Women’s Right Network - Greater Manchester

12/04/2026

Phillipson accused of putting career ahead of women’s rights in trans war
Baroness Falkner says women and equalities minister blocking single-s*x spaces guidance for fear of ‘alienating activist MPs’

Women's rights protesters hold up an effigy of Bridget Phillipson near the Labour MP's Sunderland office on Saturday as they demand that she publish the Supreme Court guidance
Women’s rights protesters hold up an effigy of Bridget Phillipson near the Labour MP’s Sunderland office on Saturday as they demand that she publish the Supreme Court guidance.

Bridget Phillipson has been accused of blocking guidance on upholding women’s right to single-s*x spaces over fears that it could damage her career.

Baroness Falkner – who drew up the equality law changes – said Ms Phillipson was putting her “personal ambition” before her role as women and equalities minister over fears that pro-trans backbenchers would scupper any chance of promotion if she published the guidance.

Thursday will mark the first anniversary of the Supreme Court judgment on the definition of a woman, which ruled that trans women are not legally women for the purposes of the Equality Act.

In a devastating attack on what she described as the Government’s “cowardice”, Lady Falkner said the delay “betrayed” women who have a right to expect that trans women – biological men – are barred from female toilets and changing rooms.

The peer also accused Sir Keir Starmer of failing to uphold the law on women’s spaces despite being a lawyer himself.

Lady Falkner, who led the Equality and Human Rights Commission until November, suggested the Government risked making the same mistake over trans rights that it did with grooming gangs by failing to take action for fear of upsetting a minority group.

Baroness Falkner: Trans activists threatened me and my family.

The comments, made in an interview with The Telegraph, represent an escalation of previous criticisms in which she accused Labour of having “abandoned” women.

Before Lady Falkner left her previous role, the EHRC submitted an updated code of practice to Ms Phillipson, instructing businesses and public bodies to ensure that trans women were barred from female toilets and changing rooms.

Activists hit out at Ms Phillipson over the failure to publish the guidance.

But almost 12 months after the Supreme Court’s ruling and the updated code being submitted to the Government for sign-off, Ms Phillipson has still not proceeded with its publication, claiming time is needed to get it right.

It means hospitals and sports centres are still allowing trans women into female spaces.

Lady Falkner said she believed the delay had occurred because Ms Phillipson, who lost the Labour deputy leadership race to Lucy Powell last year, was “ambitious”.

She added: “For some months now, we’ve been hearing speculation about whether the Prime Minister will continue to be in place, or whether there’s going to be a major reshuffle.

“She is ever ambitious, and I suspect that she doesn’t want to alienate the activist MPs in her party by showing her hand. She was set back by being defeated in her quest to be deputy leader of the party, and she’s hoping for – I assume – promotion somewhere else, and she’s keeping her powder dry until that event happens.

“She is putting her personal ambition ahead of her role as the minister for women and equalities, and that is a very sad and sorry state of affairs for our country in terms of the message it sends about this Government.”

Commenting on Sir Keir’s role in the situation, she said: “You have a Government led by a lawyer, supposedly mindful of the rule of law – yet he’s unable to uphold it in its most visible form, which is statutory guidance produced by a regulator, an independent regulator of that law.

“There has to be a long, deep reflection on whether we’re going to continue as a society to uphold what I call muscular liberalism in that we balance rights – everybody’s rights – properly, and are not afraid of calling out wrongdoing because we’re intimidated by upsetting one group or another.”

Lady Falkner also criticised Sir Chris Wormald, the previous head of the Civil Service, for refusing to scrap outdated rules allowing transgender women to use female toilets in Whitehall.

She urged his successor, Dame Antonia Romeo, to use her “reforming zeal” to reduce the grip of gender ideology in government departments.

In the interview, Lady Falkner, now a fellow of the Policy Exchange think tank, also revealed that she had felt threatened by the abuse she faced while she was in charge of the EHRC from 2020 to 2025.

She said it helped make her more resilient and that if her opponents had hoped they could have forced her to quit, they “picked the wrong person”.

