Loughborough UCU

Tag: Trans Rights

  • Message of Solidarity with Transgender Women

    In recent weeks, several major organisations have decided to exclude transgender women from accessing their spaces and attending their events (including The Women’s Institute, The Girl Guides and Labour’s Women’s conference). This marks a radical reversal of previously established inclusive practices in these organisations and constitutes worrying precedents.

    The Women’s Institute began welcoming trans women in the 1970s and made their inclusion official in 2015.  Melissa Green, chief executive of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes commented that the organisation made it with the “utmost regret and sadness,” adding it had “no choice” but to exclude trans women from its membership.  It is alleged that legal challenges funded by J.K. Rowling’s “Women’s Fund”, from a small minority of members, forced the change.

    We are aware of how disconcerting this is for all the transgender members of our community, and their allies, as it is disconcerting to us as well. UCU has condemned the trans-exclusionary moves by the Supreme Court and EHRC.

    We stand in solidarity with transgender women and the transgender community generally. We are committed to working with university management to mitigate the impact of legislative changes to ensure our work and learning community remain inclusive for trans people. Please feel free to contact LUCU Equality Officer Angela Martinez Dy with any specific queries. She is committed to prioritising member engagement and raising concerns about forthcoming changes either individually or collectively. 

  • LUCU Response to University Comms regarding Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act and Supreme Court Ruling

    In light of this week’s communications from Sam McGinty (Director of Legal Services) and Veronica Moore (EDI Executive Director), the LUCU Equality Officer and Branch Committee would like to express their appreciation of the tandem statements being shared. We especially value the expressed commitment to humility, learning, consultation and inclusion, alongside upholding legal obligations. While the LUCU Committee was not consulted on the content of these statements in advance, the University has subsequently engaged in helpful discussion with us around them.

    Further, our Equality Officer, along with representatives from the other two campus Unions, Unite and UNISON, will contribute to this ongoing dialogue at the EDI Board (the main governance structure for EDI) from September 2025; in recent years only one Union rep was permitted per meeting. 

    We will use both formal and informal processes to understand these policy developments and anticipate how they will affect our members. We have also requested to be more closely included in decision-making on these issues going forward, including in the preparation of communications and guidance documents.

    While we understand the difficult legal position HEIs now face, we are nevertheless disappointed that the University finds itself no longer able to take a position on important matters, such as the genocide currently being carried out against Palestinians in Gaza and recent trans-exclusionary moves by the Supreme Court and EHRC – both of which UCU condemns.

    Please feel free to contact LUCU Equality Officer Angela Martinez Dy with any specific queries. She is committed to prioritising member engagement and raising concerns about forthcoming changes either individually or collectively.

  • When the State Defines Womanhood, We All Lose: LUCU Responds To UK Supreme Court Ruling

    The LUCU Committee is deeply concerned about the impact of the recent UK Supreme Court ruling that the protected characteristic of Sex within the Equality Act 2010 refers to ‘biological’ sex as recorded at birth, and not lived gender. The ruling stipulates that this even applies to individuals who have obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate, which effectively excludes transgender individuals from protection against sexism they might suffer in their lived gender.   

    As a small and vulnerable community, trans people are being used as an easy first target in a wider backlash against progressive ground gained internationally for women and LGBTQIA+ people. Ironically, although the campaign was led by women, the outcome problematically pits cis women against trans women, and lesbian, gay and bisexual people against trans people, who should, we believe, be natural allies in the fights against sexism, misogyny and homophobia. 

    The legal challenge which led to this ruling did not arise in a vacuum, but was the result of a series of  

    legal challenges brought by the campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) and funded by author JK Rowling. By insisting ‘biology is destiny’, these arguments not only deny the legitimacy of trans experiences, and trans women in particular, but also hold the potential to be used to reverse the hard-won gains of all women for gender equality and push narrow, outdated and gender-stereotypes on both men and women. It is clear to us that both misogynist and transmisogynist cultural forces and campaign groups are connected and growing in strength and confidence, and we must work together to resist them.   

    Returning to the detail of the Supreme Court ruling, this interpretation generates several further problems in and of itself, not least because it over-simplifies the concept of sex, which in reality exists on a spectrum, and further erases the existence of people who are intersex, a community already severely marginalised in law and cultural awareness. Moreover, the gender policing of trans women simultaneously further marginalises trans men while harming, rather than protecting, lesbians and masculine-presenting women. 

    ‘Nothing about us without us’ is a familiar refrain and key principle of meaningful equalities work, yet this judgement included no testimony from trans people. The Good Law Project believe that the ruling violates the UK’s obligations under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and is asking the High Court for a declaration of incompatibility.1 

    Compounding the problems of this judgement, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has seen a wave of resignations and criticism over its increasingly transphobic positions in recent years, has released interim guidance which seeks to dramatically expand the implications of the judgement.  In documents released and interviews given by EHRC Chair Kishwer Falkner, proclamations have been made about excluding trans people from facilities such as toilets and changing rooms: not only those aligning with their lived gender, on the basis that they are a different sex from those for whom the facility is intended, but also those aligned with their ‘birth sex’, because their transition likely means that they do not present as the sex for which the facility is intended either.  

