TACC

@tacc

TACC is an intersectional organisation started in 2024, dedicated to advocating for trans rights, addressing transphobia, and unofficial EHRC watchdog. ❤️Donate: 🌴

243 Following3,959 Followers2,519 Posts

Linktree YouTube Website Bluesky

politics

Is this your profile?Claim it and tacc.dirty.social is yours.Claim profile

TACC@tacc· 20d

Sex Matters refuses to recognise discrimination against trans people, even when it is clearly defined in the ruling that awarded them their protected philosophical belief.

It is unacceptable for a charity to call people or other organisations transphobes, bigots or anti-rights for using clear sex-based language, asking that the Equality Act be respected, raising concerns about safeguarding or medical evidence, being Christians or adhering to religious sexual ethics, just as it would be to commit unlawful discrimination and harassment on the basis of any other protected characteristic.

b. This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’
trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be
subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA. Whether
or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within
the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.

TACC@tacc· 20d

Maybe a coincidence, but on 16 July, Sex Matters, the self-described 'human rights charity', along with others from their cartel, wrote to the Charity Commission chair calling for them to tell all charities they must follow the EqA2010. On the 21st of July, they did just that

"We call on you to show leadership and reset expectations across the sector by making a statement. The Charity Commission needs to clarify that every charity must follow the Equality Act and ensure that its trustees have an accurate, lawful understanding of its purposes as set out in its governing document. This includes where that refers to women and girls or men and boys, to sex or sexual orientation, and to equality and human rights. "

News story
Charities urged to prepare for compliance with EHRC Code of Practice
Charity Commission offers interim update on provisions of EHRC’s code that clarify the law on matters of sex and gender

From:
The Charity Commission
Published:
21 July 2026

TACC@tacc· 25d

The hype around Lia Thomas was a manufactured moral panic, full of false claims of trans people stealing awards from cis women. Science backs up that we do not hold an advantage. So, even if a trans person dominated their sport, this would not be a reason for exclusion. It just means she is good

TACC@tacc· Jul 14

Due to the success of our comic strip about the manufactured 'panic' of Lia Thomas. We commissioned another comic to celebrate the non-trans-related advancements of people's rights from gender-critical organisations. We hope you will enjoy it.

TACC@tacc· Jul 13

We stand with Amnesty International UK. Freedom of expression isn't a one-way street. If organisations demand the right to criticise others, they must also accept the right to be criticised. Read our statement on why this matters for democracy and human rights.

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.

The consequences reach far beyond Amnesty. If charities, researchers and human rights organisations begin censoring themselves because they fear expensive legal action, then public debate is no longer shaped by evidence, but by who has the deepest pockets and the most aggressive lawyers.
This comes at a time when transgender people in the UK are facing levels of state-sanctioned segregation unprecedented in modern British history. Rather than confronting the human impact of those policies, some organisations appear more concerned with silencing those who scrutinise their role in bringing them about.

Many of the ideas and legal strategies now shaping the UK's culture wars did not originate here. They have been promoted internationally by organisations such as Alliance Defending Freedom, which has played a significant role in campaigns to roll back LGBTQIA+ rights and reproductive rights in the United States. Britain should be extremely cautious about importing those tactics into our own democratic debate.
A society does not lose its freedoms overnight. It loses them when powerful organisations can campaign without restraint, yet seek to suppress those who hold them to account.
That is why TACC stands with Amnesty International UK.

TACC@tacc· Jul 13

We've also written to the Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) and the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), calling for parliamentary scrutiny of the chilling effect threatened litigation can have on freedom of expression. The emails were largely identical, tailored to each committee's remit. 3/3

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 [...]

We are therefore asking the Committee to consider whether the current legal framework strikes the
appropriate balance between protecting individual reputations and safeguarding freedom of expression,
particularly where charities and civil society organisations publish research intended to inform democratic
debate.
We would also encourage the Committee to consider:
· whether the threat of defamation proceedings is having a chilling effect on charities, researchers and advocacy organisations;
· whether additional safeguards are needed for public interest publications produced by registered charities and recognised human rights organisations;
· whether Parliament should examine the increasing use of legal threats in response to public interest research and policy advocacy.
For context, we have enclosed a copy of Amnesty International UK's report as originally published.
Regardless of where Members stand on the report's conclusions, we believe the issues it raises concerning freedom of expression and democratic participation warrant Parliamentary consideration.
We would be grateful if the Committee would consider raising these concerns within Parliament on the implications for freedom of expression, participation in democratic debate and the work of civil society organisations. and, if appropriate, undertake further scrutiny of this important issue.
Yours faithfully,
Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective (TACC)

We would be grateful if the Committee would consider raising these concerns within Parliament on the
implications for equality policy, the role of evidence in public policy-making and the ability of equality
organisations to contribute to consultation and scrutiny without undue legal pressure. and, if appropriate,
undertake further scrutiny of this important issue.

