When the BBC refers to trans people, on radio news or its news and sport websites, it adds an explanation of the form biological [fe]male[s]/]wo]men/girls/boys who identify as [the opposite]. For example in this article, “biological males who identify as women”. I complained about several such articles, and have now complained about this one to the “Executive Complaints Unit”. For that last complaint I looked up the BBC content guidelines, and have shown some of the breaches: I hope to post more comments on how their habitual “explanation” of trans breaches those guidelines.
“Biological sex”
My sex is female. My legal sex is female, my biological sex is female, my sex at birth was female, I have always been female. My sex assigned at birth is a private matter, and nobody, cis or trans, should ever have to answer such a question. I hate the phrase “biological sex” with a passion. When applied to trans people, it is a lie, a way of erasing us, an insidious denial of our humanity which people who allegedly support trans rights feel free to use.
“Biological sex” is a social construct, in the same way that orange is a social construct. There is no objective line on the spectrum between red and orange, and different cultures divide the spectrum differently. In the same way, we use the word “woman” for a person with XY chromosomes, testicles, and a girl’s external appearance at birth. She has androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), and usually her testicles will be removed in early adulthood as they can cause health problems later. She has something which seems to fit “woman”- her appearance- and something which seems to fit “man”- her chromosomes and gonads. There is a choice made: she is socially constructed as “female”.
In precisely the same way, I have something which seems to fit “man”- my chromosomes and gonads- and something which fits woman, trans joy when I express female, gender dysphoria when I had to express male. The UN and its envoy, the Council of Europe, the Green Party, the Conservative Party until 2020 and the Labour Party until 2024 call that “woman”, and even the EHRC does for now, as its Code of Practice has not yet been replaced. It is a choice, but it is a choice which allows trans people to thrive, and hurts nobody else. Nobody benefits from treating trans people as deluded and untrustworthy except the Billionaires’ Rights Activists who sow division to increase their power.
The phrase “biological sex” as the Supreme Court used it is a lie, because it is a pretence at objectivity. To say my “sex” is male is a choice, a social construct, just as much as to say it is female. Like AIS women, I am an ambiguous case. There is nothing biological, scientific or objective about calling me a man against my will, or about denying that the phenomenon of trans is quite as real as that of AIS.
Human rights are based on human subjectivity. People are free when they are allowed to say who they are, as long as that does not harm others. Trans does not oppress women: rape culture, patriarchy and male violence oppress women. In a society without patriarchy, there would be no trans exclusion. And when trans rights are so shamefully ignored by the Labour government, nobody’s rights are safe. Shabana Mahmood wants to “reform” human rights to fit “public consent”, which should terrify anyone. See how public opinion can be manipulated against refugees, and can you be certain it could not be manipulated against you?
When Ellie Chowns said at the South East Green Party leadership hustings on Monday 4 August that “sex is biological”, and that the governing bodies of sports could exclude trans people “based on sex”; or when she tells LGBTIQA+ Greens that “domestic violence refuges, prisons and some sports” should be segregated based on “biological sex”, she is denying my humanity. Calling my “biological sex” female is a social construct which promotes trans people’s flourishing. Calling it male, as she does here, denies the truth of trans, and makes us at best weirdos to be tolerated but open to humiliation at any time, at worst a scary Other to be demonised.
A tiny number of Greens and former Greens call for “sex-based rights” and will never be appeased. For them, trans-exclusion is more important than the climate crisis. So if Ellie and Adrian are attempting to find a middle ground, they will fail. They can either accept my human rights and my humanity, or not. So, even though at the hustings I found many of Ellie’s arguments persuasive, I can only back Zack.
Instead of “biological sex”, use “sex assigned at birth”. Anti-trans campaigners say people don’t have sex “assigned” but noticed, but that is not true- see above, where sex assigned is a choice, and a social construct, not a mere observation. Also, if you said “prisoners should be segregated by sex assigned at birth”, instead of falsely appearing rational and reasonable to those not in the know, you invite the question why. Once we ask why trans people should be excluded, the shakiness of the reasons appears.
Photo from Brighton Pride. Till Eulenspiegel by Strauss has been running through my mind lately. At the end, the merry prankster comes before the judges. Start listening at 14.00 and see if you can work out how the judges are represented.