Lady Falkner revealed that she had felt threatened by abuse she faced while in charge of the EHRC

The peer also accused Labour of introducing its controversial definition of anti-Muslim hostility and delaying action on a grooming gangs inquiry because it was afraid of losing its Muslim voters.

She said the new definition was a “highly ideological and politically-motivated position to capture the so-called Muslim vote bank when they’re under threat by independent MPs and the Greens”.

A Labour source hit back against the claims and said: “Baroness Falkner has yet again demeaned the office she once held with these disgraceful personal comments.

“Far from upholding the principle of equality and uniting communities, these comments seek only to further stoke the culture wars that have inflamed and divided our country.

“Labour is doing things properly, providing the sober and grown-up leadership on these issues needed to ensure organisations and businesses need to uphold the law and everyone is treated fairly and compassionately, with dignity and respect.”

Baroness Falkner says women and equalities minister blocking single-s*x spaces guidance for fear of ‘alienating activist MPs’

28/03/2026

A student in Saddleworth gets suspended for refusing to sit through a lesson on s*xuality and gender identity, and we’re told this is just part of modern education. A child punished for not engaging with something that many parents believe should be discussed at home, not enforced in a classroom.

This is exactly why people are getting fed up. Schools are drifting further away from core education and stepping into areas that are deeply personal and often controversial, yet treating them as mandatory. There’s no real room for disagreement, no respect for parental views, just comply or face consequences.

And here’s the part that really needs answering.

In towns like Oldham, there have been years of documented failures around child exploitation. Serious cases that have been investigated and exposed, where vulnerable young girls were targeted, manipulated and abused over long periods of time. That is not opinion, that is on record. Yet where is the same level of focus in schools on teaching children how grooming actually works?

Where are the lessons that break down how predators build trust, isolate victims, and exploit them? Where is the practical education that helps kids recognise warning signs and protect themselves before it’s too late?

You would think, given what has happened in areas like this, that safeguarding would be front and centre in every classroom. That children would be armed with real-world awareness, not just theory, but clear, direct guidance on how to stay safe.

Instead, we see a clear imbalance. Some subjects are pushed hard, enforced without question, while others that deal with real risks in the community are handled far more cautiously or barely touched at all.

That’s why parents are questioning this. It’s not about denying education, it’s about priorities. It’s about asking why schools seem more comfortable pushing certain agendas than confronting uncomfortable realities that could actually protect children.

Safeguarding should come first. Awareness should come first. Giving kids the tools to recognise danger and protect themselves should never be controversial.

If schools had any real sense of priority, they would be doubling down on proper safeguarding education. Not vague guidance, not box-ticking exercises, but clear, direct teaching about how grooming works, how predators operate, and how young people can recognise danger before it’s too late, Raja miah would be a good start , with his YouTube channel recursant nine , Raja will teach you the dangers and who the monsters covering up the r**e genocide in oldham .

Because right now, it doesn’t feel like children in places like Oldham are being properly prepared for the risks that actually exist around them. And that’s the uncomfortable truth.
Parents are left wondering who is really looking out for their kids, because from where they’re standing, the system doesn’t look like it’s doing the job.

09/03/2026

Gender-affirming hormones on NHS halted for under-18s
Transgender teenagers will no longer be given testosterone or oestrogen to alter bodies

Cross-s*x hormones will be banned for those aged 16 and 17 on the NHS, it has been announced.
A review by the health service found that the “available evidence does not support the continued use” of the drugs. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, had said in May he was considering a ban.

Cross-s*x or gender-affirming hormones are sometimes given to people who believe they are transgender. Those born male who believe their true gender is female are given oestrogen, while those born female are given testosterone.
The NHS said patients already taking them would be able to continue, but no new referrals would be accepted, subject to the draft policy being formalised after a consultation period.
Prof James Palmer, a national medical director for NHS England, said the health service had “commissioned an in-depth review of all available clinical evidence for using oestrogen or testosterone ... to treat gender incongruence and dysphoria”.