TACC@tacc· Jul 13

We have therefore written to all MPs raising concerns about the chilling effect threatened litigation can have on public interest research. Freedom of expression must protect charities and human rights organisations as much as it protects those they criticise. 2/3

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[...]

I would therefore ask you to consider whether the current balance between protecting reputation and
protecting freedom of expression is serving the public interest, particularly where charities, researchers
and campaign organisations are publishing work on matters of significant public importance.
Our democracy depends upon robust public debate. That debate becomes weaker if organisations
conclude that some subjects are simply too legally risky to research or discuss.
I would welcome your thoughts on whether further consideration should be given to protecting public
interest research from the chilling effect of threatened litigation.
We have summarised the report on our website, the full report is available on request.
Yours sincerely,
Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective (TACC)

TACC@tacc· Jul 13

Sex Matters says gender-critical voices are being silenced. Yet when Amnesty International UK published research critical of them, they didn't publish a rebuttal; they threatened legal action. Freedom of expression isn't a one-way street. We have responded to Sex Matters' email:

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[...]

Perhaps the most revealing sentence in the entire letter is the opening reassurance:
"You may be relieved to learn that since you have taken the Growing Threat report down we are not
planning to sue Amnesty..."
It is an extraordinary thing to write. A charity dedicated, in its own words, to defending human rights is
effectively saying: remove your criticism of us, and we won't take legal action.
If Amnesty's report was wrong, Sex Matters had every opportunity to publish a detailed rebuttal. They
could have challenged the methodology, disputed the evidence or explained why they believed Amnesty's
conclusions were mistaken. Instead, their opening gambit was to announce that litigation had been on the
table.
For organisations that so often warn about a "chilling effect" on gender-critical speech, they appear
remarkably comfortable creating one for everyone else.
The right to freedom of expression is not a one-way street. It does not exist solely to protect the speech
that Sex Matters agrees with. It protects the ability of charities, academics, journalists, researchers and
human rights organisations to publish findings that powerful advocacy groups may find uncomfortable.
If your first instinct when criticised is to reach for defamation law while simultaneously presenting yourself
as a champion of free speech, don't be surprised when people question whether your commitment is to
freedom of expression at all, or simply to freedom from criticism.
Yours sincerely
Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective

TACC@tacc· Jul 11

@amnestyuk.bsky.social Have pulled their Anti-rights report from their website. Is this due to the complaints from the anti-rights orgs?

Maya Forstater
@MForstater
·
16h
If you want to complain to Amnesty international for branding a bunch of civil society organisations "anti-rights" this how to do it.

email to: feedback@amnesty.org.uk

TACC@tacc· Jul 11

The Greens are calling on Burnham to change the law and protect trans rights 💚

TACC@tacc· Jul 10

Today, the Government will likely ignore the voices of the trans community and the majority of the public by passing the CoP without allowing proper scrutiny. We will continue to fight for our rights. But we have a lot of allies. Here are some of their Messages of Love to the trans community. 1/2

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

Trans people are the bravest people I know, you fight so hard to be yourselves in a world that is too cruel. I will continue to fight, just like the trans community fought for the rest of us.

You are all beautiful people that deserve compassion, care and kindness in difficult times and always. Stand strong, be you and you will shine.

I've always been gender-nonconforming and my most favorite people are trans... creative folks who go against the grain, find love in every corner and bring beauty to the world! Keep being you! We will win with hope and love... and the occasional bite!

TACC@tacc· Jul 8

We have sent Stonewall a copy of "Stonewall: The Definitive Story of the LGBTQ Rights Uprising that Changed America" to remind them what their name stands for. 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈✊

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"

TACC@tacc· Jul 8

🚨 Public authorities have legal duties under the HRA. We've prepared an email template and letter explaining why the Code must be carefully assessed. Please take 2 minutes to email your council, NHS trust, university, police force and other public bodies today. docs.google.com/document/d/1...

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 Colleague,
We write to draw your attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in RR v Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions [2019] UKSC 52, which has significant implications for all public authorities considering implementation of
the Equality and Human Rights Commission's Draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations.
In RR, the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that public authorities, courts and tribunals are not merely
permitted but are required to disapply subordinate legislation where its application would result in a breach of
Convention rights. Lady Hale stated:
"There is nothing unconstitutional about a public authority, court or tribunal disapplying a provision of
subordinate legislation which would otherwise result in their acting incompatibly with a Convention
right, where this is necessary in order to comply with the HRA."
This reaffirmed the central principle of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
“It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.”
This principle remains relevant when considering the EHRC Draft Code of Practice.
The Equality Act 2010 is primary legislation, and public authorities must comply with it as interpreted by the courts.
However, the Draft Code itself is guidance. While it is intended to assist service providers and public authorities in
understanding the law, it does not override obligations arising under the Human Rights Act 1998, nor does it remove
the need for public authorities to undertake their own equality and human rights assessments[...]