Brighton Pride 2025: Ravishing rage
Party across the city! I walked with my trans flag down the hill from my home. As I passed the pub, drinkers outside cheered. A man came up, gave me a rose, and said, “Happy Pride”. A woman said, “As I saw you coming down the road, I thought, what a gorgeous dress. If I had that I would wear the shit out of that dress.” A man in the North Laine asked me what the flag was. I told him, and he said, “Good job.”
The theme is Ravishing Rage. £1.4m raised for local projects, including thousands for Trans Pride.
Trans Pride London 2026
It is one struggle, one fight. Don’t dehumanise Palestinians. Don’t dehumanise trans people.
Palestine action
What can we do, at the time of genocide in Gaza? Continue reading
Teaching Children about trans, 2026
From September 2026, the Relationships, Sex and Health Education Guidance for Schools will change. It is not as bad as the Tory draft, but it’s not good. Here is the 2019 guidance, available on archive from last month, and currently in force. Here is the Conservative government draft from May 2024. Here is the new guidance, which is not in force yet.
Some good news first. For example, the Tory draft, para 41, encouraged primary schools to teach about “healthy loving relationships” but not necessarily gay ones. The new guidance, para 68, encourages primary schools to include same-sex parents along with other family arrangements when discussing families.
At para 43, the Tory guidance discussed gender reassignment. “At school, boys cannot be legally classified as girls or vice versa”. That would make transition difficult. This sentence does not appear in the new guidance. The new guidance says, para 69, that “people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment … have protection from discrimination and should be treated with respect and dignity”. By s7 of the Equality Act, to be protected, all a child has to do is choose a true-gender name, or anything else indicating a desire to transition at some time in the future. The Tory guidance said, para 43, that you cannot legally reassign gender before the age of 18, and the new guidance does not repeat that, which is only true of formal gender recognition and not “gender reassignment”, as the Equality Act phrases it, which can be at any age.
However, the 2026 guidance discourages teaching the facts about trans children. Para 70, “beyond the facts and the law about biological sex and gender reassignment there is significant debate, and they should be careful not to endorse any particular view or teach it as fact.” They should not teach that everyone has a gender identity. The concept of gender identity is unnecessary. Rather, I would say that schools should teach that “Some people are trans”. I don’t think the new guidance forbids that, but some might argue it does, and cautious schools might avoid teaching about trans children. But there is a huge difference between the Tory para 45, “Schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity” and the Labour guidance. Schools can still teach that some people have a gender identity, different from their sex assigned at birth. The Labour guidance refers to “gender questioning” children, para 68, rather than trans children. This is denialist.
The current guidance, from 2019, only says, para 37, that all children should be taught about LGBT, integrated into RSHE, “at a timely point”.
“Schools should be mindful to avoid any suggestion that social transition is a simple solution to feelings of distress and discomfort.” That’s the new guidance, para 70. So, the guidance peddles the conspiracy theory that schools were coaching children to transition. No, when children transition, all the motivation comes from them. Similarly, schools should not use materials that “encourage pupils to question their gender”. No such materials exist. Nobody wants a cis child to question their gender. Cis children don’t, usually. But trans people face disbelief and persecution, and this guidance does nothing to counter that.
Schools should consult parents on external resources. Right wing groups agitate parents to complain about RSHE materials.
The guidance refers, para 48, to draft guidance on “gender questioning” children. I hope, when this is published, it will be less denialist than the Tory draft.
Para 80 says school staff “should be conscious of everyday sexism, misogyny, homophobia and stereotypes”. The word transphobia is conspicuously missing. The guidance refers to “biological sex”, though the concept is biologically meaningless. Para 52 says schools should be cautious about working with groups that “have a strong partisan view on a contested topic”. Schools may interpret that as forbidding working with trans groups. But trans people are the experts on trans: only we know trans from within.
It will remain possible for schools to tell the truth about trans. Some people are trans. Some children are trans. Gender questioning is a natural way for a child or teen to explore their identity and learn who they are. It transition is right for you, it really is right. Trans children and adults experience gender dysphoria when they cannot express their true selves, and trans joy when they can. These are not merely “views”, but facts. However nothing in the guidance encourages any of this. Trans children may be denied support where they are most vulnerable.