He said: “This review has established that the available evidence does not support the continued use of masculinising or feminising hormones to treat gender incongruence or dysphoria for young people under 18.
Advertisement

“We are now launching a public consultation on a revised policy which would see the NHS remove this treatment as a routine intervention for young people under 18.”

The practice of prescribing cross-s*x hormones to children with gender dysphoria first came to prominence at the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service, in north-west London which closed in 2024.

Dr Hilary Cass, whose review into children’s gender services led to a ban on puberty blockers, urged “extreme caution” about the use of cross-s*x drugs. She found that almost all children receiving puberty blockers would go on to take cross-s*x hormones.

While puberty blockers suppress hormones that support a child’s body and brain to develop, hormone drugs help someone change their physical appearance, such as by growing hair or breasts.

The drugs have been available to those age 16 or older since Dr Cass published her 2024 review, in which she said there needed to be a “clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18”.
A review by NHS England has since found that the evidence is too weak to support their continued use in children, while the health service will continue to look at the evidence for their use in adults.

The ban on new referrals will come into effect immediately for the NHS, although it is not in place for private providers.
A separate planned trial into puberty blockers has been paused amid concerns about the risk of “long-term biological harms”.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency intervened last month, asking for more assurances and suggesting a minimum age of 14. The initial proposal had no minimum age, merely specifying that the person had started puberty.

Dr Alice Hodkinson, founder of Biology in Medicine, a campaign group, said: “We have known for years that cross-s*x hormones are harmful for all children through to age 18 so we welcome this announcement.

“However, cross-s*x hormones do not become any less harmful on a patient’s 18th birthday. There is mounting evidence of the long-term adverse effects which include heart disease, stroke and early mortality.
“For all age groups there are huge concerns about access to illegal drugs privately and via EU loopholes, where patients are accessing prescription hormones from Spain and Ireland in particular, and also the use of illegal anabolic steroids direct from websites.
“We hope the Government will act on all these sources of hormones to protect vulnerable groups of children and young adults from bad actors.”

Transgender teenagers will no longer be given testosterone or oestrogen to alter bodies

29/12/2025

This must be the year Britain finally kills off trans ideology.

It’s taken ovaries of steel to get us here. In 2026, Labour must prioritise women’s rights over gender groupthink.

There is a cartoon that routinely does the rounds. It depicts two women standing back-to-back, tied to a stake atop a pyre waiting to be lit.

“What are you in for?” asks one. The other replies, “Saying, ‘He is a man.’” “Same,” comes the response.

For those of us who have been “burnt” over the last few years for stating such basic facts, for pointing out that men are not women, even if they want to be, this depiction is now bittersweet.

That’s because 2025, to some extent at least, has changed things.

The imposition of trans ideology into every area of our lives has been challenged this year, and it is now losing its grip. The words “man”, “woman” and “biological s*x” are no longer verboten. Meanwhile, the chanting of mantras such as, “Trans women are women, trans men are men and non-binary people are valid”, seems, dare I say it, passé.

While I am among the vast majority who wish no ill on individual gender-nonconforming people, I welcome the fact that the cult of trans (aided to such an extent by its celebrity supporters) is falling apart. The pink and blue flags do not signal liberation, but a corporate desperation to be modern.

One of the reasons for this fall from grace is straightforward. Powerful lobby groups, such as Stonewall, which had its tentacles everywhere, told lies. It claimed that letting men self-identify as women would have no downside for actual women at all, and it offered organisations a version of the law as it would like it to be, not as it was. The movement also lied to children, suggesting that they were able to change s*x and that the drugs they needed to take to do so were harmless and reversible.

All these lies have since been exposed, through stories of detransitioners, employment tribunals and court cases where individual women who refused to go along with this totalitarian groupthink fought back. They did not do so without suffering, however. Indeed, these plucky women have so often paid a terribly high price (from job losses to vicious backlashes) for insisting on their right to free speech and to call a biological male a man, as well as their refusal to shilly-shally around language.

