good In The World”: how to turn your election disappointment into action.

WORDS ELIEL CRUZ

The devastating results of the US presidential election, which will bring back the right wing extremist politics of Donald Trump, show us what is true: while voting is important, community organising will be life-saving. Every four years, many people zero in on the presidential election almost as if it is the pinnacle of political engagement. Voting can seem so important because, for many, it’s the bulk of their political work. But voting in elections cannot be the end-all of how you partake in politics. Voting is important and helps establish who we organise under, but we must still organise.

When most people hear politics, they assume it’s electoral politics, essentially supporting and voting for elected officials who, in theory, will take care of addressing societal ills and make it easier for everyday citizens to live their lives. Our votes elect people to power to legislate and to allocate our tax dollars, and in some ways, places the responsibility of “fixing” the world on them. That is one part of politics. But when organisers talk about politics, it is so much broader than elections. We are referring to how we see and interact with the world around us and the responsibility we have to be part of the world and in the work towards the liberation of all people. 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by GAY TIMES (@gaytimes)

When we organise, we create people power that circumvents the traditional power structures that exist predominantly in electoral politics. As we organise our communities, we are creating networks of care and support that don’t rely on the state and transform the way we survive during periods of crisis like those we faced under the first Trump administration. Organising empowers our communities to take care of one another and respond to each other’s needs, understanding that our struggles are interconnected and we are stronger together. 

To move from advocacy to organising requires intent to allocate time, labour, and resources towards your work. You must find a political home, a space amongst other organisers where you can struggle and grow with your politics, and build with your comrades. What the “work” looks like is up to you and your skillsets, and you don’t have to work at an advocacy organisation full time to do it. Abolitionist organiser and author, Mariame Kaba adapted a list from Frontline Medics on “Some Actions That Are Not Protesting or Voting.” 

Another great tool to understand your role in movement organising comes from the Building Movement Project called the Social Change Ecosystem Map. In this map, you’ll see various roles including Frontline responders, Visionaries, Builders, Caregivers, Disrupters, Healers, Storytellers, Guides, Weavers, and Experimenters. 

According to the Building Movement Project’s definitions, Weavers are “connectors for people, places, organisations or ideas”. Builders “develop, organise, and implement ideas.” Disrupters take “uncomfortable or risky actions to shake up the status quo, raise awareness, and to build power.” Caregivers “nurture and nourish the people around them.” A full list of definitions for all of the social change roles, a workbook to help get you started, and more is available on their website. 

Under this map, I am a storyteller and disrupter. I’ve worked on multiple advocacy communications campaigns, like the work I did advocating for Layleen Polanco, an afro-Latinx trans woman who died while being held in jail in NYC in 2019; and direct actions, like the Brooklyn Liberation and Gender Liberation Marches, over my decade of organising. For someone else, they’ll find themselves more drawn towards another one of the buckets of work, one that’s more aligned with their skills. When you find what type of work you want to do, find the movements you want to plug into: whether it’s LGBTQIA+ advocacy, work to end state violence and the war machine, fighting for a livable future through climate justice, or building mutual aid initiatives to address the immediate needs of your community. Wherever you feel the most called, show up and do your part. 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by GAY TIMES (@gaytimes)

Under the Trump administration, our communities will once again face relentless attacks. It will take all of us to respond and hold back the brunt of these attacks. Folks cannot only show up to rallies and demonstrations for a few hours and put their protest sign back in their closet. We’ll need a generation of new organisers, committed to their politics, working to fight back not just during the Trump years, but for the long term. 

I believe that every person, even you reading this, has a responsibility to create some good in the world. Organising is a lifestyle choice driven by a belief that we can build a better world, one that works for all of us, not just a privileged few, and in which we have everything we need to live long and fulfilling lives. But we can only do it if we do it together. I urge you to make that choice, for yourself, your loved ones, your neighbour, and those who will come after you who will benefit from the work you did to make the world a better place.

The post Voting is important, but organising is life-saving appeared first on GAY TIMES.

The breakdown between “activists” and “organizers” for our justice column LET’S MAKE SOME GOOD IN THE WORLD

WORDS BY ELIEL CRUZ
PHOTOGRAPHY BY Claude TRUONG-NGOC (Ctruongngoc)

Sometime in the 2000s, many became an “activist” for simply speaking out about injustice. In the wake of the 2020 uprisings, now everyone is an “activist,” at least in their Instagram bio. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as every person with a conscience should use their platform to advocate for good in the world, but this also allows many — celebrities, authors, musicians, influencers — to co-opt activism’s ethos for their personal brand by doing what I’d call the bare minimum. 

As the conversations on white supremacy, oppression, and systemic issues came to the surface in recent years, an expectation has grown for everyday people, regardless of their social following size, to use their platform to speak out on the trending injustice. As I’ve written before, “Our social media accounts are extensions of the ways we interact, learn, and connect with each other. And so we must also use them in ways that reflect our commitment to building the type of communities and world we need.” This includes speaking out in the digital world. The issue to me is that some see Story-sharing as activism in and of itself and fail to find deeper ways to change the world around them.