The Health and Wellbeing curriculum content, p27, is expanded. “Pupils should be supported to understand what makes them feel happy” and evaluate what will contribute to their overall wellbeing. This is what groups like Mermaids do. Groups opposing transition do not.
London Pride 2025
My poster. At Victoria underground, entering from the National Rail entrance and going to District Eastbound, we see the Transport for London pride posters for this year, including this one of TransActual.
Continue reading
Equinet and Gender Identity
Equinet is the European Network of Equality Bodies. What has it to say about gender identity?
On its front page, it has a sketch of a trans woman, with a speech bubble: “Because I am a trans woman, I was denied access to the appropriate changing room at my gym. I am not going to the gym anymore.” All over Europe, though not in the UK, the legally appropriate changing room would be the women’s. That links to the Gender Identity page. There we find EU directives cited, and the Court of Justice of the EU case P v S and Cornwall County Council. It is where the “people intending to undergo, currently undergoing, or having undergone gender reassignment” language in the Equality Act s7 comes from.
On 16 November 2020, Equinet produced a report on equality bodies working on trans rights. It said equality bodies should work with trans organisations, train their employees on discrimination trans people might suffer, build the knowledge base on trans inequality, advise policy makers on how to ensure equality for trans and intersex people, and lobby for further legislation protecting trans people.
On 25 March 2025, they reported on the role of equality bodies in advancing LGBTIQ+ equality in Europe. Their report has a chapter on legal gender recognition (LGR). It calls for swift, easy-to-access and human rights based legal gender recognition procedures. Law should “dismantle pathologisation”, getting rid of the UK requirement for a psychiatric diagnosis. It says LGR is “strongly embedded in the core principles of human rights” from the UN and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That includes legal recognition and the right to a true gender marker on official documents. The ECHR has asserted this since 1992, and against the UK in the case of Christine Goodwin. Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland meet the proper standard of LGR. Equinet and national equality bodies have stood up for trans rights.
The report calls for gender expression, not just gender identity, to be a protected characteristic in discrimination law (p77). The Council of Europe and United Nations move towards such protection. 26 Equinet members address discrimination on gender expression. That would immediately protect nonbinary people. At p82, they advocate for trans women’s inclusion in women’s sports, without requirement on hormone levels, even in elite sports. At p88, they say putting trans women in men’s prisons damages their health.
On 27 August 2024, they reported on the role of sport in combatting discrimination. Their report on rainbow families includes work on trans people’s parental rights.
The concept of “reasonable adjustments” helps disabled people participate in society equally. Equinet seeks to apply that principle to all disadvantaged groups. On p14 the report applies that to gender identity, providing a way to recognise and accommodate nonbinary people.
On 10 February 2022, they reported on equality duties. In Britain, these are no more than a pious hope- they do not create an enforceable right. As Minister against Women and Equalities, Kemi Badenoch sought to minimise the effect of the duty. But Equinet wants equality at the heart of every policy, from transport to education, to prevent institutional systems from discriminating. For example, the Swedish Equality Ombudsman monitors whether employers have complied with their obligations not to discriminate on the grounds of gender identity.
Under the Law and Justice Party, Poland had anti-LGBT policies. By January 2021, nearly a third of Poland had been declared “LGBT free”. The Polish Commissioner for Human Rights fought this. Initially the Administrative Court in Cracow rejected the complaint, but later administrative courts found the anti-LGBT resolutions unlawful.
I could find no mention in these reports of any work by the EHRC on trans rights. It is almost as if they did not care about trans people.
“Sex matters to Quakers”
What do “Sex Matters to Quakers” have to say? I had a look at their facebook page, and this is what I found. Content: transphobia.
Quakers are trans-inclusive. We have a YM minute which says, “With glad hearts we acknowledge and affirm the trans and gender diverse Friends in our Quaker communities, and express appreciation for the contribution and gifts that they bring to our meetings, which are communities made up of people with a diverse range of gender expressions. The end of our travelling is for differences not to divide us. We rejoice in recognising God’s creation in one another. This is what love requires of us.”
“Sex Matters to Quakers” campaign against trans rights and medical treatment. So they attack our allies. Woodbrooke is the Quaker education centre, which does everything from day courses or two hour zooms to PhD supervision. They have a course on Bayard Rustin called “Angelic troublemaker”. SMtQ claim to be “sex-realist angelic troublemakers”, then allege they might be excluded by Woodbrooke, which is trans inclusive. Of course they would not, unless they engaged in trans-exclusionary behaviour.