The big win, of course, was in April, when For Women Scotland won in the Supreme Court. The court’s judges unanimously ruled that the meaning of s*x in the Equality Act was biological s*x, not some nebulous idea of gender. This ensures the right of women to single-s*x spaces, be they changing rooms, refuges or prisons.

It was followed up by another victory in November, when it appeared that the International Olympic Committee, after reviewing the evidence, was edging closer to imposing a ban on transgender women (biological men) competing in the female category.

And then earlier this month, there was a welcome ruling in the Sandie Peggie case, when a tribunal ruled that the NHS had harassed Peggie, a nurse, after she complained about sharing a female changing room with a transgender doctor. Neither Peggie’s union nor bosses supported her, but NHS Fife, her employer, was eventually revealed as both institutionally captured and incapable of coherent thought.

Inevitably, yet depressingly, these moments triggered outpourings of rage from trans activists and those who have foolishly gone along with their gender nonsense (either because it was trendy or out of fear of being labelled a bigot, a terf or Right-wing for opposing the movement). These dolts, and I include most of our politicians here, seem unable to open their eyes to the reality breaking through.

That’s despite a clear and worrying example from across the Atlantic, where trans activist overreach has resulted in a backlash against gay marriage and many liberal shibboleths. It has been disastrous for the Democrats and a gift to the far-Right.

Yet they carry on in their not-so-merry way. Indeed, the trans mob’s deranged response to the setbacks the movement has suffered in 2025 has been to parade topless, throw bottles of urine, smash up feminist conference venues and, more recently, Wes Streeting’s office.

These are angry, violent oddballs who are full of misogyny (as anyone who has encountered this lot will attest). I cannot here repeat the threats that I have had over the years, some of which have been aimed at my children, too. There is nothing “kind” about the movement and its warped ideology.

What needs to happen now is simple. Bridget Phillipson, seemingly paralysed by party activists, needs to enforce the law and stop pretending it’s all so complicated. Simply put, it is her duty to do so.

Labour can and must leave its “women can have a pen*s” position to the Greens, the Lib Dems and various other loony tunes, and get on with really governing on this issue.

As part of that, Streeting should use his power to stop a planned trial that will see puberty blockers given to more than 200 children, potentially as young as eight, who think they may be transgender.

This is yet more harmful experimentation on children and seems little more than a sop by Hilary Cass – who recommended the trial at the conclusion of her eponymous review of NHS gender identity services for children and young people – to pro-trans pressure groups.

Whether Labour will act on these things remains to be seen. But, come what may, 2026 will be another difficult year because the NHS, the BBC, the Civil Service, Britain’s universities and many other key institutions remain awash with the trans ideology that has been pushed for a decade now.

Despite 2025’s fightback, it is not going to shrivel up and die overnight. The next 12 months will be full of anger and threats from activists, and full of confusion for the many ordinary folk who were told to “be kind”, but never really understood why the words “woman” or “mother” had to disappear from the language.

There will, doubtless, be organisations that continue to flout the Supreme Court’s ruling, and those keen to pick up the baton from Stonewall.

We still have a long way to go. Yet, bit by bit, we can get to a place where women’s rights are respected and where no one is burnt at the stake for stating biological reality.

And by the end of 2026, I hope we can finally kill off the idiocy that has marked recent years – an idiocy which has caused so much harm to women and children in the name of “trans rights”, and one which so many have misguidedly congratulated themselves for being part of.

Grassroots organisations and individuals – thanks as ever to JK Rowling – have done so much to turn the tide to date. But next year, I want to see some actual leadership from the Government on this. It must enforce the law, stop the unethical puberty-blocker trial and end the anti-science discourse.

It’s taken ovaries of steel to get us here. The women of terf island aren’t giving up now.

It’s taken ovaries of steel to get us here. In 2026, Labour must prioritise women’s rights over gender groupthink

24/12/2025

14/11/2025

Why is Labour backtracking on single-s*x spaces?

Bridget Phillipson appears to be acting against the Supreme Court’s ruling on the protection of women’s rights.