[...]Many of the harms identified within the Equality Impact Assessment engage rights protected by Articles 8 and 14 of
the European Convention on Human Rights. These include rights relating to privacy, dignity, personal autonomy,
personal identity, and protection from discrimination. The Draft Code itself recognises that requests for information
concerning a person's sex engage Article 8 rights and that any interference must pursue a legitimate aim and be
proportionate.
Public authorities should therefore ensure that any policy derived from the Draft Code is supported by a rigorous
assessment of its compatibility with Convention rights, including whether the proposed approach is evidence-based,
proportionate, and the least intrusive means available of achieving a legitimate aim.
We therefore urge all public authorities to undertake a comprehensive assessment under the Human Rights Act and
the Equality Act before adopting policies based on the Draft Code of Practice. Particular attention should be paid to:
 Article 8 rights to privacy, dignity, personal identity and bodily autonomy;
 Article 14 protections against discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights;
 The findings of the Government's Equality Impact Assessment and the foreseeable harms identified within it;
 The requirement for evidence-based and case-specific proportionality assessments;
 The availability of less intrusive measures capable of achieving any legitimate aim;
 The potential impact upon trans people, gender non-conforming people, disabled people, and others who
may be disproportionately affected by ‘sex-verification’ or exclusionary practices;
 The risk that implementation may leave some individuals without practical access to services.
The Supreme Court's judgment in RR is a reminder that public authorities must independently consider their
obligations under the Human Rights Act when exercising any discretion available to them[...]

We trust that your organisation will carefully consider both the findings of the Government's Equality Impact
Assessment and its obligations under the Human Rights Act when reviewing any policies developed in response to
the EHRC Draft Code of Practice.
Yours faithfully,
Trans Advocacy and Complaints Collective

TACC@tacc· Jul 7

We have emailed all 650 Members of Parliament with a copy of the "Women’s organisations speak up against the EHRC's updated Code of Practice" open letter and also informed them of the overwhelming support for EDM 240. We have also sent the open letter to the WEC and JCHR

"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."

TACC@tacc· Jul 6

List of EDM's with more supporters than EDM 240

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)

TACC@tacc· Jun 30

Anti-trans ideologies have weaponised and manufactured a moral panic of outrage and misinformation to claim that trans people pose a threat to women's categories of sports. Yet there is clear evidence that trans women hold no advantage over cis women. bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/3...

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.

TACC@tacc· Jun 30

It is doubtful that Lord Collins will be championing LGBTQ+ rights. He is clearly another anti-trans plant: hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2026-0...

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.

TACC@tacc· Jun 27

thisisnotadrill.info/anti-segrega...

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"

TACC@tacc· Jun 24

Bridget Phillipson keeps telling us the FWS judgment brought "clarity", while the EHRC guidance has left many people more confused than ever. So we have sent her a pair of reading glasses. We are sure some more assistance is needed, if anyone would also like to send her some glasses.

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."

Pair of glasses sent to "Bridget Phillipson MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA"

TACC@tacc· Jun 24

"This is not an abstract debate. These are real children and real families...Parents sought help because they were trying to keep their children alive and safe." Please all show your support: www.gofundme.com/f/emergency-...

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.

TACC@tacc· Jun 11

Today we sent a formal letter to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care demanding answers over reports that trans young people are being forced off gender-affirming care. We have demanded answers. Transparency, accountability and patient safety cannot be optional.

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[...]

The harm done by this policy is not hypothetical. Primary research7 has found that gender-affirming
medical interventions were associated with lower odds of depression and suicidality over 12 months, and
that access to gender-affirming hormones during adolescence was associated with lower odds of severe
psychological distress and suicidal ideation. This is no surprise since they were all completely excluded from the
process. This is not how evidence-based, informed medical treatment should work.
If reports are correct, the Government is overseeing a policy that will compel trans young people to
undergo medical detransition against their wishes and potentially against the clinical judgement of the
healthcare professionals responsible for their care. Forced detransition is not a neutral administrative
outcome. It is the withdrawal of established medical treatment from patients who continue to require it,
not because their diagnosis has changed, but because a political decision has been made to remove access
to that treatment.
The Government cannot claim ignorance of those risks. The evidence regarding the mental health
consequences of untreated gender dysphoria is well known. Any policy that knowingly exposes vulnerable
young people to those risks demands the highest level of justification, transparency and scrutiny.

We therefore demand immediate answers:
 Who authorised these letters, on what clinical basis, and under what ministerial authority?
 Which external organisations were consulted before this decision was taken?
 Why were anti-trans lobby groups given repeated access to health policy while the people directly
affected were excluded?