About nine hours earlier, on Sunday 22nd, SMtQ attacked Britain Yearly Meeting. There are Quaker recognised bodies, such as the Fellowship for Afterlife Studies. But, SMtQ complain, that they have been blocked from becoming a Quaker Recognised Body. They want to see themselves as the good people. They could not possibly imagine that they were the ones in the wrong. Instead, it has to be BYM that is the wrong.
They say Quaker Rainbow is “a Q recognised body which promotes the idea that gender identity should supersede physical sex in all circumstances”. In fact, Quaker Rainbow accepts the reality of physical characteristics, such as that trans men may need cervical smears and trans women do not. However Quaker Rainbow oppose the attempts in the wider culture to erase trans experience. SMtQ demonises us by misrepresenting us.
SMtQ promotes disgust about trans people, so that they can reassure they are right to reject us. They demonise trans people. On 14 June, they posted photos and quotes from six trans women about their sexuality. Comments call them “disgusting” and “openly and shockingly nastily misogynistic”. For example, Julia Serano is quoted as talking about “turning the humiliation you feel into pleasure”. This is a common aspect of many women’s sexuality. “My husband dominated me,” a Quaker cis woman told me, happily. It is something cis women write about, and has to be something trans people can write about. But SMtQ has a meme with photos of six trans women, and quotes from them, torn out of context, so that Quakers can comment about how disgusting they find the trans women.
On 21 June SMtQ posited that use of the word “transphobia” was gaslighting. It makes them question their own rational judgment, they say. Instead, they might use the word “transprudence”, to mean their attitude to trans people, which they call rational.
SMtQ claims that they are the rational, persecuted ones. There’s a post on 19 June, referring to “deeply principled sex-realist views”, and the “slanderous, libellous and malignant views [Quaker Rainbow] hold”, after an article in The Friend. It has this passive-aggressive pretence at Holy Quakerism: “We go forward in faith. Go well, Friends.” In the comments, one says, “I am shocked and angry to see gender-critical Quakers traduced like this”. Rather than taking our feedback to heart, a commenter calls us liars.
There’s a photo of a police van on 16 June. It has trans flag colours on it. It is an arrest van: space in the middle for police officers, and a windowless cage at the back for the arrestee. If arrested at a protest, I would have complicated feelings if I were taken away in that. But ordinary transphobe Ol Rappaport claims the van is “decorated to celebrate a movement that is oppressive to the LGB community and such a danger to women and children”. Sigh. Where to begin? No, Ol. You are not defending people from oppression and danger. You are persecuting, in so far as wittering on the internet achieves anything. And trans is not a movement any more than left-handedness is a movement.
SMtQ drift away from Quaker values in their zeal to oppose trans rights. They shared this video alleging “activist CEOs [are] out of control”, criticising companies making statements, inter alia, on Palestinian rights, the climate crisis, and racial justice, because it also criticises support of trans people. They commented, archly, “What would this advice mean for British Quakers and ‘the nearest we have to a CEO’?” They want Paul Parker sacked. They are so far from ordinary Quaker values and sympathies, because their “sex-realism” has become a consuming passion for them.
They have defined 10 June as a day for anti-trans campaigners to “fight back- with facts, courage and the law on [their] side”. They have to tell themselves, how noble they are for campaigning like this. Sometimes, as on 22 May, they find alienation in ordinary Quakerism: this Prayer for the Day by a Quaker is on Simplicity- “my outer appearance matching my inner truth”- and they worry this is “a trans-coded message”. Well, my outer appearance matches my inner truth: that is trans people’s gift to the world. But it is also at the heart of Quakerism, as the speaker explains. She does not mention trans.
Are they interested in what matters to Quakers? I wondered if they had anything to say about YM: perhaps our long discernment on Gaza. All I could find was a post from 20 May on the toilet policy in documents in advance. They claim it is illegal. They are wrong.
One comments on a 21 May post, “Maybe time to leave Quakers behind”. I would not wish that for anyone. Instead, as they join the silence, I would want them as I do to see the Friends around them. Imagine the others’ unique inner subjectivity. That commenter accuses Quakerism of “creating and amplifying division”, not seeing that she is dividing herself from us.