Bridget Phillipson
The ironically-titled women and equalities minister has muddied the waters

Amidst all the fun and games of Prime Minister’s Questions this week, a rare question that was not about the behaviour of Keir Starmer’s briefing war against his own Health Secretary was asked.

Rebecca Paul, the Conservative MP for Reigate, asked if and when the Government would ever get round to implementing the law on single s*x spaces, particularly prisons. “HMP Downview, a women’s prison in Banstead, has five biological males in it,” she told the Commons.

“If that was not bad enough, those males are mixing with the women in the daytime without adequate supervision. Will the Prime Minister ensure that biological males are moved out of women’s prisons immediately?”

Despite Starmer’s reputation for refusing to answer awkward questions, his response was refreshingly unambiguous: “The Supreme Court ruling must be implemented in full and at all levels – she’s absolutely right about that.”

The question (and answer) was all the more relevant since the SNP is to fight in court to continue to allow biological male criminals who identify as women to serve sentences in female prisons, a practice that was assumed to have ended when the Supreme Court delivered its ruling on the Equality Act back in April.

The British Government is also in court this week, and on a closely related matter. The Good Law Project, headed by social justice warrior Jolyon Maugham KC, has challenged the legality of the interim guidelines issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) following the Supreme Court’s April judgment.

The ruling was transphobic as well as wrong in law, according to the Good Law Project. Bridget Phillipson, the women and equalities minister, who is intervening in the case on behalf of the Government, was represented by Zoe Leventhal KC, who, according to the BBC, “argued that the guidance may have been too simplistic in suggesting that, for example, a trans woman should not use a women’s toilet in a public space. She suggested that it could be judged on a case-by-case basis”.

Now, the issues of single s*x bathrooms and single-s*x prisons may seem very different, but they are not. Precisely the same legal principle is at stake: whether women should have the right to privacy and security in their own spaces, absent of the presence of men, however those men might choose to identify. We all thought the Supreme Court had finally and decisively cleared this up by stating that single-s*x spaces, whether toilets, prisons or changing rooms, could exclude individuals based on their biological s*x. If they did not, if “trans women” (biological males) were allowed to use a female changing room, for example, then that changing room becomes, de facto, a mixed-s*x facility.

Until yesterday’s proceedings at the High Court in London, we all assumed that ministers were wholly on board with the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Equality Act is, after all, the law of the land. It has been in force since 2010, even if its provisions were not fully understood or followed until the Supreme Court’s intervention. And, as Rebecca Paul has pointed out, not even then. But ministers have no choice but to respect and implement the law as it stands, or seek to change the law through primary legislation.

So why is Phillipson’s legal representative now advancing a wholly unnecessary and impractical practice of a “case-by-case” assessment of which men get to use women’s toilets? The Supreme Court says that if even one “trans woman” uses such a facility, it is then no longer a single-s*x space. Is that what the Government wants? The answer seems to be yes.

Yet that contradicts entirely what the Prime Minister told Rebecca Paul in the chamber on Wednesday. He said the court’s ruling must be implemented “in full and at all levels”. And now the legal representative of his women and equalities minister is arguing against that principle.

We either have single-s*x services and spaces, or we have a “case-by-case” system which allows some men to use them as well. Uncomfortable though it may be for ministers, and especially Phillipson, that is a binary choice. Either respect the law as it stands and as it has been interpreted by Britain’s highest court, or amend the legislation. That’s it. That’s the choice.

Clearly Zoe Leventhal KC is representing Phillipson’s view accurately; that, after all, is her job. So when was the minister going to tell the country that she no longer believes that the “clarity” provided by the Supreme Court on single-s*x spaces was clear enough? And will she explain how, in practical terms, the “case-by-case” process she now advocates will be practically implemented to allow certain men who identify as women to use public toilets? Who makes that assessment? Who enforces it?

