Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Police confirm there was no trans violence at Pride London

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Thank you, Tony Grew and Pink News, for setting the record straight about the peacefulness of the demonstration.

    It is a pity that Roz Kaveney was not quoted in this article though. As Roz was the woman initially denied access (unlawfully) to the ladies loos, she has been in negotiations with the Police and Pride directly about putting measures in place to make sure this does not happen again. Negotiations are amicable and cooperative.

    Unfortunately, we have learned that there were assaults on trans people, including one of a sexual nature on a trans woman who was made to use the men’s toilets. I believe that the police are still investigating that incident.

  2. Natacha Kennedy 17 Sep 2008, 1:12pm

    This is a much more accurate description of what happened, there was no violence at all, just a lack of training on the part of the company which provided the staff on duty. This company, and I believe it was Capita, needs to improve its diversity training, and Pink News needs to check its facts more accurately before publishing articles containing uncorroborated reports.

  3. Abi Chrisopher 17 Sep 2008, 3:17pm

    Maybe pink news should look at the incidents that happened to the trans women at pride that’s a real story. Also pink news could find it in it’s corporate heart to say sorry as well and give trans people some positive news for once and not act like the daily mail when it comes to trans stories.

    But I guess that wont happen I am just dreaming.

  4. BentCopper 17 Sep 2008, 3:40pm

    Yet another email campaign to flood a comment board.

    This has been going on other (filled with postings from people who have heard second, third and fourth hand about what happenned) and has made this whole incident very hard to deal with postively.

    Talking and problem solving should be the way forward not electronic heckling.

  5. I would have loved a statement by Roz; but am very glad that the retraction was made. Thank you!

  6. Abi Chrisopher 18 Sep 2008, 12:41am

    The issues are about how statement where issued with misleading facts by pride and the met police and reported by news outlets including pink news. Is it not fair to expect a apology to be issued by all parties who have issued or reported these event.

    This is what pink news reported on July 11th

    “After a trans woman was denied access to the public female toilets, an argument broke out and a steward was barged and pushed up against a wall.”

    So come on London Pride and Pinknews do the decent thing and issue an apology and retraction to Roz.

    this was clearly wrong as the cctv shows.

    Should you not be asking the question Pinknews why the policeman clearly broke the law in asking to see Roz’s gender recognition certificate. And why the officer has not been charged with this offence.

    Gender Recognition Act 2004 says:

    Section 22 of the GRA 2004 creates an offence for an individual who has acquired ‘protected information’ (i.e. information relating to a person who has made an application under the Act) in their official capacity (including as a police officer or police staff) if they disclose this to any other person.

    The officer asked people to show their GRC’s with the intention of revealing the information to the toilet staff. So why have the met police not prosecuted it’s officer for a clear breach of the law?

  7. The police have withdrawn their statement in the interests of harmony, and moving on to positive solutions, rather than because the CCTV didnt (or rather in this case it did) show an offence being committed.

    It is important to note that the offence of assault is often misunderstood. Assualt is the threat of violence, battery is actual violence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_and_battery

  8. Abi, have you seen the CCTV footage, i would like to, unless you have i cannot see how you no there was nothing on it. I think the CCTV footage should not be made to the public. Then people would have closure on this, that is my feelings.

  9. Abi Chrisopher 18 Sep 2008, 2:53pm

    Until we have a explanation why this officer has not been charged under Section 22 of the GRA 2004 then we will not be silent.

    I ask the LGB this:

    If you had a ID card with your sexuality on it. And was refused entry to a toilet due to your sexuality. then asked by a police officer to reveal your sexuality even though it was against the law to ask and disclose that information. Would you stand for it?

    Did not the community including the trans community not rise up at stonewall for such issues?

    You may all have your elution of equal rights now. So you think you will all sell out and join the main stream. And leave those who stood with you out in the cold with little or no rights. As your leaders polish their OBE’s and MBE’s and wait for the knighthood’s in the post and a spot on question time!

    @ BentCopper what about the numerous offences of your fellow officer under Section 22 of the GRA 2004. Not another Met cover up even though the offences again was on the CCTV. Charge him or explain why the Met chooses not to follow the law. The law must be administered equally to all and not just those the Met thinks it can bully.

  10. I believe you are stirring trouble abi. The police officer made a genuine mistake, instead of stirring more trouble perhaps you need to ask for the CCTV footage. You have not seen this footage. And you were not at the public forum. I believe it was explained that the officer will not be charged. And i believe he should not be.

    GRA is a civil law act and it is very possible that the officer who is taught in criminal law was confused.

  11. Jim Sherry 18 Sep 2008, 6:54pm

    I get asked to be a vampire, werewolf, brian blessed for president every day on facebook, etc… I ignore them all; except for ones like this which I care about. The reason this board is ‘flooded’ is strength of opinion.

    I would hate for someone to ask me to present a card all about my sexuality and hence it is ridiculous to expect that of trans people. In fact, it’s ridiculous that they should have one at all – whose business is it other than that of the individual??

    I can’t comment on the CCTV footage, but if you know something bentcopper then I suggest you say it and prove it, otherwise your motives may be in question…

    An apology would have been nice, I agree.

    Yes, I’d be interested in reportage on the other assaults…

  12. @ Bentcopper, you are making insinuations which are untrue and unfounded. I know because I was there. Furthermore, Commander Allen’s letter of apology to the trans community clearly confirms our peacefulness. Your comments imply that you are unwilling to accept the truth.