I consider trans-exclusion is antithetical to Quaker values. It operates like a conspiracy theory: it becomes a consuming passion. It has driven these people to attack Quakers who oppose them. I would say to them, Please, Friends, take a look at yourselves, and stop.
6 December: Having been refused before, SMtQ continued insisting that Quakers should confirm them as a “recognised body”. This went to waste the time of Quakers’ national body, which rejected their demands. Good.
Being trans, among Quakers and in the world
The gender dysphoria never goes away. So much has brought it up, this past week.
In the case of US v Skrmetti, the US supreme court has not only removed discrimination protection for trans people, and allowed the medical treatment we need to be banned, but also undermined anti-discrimination protection for everyone. Trans people have had the chance, in the New York Times, to try to explain to the cis what it is like to be trans. So, here’s my attempt.
I don’t want to be hugged, right now. I don’t want to be touched. I don’t want to be with my partner, whom I love, whom I know from long and varied experience loves me. I feel terror. All human beings are a threat.
From study and practice, I know the way to approach these terrifying feelings. I welcome and accept them. But as a child I was not taught that. I had to appear normal. So I suppressed them. The damage that did to me has made me unable to work since 2011. Last Tuesday with my psychotherapist I was curled in the foetal position screaming the pain of a lost child, again, lost because of trauma. The mechanism is that terror of death makes us not want to experience that situation ever again, so if there is a chance of it, unconscious parts of the psyche which are frozen in time at the original trauma fight as hard as they did at the time of the original trauma to make it go away. The healing is to love and accept those parts, overcoming the intense aversion I have felt to them.
Some people who can hold down a job have agreed with me on this experience: there is a thing in the real world that is frightening. The thing is real, the fear is real, but the intensity of the fear seems disproportionate to the threat. The fear comes from childhood. “Man hands on misery to man”, as Larkin said: I have that poem off by heart. That fear has made me frightened to go out of the house, for years. I started writing this when feeling it intensely. Writing has helped me regain some equanimity.
So when I read the following, I completely get it:
Distraught. Devastated. Distressed. She had already been through the experience of having her healthcare access stopped after the Bell judgement – she had been due to start blockers that week and they were instantly stopped. This deeply affected her trust in adults responsible for her care, and had a knock on effect on relationships with teachers, club leaders, the GP etc.
Worried our child would feel like they have nothing to live for if they had to live as a man. Fear of losing our child. Without blockers our child felt she couldn’t live as free and blend in to just being a girl.
From one point of view, the academic point of view, the source is entirely mainstream. It is in a peer-reviewed journal. It cites articles from around the world. It makes a compelling case for puberty blockers for trans children, as part of an academic scientific process, searching for the truth through assessing evidence.
But from the political point of view, it is weird and extremist. It advocates treating children with puberty blockers. The US Supreme Court in Skrmetti has decided that a political ban of that treatment, by the Republican legislature in Tennessee and other states, is lawful. In Britain, there is a similar political ban by the Labour government. In the US, someone in Tennessee has to travel five hours to get treatment for their child, and in the UK, they have to travel to an EU state. The Cass Review of Gender Identity Development Services (GIDS) has led to a ban on puberty blockers for trans children by the Tory government, which the Labour government has continued.
So what are you going to do? Listen to academic research, or listen to the wider political debate? I hope Quakers, with a respect for Truth, would follow the research rather than the political decisions of the Labour government, but there is a huge temptation to go along with the wider culture. That is why Quakerism is profoundly counter-cultural, but many Quakers, as individuals and even as meetings, would just go along with Cass.
Here in Brighton, “Brighton Sisters Salon” (BSS) takes what is politically a mainstream position. It opposes puberty blockers for trans boys, whom it calls “girls experiencing gender distress”. Ah yes. Gender distress. See above.
From an academic perspective, BSS is an outlier. It ignores vast amounts of evidence that puberty blockers benefit trans children, and the refusal of PBs does harm. Even from Cass’s figures, only 21% of those seen at the Tavistock GIDS, 727 children in all, went on puberty blockers. Some children and teenagers might experiment with a trans identity as part of growing up, but never go near medical services. But some know they are trans. And of the ones seen at GIDS, but not prescribed PBs, only 0.5% detransitioned. But BSS would ignore all that. They point to the tiny number of detransitioners, and demand a total ban on PBs. This is politically mainstream, but rides roughshod over trans people’s experience.