    This risks locking transgender people out of all available facilities. Falkner has claimed that trans people should instead use their ‘power of advocacy’ to ask for facilities including a ‘third space’ for toilets – ironically a move which, even if it were feasible, would force all trans people to use mixed sex facilities. She has also suggested that the judgement excludes trans athletes from participating in sports in alignment with their lived gender, a view echoed and welcomed by Loughborough University Chancellor Seb Coe in his role as President of World Athletics.   

    It is critically important to emphasise that many of these, and other, supposed implications of the Supreme Court judgement circulating online and in the media are highly speculative at best. The Good Law Project has produced its own response, giving clarity over what the judgement in fact does and does not mean, and urging organisations not to make hasty policy changes that further marginalise people who are trans and potentially violate their rights.   

    Loughborough UCU maintains unwavering support for the rights of women to safety and security in a world which is still deeply misogynistic and where violence against women and girls remains endemic.  We do not believe, however, that the long list of dangers to women includes trans rights.  It is cis male violence against women that is and has always been the biggest threat to women’s safety, most commonly within intimate partner relationships.  

    Contending that trans women regularly and systematically gain access into women’s spaces by deception is a strawman argument used to drum up fear that we wholly reject. There are certainly complexities raised by the very real need to provide safe spaces and charitable services for all women, but again, these small logistical challenges are given much greater prominence than the real threat which is the drastic underfunding and under-provision of these services. And we categorically disagree that this complexity gives anyone the right or the rationale to invalidate trans people’s experiences of gender, and importantly, to police their access to public spaces, such as toilets.  

    We see the targeting of the trans community, under the guise of defending women, as a cynically deployed, racially charged, divide-and-rule tactic which allows the real issues, such as partner violence, rape culture, sexual assault, and structural misogyny, including in institutions such as the police, to go unchallenged. The claim that this issue is about women’s safety is therefore disingenuous; if campaigners and legislators honestly cared about women, they would be tackling the myriad root causes of violence against them, rather than throwing trans women under the bus.  

    In collaboration with the LGBT+ Staff Network, LUCU are in conversation with University management as we seek to assure trans members of our community that their access to the broad range of facilities and services within the university will not be affected. 

    National UCU is prepared to challenge any legal interpretations or implementations that infringe upon the rights of our trans and non-binary colleagues. Reaffirming our dedication to equality, inclusion and respect for all, UCU stands firmly with trans and non-binary members, and all women, in the continued fight for civil rights, equality, and an end to gender-based violence.

    LUCU Committee

  • LUCU Response to the Supreme Court Judgement on Sex in the Equality Act

    The UK Supreme Court recently ruled that the protected characteristic of Sex within the Equality Act 2010 refers to “biological” sex as recorded at birth, and not lived gender, even for individuals who have obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate.  This effectively excludes transgender individuals from protection against sexism they might suffer in their lived gender.  This interpretation generates several further problems in and of itself, not least because it over-simplifies the concept of sex, which in reality exists on a spectrum, and further erases the existence of people who are intersex, a community that is already severely marginalised in law.  The Good Law Project believe that the judgement, which included no testimony from trans people, violates the UK’s obligations under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and is asking the High Court for a declaration of incompatibility.  A similar legal campaign is what forced the UK government to implement the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and give legal recognition to the lived gender of trans individuals.  You can donate to the Good Law Project case here.

    Compounding the problems of this judgement, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has seen a wave of resignations and criticism over its increasingly transphobic positions in recent years, has released interim guidance which seeks to dramatically expand the implications of the judgement.  In documents released and interviews given by EHRC Chair Kishwer Falkner, proclamations have been made about excluding trans people from facilities such as toilets and changing rooms: not only those aligning with their lived gender, on the basis that they are a different sex from those the facility is for, but also those aligned with their “birth sex”, because their transition likely means that they do not present as the sex the facility is for. This risks locking transgender people out of all available facilities. Falkner has claimed that trans people should instead use their “power of advocacy” to ask for facilities including a “third space” for toilets – ironically a move which, even if it were feasible, would force all trans people to share facilities with people of a different sex.  She has also suggested that the judgement excludes trans athletes from participating in sports in alignment with their lived gender, a view echoed and welcomed by Loughborough University Chancellor Seb Coe. 

    It is critically important to emphasise that many of these, and other, supposed implications of the Supreme Court judgement circulating online and in the media are highly speculative at best.  The Good Law Project has produced its own response, giving clarity over what the judgement in fact does and does not mean, and urging organisations not to make hasty policy changes that further marginalise people who are trans and potentially violate their rights. 

    Loughborough UCU maintains unwavering support for the rights of women to safety and security in a world which is still deeply misogynistic and where violence against women and girls remain endemic.  We do not believe, however, that the long list of dangers to women includes trans rights.  Rather, the targeting of the trans community, under the guise of defending women, is a cynically-deployed divide and rule tactic which allows the real issues, such as partner violence, rape culture, sexual assault in public spaces, and structural misogyny, including in institutions such as the police, to go un-challenged.

    We are pleased that Loughborough University has issued guidance to staff and students offering reassurance that, at least for the time being, access to facilities has not changed. This is stark contrast to some other organisations which are unnecessarily implementing trans-exclusionary policy changes.

    We stand in solidarity with all women and with the trans community, natural allies in the fight for civil rights, equality, and an end to gender-based violence.

    LUCU Committee