The question to ask yourself is: What is the material impact you’re making offline? 

The difference between activists and organizers

In their book Let This Radicalize You, abolitionist organizers Kelly Hayes and Mariame Kaba make an important distinction between those who do activism and those who are organizers. Activism, they say, “encompasses all the ways we show up for justice.” It can look like fundraising, attending marches or rallies, or bringing awareness to an issue on social media, but it all can be done alone.

Organizing is done with others, in which we are accountable to each other, and includes “relationship building and power analysis,” Hayes and Kaba write. Organizing is a specific, strategic methodology in service of movement building, as opposed to simply showing up for the movement. Though everyone does it differently, organizing can’t be done in a silo. 

During this time in our history where everyone and anyone is an activist, we desperately need more organizers. 

We’re in a period of social justice awareness that’s reached critical mass – whether it be the onslaught of legislative and cultural attacks against trans people, climate change and its impending catastrophic effects across the globe, homelessness, food insecurity, or a free Palestine. We’re thoroughly aware of all the bad in the world, but it’s time to get to work and create some good in the world. We need more organizers.

It’s my worldview that everyone, even you reading this, has a responsibility to give back to the world, and those with larger platforms and access to resources must be equitable in how they give back, beyond social media. You don’t have to work at a nonprofit organization or produce full-scale protests in order to be an organizer. It’s about figuring out the area of the world you’re motivated to change, finding the right people, and building something with them. 

Organizing is a specific, strategic methodology in service of movement building, as opposed to simply showing up for the movement. Though everyone does it differently, organizing can't be done in a silo.

Social Media is the beginning, not the end of the work. 

With a rise in social media advocacy, many are using platforms like Instagram to share aesthetically pleasing infographics and videos that, arguably, do more to promote their platform than to create tangible impacts on the affected communities. Consequently, many people feel that sharing those posts to bring awareness is sufficient engagement with social justice. While social media is an incredibly effective and powerful tool, you can take it a step further through digital organizing. 

“Digital organizing” is more than posting on social. The overarching goal of digital organizing is to move people to take action in the real world and make deeper engagements with a long-term campaign. Digital organizing can be used to lead people to sign a petition, or donate money, and ultimately, get someone to show up, rally, protest, or another in-person event. It often involves mass DMing, distributing folders with assets/infographics informing about your cause, and working at the interpersonal level. I’ve used digital organizing to get people to pack courts and have seen creative digital actions: like when queer men change their profile photo on Grindr to an image about a protest, flooding the grid with information on where to join.

If your social media accounts were to disappear tomorrow, what impact could you have?

Finding your “political home” should be a priority for any organizer. A political home is a place where you are in community with other organizers who push you to think deeper, hold you accountable to your politics and actions, and function as a hub for organizing and experimentation in advocacy. It can look like providing access to a space to host regular community meetings, launching a mutual aid fund, or just incentivizing a collective of friends with similar values to commit to working together regularly to make a difference. 

Organizing is about building movements. What have you built? 

Activism is often a one-off engagement, whereas organizing is about building public power. Usually, people think of power as something only available to people with money or in positions of authority over others, like in the government, with institutions like school systems. While these are traditional forms of power, organizing is about building people power that pushes, agitates, or disrupts those with traditional power over others. Though it’s easier said than done, you can use dedicated work and outreach to amass thousands, or even millions of people to demand change.

With a rise in social media advocacy, many are using platforms like Instagram to share aesthetically pleasing infographics and videos that, arguably, do more to promote their platform than to create tangible impacts on the affected communities.

Organizing is about sustaining movement work 

Campaigns to change issues, legislation, or bring justice to people impacted by injustice can be a typically long-term, multi-year project that requires strategy, power analysis, identifying key targets, and a lot of tenacity. For example, I work with Justice Committee, an organization working to end police and racialized violence in New York City. Justice Committee supports families with loved ones killed by the NYPD by guiding them through the complicated process of holding police officers accountable. More often than not, these campaigns can take upwards of 5-6 years and require on-the-ground advocacy and sustained digital comms plans that keep the story in the forefront of people’s minds. 

For electoral politics, identifying legislation to enact or change means organizing lobby days and sustaining relationships with elected officials, allies, and politicians whose minds need changing. Organizing is a long-term, often lifelong project in which we will be part of many campaigns to make a difference. 

Who are you accountable to?

My friend, organizer, and author Raquel Willis often speaks about her “accountability circle”: people that check in on her, and who she can tap when she’s unsure if she’s moving in the right ways. Every organizer should have a group of people who aren’t afraid to send you that text or give you a call when you start to stray. In addition to that group of people who hold you accountable, you must also work laterally with the communities you aim to advocate for. Whose life will be made better by your organizing? And how can you get those people in the room with you when you create the strategy? We must always keep the people at the center of our organizing to keep us true to our politics.

The post Everyone’s an “activist.” We need more organizers. appeared first on GAY TIMES.