From a Quaker perspective, I consider the BSS position is an outlier. Quakers have very little belief in common, but we share one rule- “Love one another”- and one experience, that there is “That of God in every one”. That is, we value the testimony of trans people. I still experience gender dysphoria. I was born this way. So I am a trans woman. This subjectivity, this sense of who I am, is the basis of my human right to identify as a woman and the Britain Yearly Meeting minutes welcoming trans people. We are ourselves. Nobody else, and certainly not BSS, has a right to define us.
What about feminism? Are BSS feminists, so that the issue is Women’s Rights v Trans Rights? No. Mainstream feminist organisations, such as Survivors Network, which works with survivors of sexual violence, and the Brighton Women’s Centre, which works on a range of practical feminist issues, both serve “self-identified women”. They include trans women. BSS would call them “Mixed sex”, but they still say they are women’s services, and even after the Supreme Court judgment, Brighton Women’s Centre have told me they will still include trans women.
So, within feminism, the mainstream position is to be in solidarity with trans women. This is counter-cultural, but also fits the Quaker commitment to peace and reconciliation. It’s not “women’s rights campaigners” v “trans activists”, but anti-trans campaigners v feminists. See this response by a “biological woman” to being called “anti-woman”.
BSS’s response to Survivors Network including trans women was to threaten to sue. I am appalled. They have raised £106,000. Imagine what a Rape Crisis could do with £106,000. But BSS have raised the money not to support rape survivors, but to attack those who do. They demand and confront. This is completely alien to the Quaker values of peace and reconciliation.
There is a temptation, to which churches are not immune, to go along with the wider culture. That culture talks of dignity and respect for trans people, then works to humiliate us. Here’s just one example. Jesus says, “In the world you face persecution”, and we can just go along with the World, and avoid that. But in the same verse (John 16:33) Jesus says “in me you may have peace… I have overcome the world.” That peace is what we seek in the gathered meeting.
Back to the NYT explanations of what it is like to be trans. Masha Gessen is a refugee from Russia, who understands authoritarian systems, and trans. It is very rare that an hour and a half podcast is worth that time, but Ezra Klein interviewing Sarah McBride on the politics of trans was worth mine. At 1.00.00, she is talking about health care for trans children, and starts to talk about what it is like to be trans, and the difficulties of explaining that. She speaks from the heart. I find her openness and dignity beautiful. Empathy is easy for me: she is talking of my experience. Please try to empathise through all the difference you may experience. And, understanding trans would be incomplete without understanding Trans Joy, the joy we feel when we can simply be ourselves. This joy in authenticity is my ministry to Quakers and to the world.
A vulnerable cis woman may see me as a man, and be frightened of me. That matters. But as we work towards a solution, I have to be involved, and my needs have to be taken into account. The solution cannot be just to exclude me. We could look to feminist organisations, such as Survivors Network and Brighton Women’s Centre, who have found a way to integrate trans people.
Yes, Quakers have a strong tradition of reconciliation, but we should reconcile amongst ourselves before seeking to reconcile others- take the plank from our own eye. Reconciling nontheist and Christocentric Friends has been a huge amount of work, which is still going on. There are Quakers who are passionately against trans inclusion, and reconciling them with trans Friends is a delicate, difficult matter. Bringing in a groups which has a started a fight with feminist activists will not help. Individual Brighton Quakers seeking to allow Brighton Sisters Salon to use our meeting house, despite my opposition, are in effect if not in intent supporting the trans-exclusionary side, rather than promoting reconciliation. I have spoken to three trans members of our Society, who have expressed grave concern for my welfare as a trans woman continuing to worship at Brighton meeting.
The European Court of Human Rights has just supported the trans right to a sexual identity, again, in TH v Czechia. After that, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, said something worrying: She wants to reform the European Convention on Human Rights, because “legal systems [can] drift away from public consent”. At the moment, public consent for trans inclusion is slipping, because of a relentless onslaught in the right-wing press, and the vast amount of money available for anti-trans legal action. The culture is getting more and more against trans rights. Let Quakers be with feminists and with human rights, while being open to all who share our values.
Clare Flourish 