What equality, human rights and child safeguarding assessments were completed before any
implementation decision was made?
 And will you now suspend any withdrawal of care, publish all correspondence, meeting notes, legal
advice and impact assessments, and commit publicly that no young person will be subjected to
forced detransition while this policy is under challenge?
The public deserves full disclosure, not managerial silence.
The Government has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to introducing a trans-inclusive ban on
conversion practices. That commitment rests on a simple principle: that attempts to suppress, deny or
forcefully alter a person's gender identity are harmful and unacceptable. Yet the withdrawal of genderaffirming healthcare from trans young people, resulting in forced detransition, appears to do precisely
that. It is difficult to reconcile a pledge to outlaw practices intended to erase or suppress trans identities
with a policy that removes the healthcare many trans people rely upon to live authentically and safely.
Ministers must explain how compelling young people to abandon treatment consistent with their gender
identity can be squared with a Government that claims to oppose conversion practices.
This government cannot credibly present itself as a defender of evidence-based health policy, while
borrowing its moral compass from groups that have spent years trying to hollow out trans rights. If this
course continues, the responsibility will sit squarely with your departments, your ministers and your
government.
Answer now, or accept that you have chosen secrecy, ideological capture and avoidable harm over the
rights and safety of trans people.

TACC@tacc· Jun 10

During the Select Committee Rebecca Paul MP stated that "Women and girls have lost medals and podium places, earnings, and some may have even been injured due to sporting bodies not complying with the Equality Act and allowing males to compete against them." We have asked her for evidence

[...]
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...

TACC@tacc· Jun 10

During these difficult times, we would like to share some more Messages of Love from the community and allies. Please use the form to share your own messages, and share it with others.

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.

Please remember even in this horrid and shameful period in history that for every transphobe there are hundreds who love and support you and will fight for your right to live peacefully, or to fight like fuck, whichever works for you.

Trans people open our eyes up to so many issues around sex and gender, anyone who is open to listen will learn so much about our world and how people work.

You are wonderful just the way you are. There is nothing wrong with you; you are not a "negative outcome." No matter what the government, health authorities, politicians, the media or anyone else say about you, you are exactly the person you should be so long as you live your life in the way that is true to yourself. There is joy and beauty and love in being trans. Our community, our found families, our struggles, they are all beautiful. Times are tough and things will be hard, but you are special and wonderful and loved. Please don't lose sight of that. Our existence is not a debate. We have always been here and always will be.

TACC@tacc· Jun 8

"Tim Farron accepts £75,000 from evangelical group despite director’s gay conversion tweet" - 2020

TACC@tacc· Jun 8

www.equalityhumanrights.com/about-us/how...

TACC@tacc· Jun 8

We have emailed all 650 Members of Parliament, calling for them to support EDM 240 and oppose the draft Code of Practice. Keep the pressure up, send your own email to your MP

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

Page 2 of our email highlighting the impacts the CoP would have on businesses, include costs upto 1.3 billion pounds.

Part 3, calling on the MP to support EDM 240 and to reject the code.

TACC@tacc· Jun 8

Today we're sharing some of the beautiful messages we've received as part of our Messages of Love campaign. To every trans person reading this: you are loved. You are important. You belong here exactly as you are. Your existence is not a debate!💙🤍🩷🏳️‍⚧️

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.

Trans people have always been here and always will. I know my local trans group has done loads of good work supporting trans people here and I'm glad I was able to make a couple of small donations to them. Love to you all.

I was listening to a book called "Everything is Tuberculosis" a few weeks ago and was surprised but pleased to discover that one of the first doctors to champion using x-rays to help diagnose tuberculosis patients was Dr Alan L. Hart who had to move seven times across US states to keep doing his work in early 20th century. Trans+ folks have always existed and no law will erase you all. I love and cherish all my trans+, genderqueer and enby friends and always will. Always.

We have met so many wonderful trans people as a result of our daughter coming out. We have learned so much about human diversity and are full of admiration for trans people who face prejudice yet continue to be themselves. People who are trans are amongst the gentlest and wisest people we have ever met because they’ve already faced so much and had to be courageous. We continue to do everything we can to support them.

TACC@tacc· Jun 7

Protests work. Keep up the pressure. Transphobia will not win ✊🏳️‍⚧️

TACC@tacc· May 30

Meanwhile, on Threads and Instagram:

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."

A comment stating "HE failed at being a MALE swimmer so HE decided to BEAT WOMEN who didnt have a CHANCE against a MALE", which we responded with "A lot of words to say you can't read 🤦‍♀️"

TACC@tacc· May 29

Her swimming career was far from exceptional; she did not come close to dominating in the sport, and is famous for a race where she tied 5th and was beaten by 4 other women. 2/2