Phillipson was right back in April when she welcomed the Supreme Court’s “clarity”. To maintain women’s safety and privacy, all men, however they identify, must refrain from using women’s facilities. That is clear, it is simple and it is easily explained. But now the ironically-titled women and equalities minister has muddied the waters in an entirely unnecessary and damaging way. And as always, it is women, not men, who risk paying the price in lost security and lost privacy.

Bridget Phillipson appears to be acting against the Supreme Court’s ruling on the protection of women’s rights

04/11/2025

Ban on asking Green council about ‘predatory men’ in single-s*x spaces.

Female academic concerned about ‘predatory men’ posing as trans women told her question had been deemed offensive by Bristol city council.

Demonstrators in Bristol gathered in April to protest against the Supreme Court ruling.

A woman has been blocked by Bristol city council from asking Green Party leaders whether “predatory men” could enter single-s*x female spaces by posing as trans women.

Helen, a university academic in the city, submitted a question to ask at the full council meeting on Tuesday evening but was told it was “offensive” and would not be allowed.

Bristol city council, led by the Green Party, has criticised the Supreme Court ruling in April that the words “woman” and “man” in the Equality Act refer to s*x at birth.

The council has been openly aligned with trans activists since it passed a motion in July 2022 to “recognise and affirm trans men are men, trans women are women” and pledged not to take advice from or award contracts “to organisations that promote an anti-trans agenda or propaganda”.

Bristol city council showed its support for trans people in March by displaying the colours of the trans flag.

Helen, who didn’t want to be identified for fear of reprisal, submitted a question in advance of Tuesday’s meeting, asking for the council’s view on the statement that “predatory men will be able to enter female spaces if people are allowed to use the facilities in which they feel most comfortable (ie if self ID is allowed)”.

Oliver Harrison, a democratic services officer at the council, said her question had been “ruled out as offensive” by Henry Michallat, the lord mayor, a Conservative councillor, who chairs the council meetings.

Helen also wanted to ask another question about what the council was doing to “ensure freedom of speech in all of its organisations regarding those who are worried about women’s safety and dignity?”

“I have had discussions with a few council officers and teachers who are worried about the safety and dignity of women and girls,” she wrote in her question. “They have told me their organisation allows anyone to identify as a woman and that therefore predatory men can enter female facilities. Worryingly, they have told me that they are afraid to speak out about this.”

She was told this question would only be accepted if she “changed” the section that said “predatory men can enter female facilities”.

Last month, about 18 Green Party councillors staged a mass walkout during a full council meeting whenever members of the public raised gender-critical questions.

Helen said the council was “essentially cancelling debate” on the issue of women’s safety from predatory men.

“If organisations say people are able to identify themselves into the women’s toilets then it’s clear that s*xual predators will be most delighted and enter women’s safe spaces,” she said. “The issue has been confused with the issue of trans rights and trans people who need safety and dignity, and they should have that too, but the solution isn’t to allow anyone into women’s spaces.

“To me, we need to discuss that moderately and kindly,” she added. “We know predatory men exist and the basic principle of safeguarding is to guard against the small minority and it seems to be being forgotten by this council.

“It’s particularly Green councillors and a large number of them seem to be unable to enter into discussion about this. If they feel that men who s*xually assault women don’t exist in this country any more, then say that and enter into the debate. I don’t know why they won’t.”

Tony Dyer, the Green council leader, claimed the Supreme Court ruling “falsely pitted women’s safety against trans rights” and said the “guidance does not achieve the necessary clarity and risks driving further exclusion and division for some of the most marginalised and vulnerable people in society”.

In response to a consultation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on updates to its equalities guidance, officers at the council urged the commission to drop gendered language when referring to pregnancy, maternity and breastfeeding — calling for the term “people with ovaries” to be used and claiming s*x was “assigned” at birth.

It warned against using pronouns such as “she/her” because they are not used by all “pregnant individuals” and their use could add “additional emotional and psychological distress” to such individuals and may cause “discrimination” when accessing maternity services.

The council has been approached for comment.

Female academic concerned about ‘predatory men’ posing as trans women told her question had been deemed offensive by Bristol city council