    An email campaign was conducted because an injustice was committed which needed to be redressed – namely the unfair scapegoating of trans people – and because the facts needed to be known and were not being published. Perhaps this peaceful and successful tactic is one which other LGBT groups could use when promoting LGBT rights?

  13. I think the Pink News should have contacted the Metropolitan Police and published the correct statement in full. (Apparently the Directorate of Public Affairs holds the final copy, which i have been reliably informed has been amended since the draft received by some of you… including the bit re the assault)

    I also agree strongly that the CCTV footage should be made public as it would set the record straight once and for all. There clearly was an altercation between a trans women and a pride steward!

    As for Abi Chrisopher’s comments re prosecuting the LGBT Liaison Officer involved… well I seriously think you need to get you facts correct before you make comments like that. There are many inconstancies in the allegations made and the final established facts. One of those was that the officer refused to provide any details of whom he was on the day… this again was proved to be factually incorrect. It has been proven that the officer in question provided his full contacts details including his name & station details and even offered to be a witness for Roz. (Information as confirmed by a member of the met police) Someone somewhere has ‘spun’ this totally out of control and it is incredibly unfair on all parties involved!
    To my knowledge a GRC was never formally requested, just questions asked surrounding if Roz had one, which if was the case is totally acceptable in my opinion and know doubt many others opinions.

    The main point I am trying to raise here is that if you were there on the day then state FACT as you saw it… If you were not there then you have a LOT to learn if you truly only ever believe one side of the story!

  14. Here it is – the full and final letter from Commander Steve Allen…

    Steve Allen
    Commander,
    City of Westminster

    8th August 2008

    On Tuesday evening, 29th July, I together with other MPS colleagues, met with a number of people from the transgender communities in an open meeting in Westminster. This meeting came about as a consequence of events during Pride celebrations on 5 July.

    The meeting generated a lively and helpful discussion about a range of issues covering the relevant incidents and wider issues of trust and confidence between the police and trans people. There were a number of areas talked about where I believe the MPS can now make further progress as a result.

    The point was made, a number of times during the evening, about the need for us all to listen to and learn from each other.

    Part of the learning has been about the impact on the trans communities of early responses from the MPS. In particular, it is clear that my “open letter” had a very different impact from the one I intended. My intention was to provide reassurance that a senior officer had taken ownership and was determined to learn the organisational lessons that would undoubtedly emerge.

    I offer my personal and sincerest apology that my letter did not have the effect I had intended and upon closer reflection I can see why this caused deep upset to some of the trans communities. It was never my intention to suggest that my officer’s actions would not be investigated or that there would be no need to offer advice and improved training to him and his colleagues.

    It is clear that members of the trans communities and the officer found themselves involved in a set of circumstances for which the trans communities were not responsible. They were clearly the victims. It has been claimed that the demonstrators assaulted stewards – examination of CCTV evidence demonstrates that these claims are mistaken. Despite the best endeavours and intentions of the officer, these obviously came across in a way, which caused misinterpretation, confusion and hurt.

    I hope that the response of the MPS speaks more loudly than my initial choice of words. We have taken ownership of the issues at a very senior level; we have circulated advice about the GRA to our officers; we have resolved the complaint against the police officer to the satisfaction of the party involved and continue to investigate with full vigour a number of criminal offences connected with these events. We have also, of course, held an open meeting to maintain dialogue with the community.

    I have asked the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate to hold a de-brief of these events with MPS practitioners to ensure we get the maximum learning from them. I know that a significant issue to be taken forward is the raising of awareness and training of our staff and the Diversity & Citizen Focus Directorate are now looking at options that further expand our developing partnerships with our transgender support associations who can assist us with our continued learning of this complex arena of diversity.

    We have to start from where we are, not where we would like to be. Mistakes have been made and I and certainly my colleagues within the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate are aware of the disappointment and anxieties the trans communities have felt over this highly regrettable incident. We have for some years striven to understand the many issues, which beset the trans communities and in so many ways we have succeeded in listening and responding.

    Obviously the MPS has let you down on this occasion for which we have to double our efforts to repair and restore the much needed trust and confidence which can enable us to progress these issues in order to deliver very real and meaningful change.

    Regards

    Steve Allen
    Commander

  15. Again, please refer to the met press office (DPA) for the final statement.

  16. This IS the final statement, as sent to the trans community groups and individuals involved. I received a copy myself with the Met Police header at the top.

    I don’t know what spurious version you are referring to, Toni, but you are very much mistaken.

  17. To corroborate the authenticity of the statement above, see that it is identical to the version posted up by Roz Kaveney on her Facebook Group, ‘Stop Transphobia at Pride’…
    http://www.new.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=17295239153
    Roz has posted each important document as it has been received by her in the ‘recent ‘news’ section of the Facebook Group.
    You will see that statement above and the version Roz herself received are identical.

  18. Kate Bygrave 21 Sep 2008, 12:21pm

    Overall I am happy with this new article. I think it is good that Pink News has listened to our comments; it has restored my faith.
    As for the blog campaign; this is a way to get our voice heard and action done, Discussion is good, so let’s not supress opinions.
    I hope that lessons have been learnt all round and that future events will be conducted and ‘policed’ properly.

  19. Kate Bygrave 21 Sep 2008, 12:24pm

    Overall I am happy with this new article. I think it is good that Pink News has listened to our comments; it has restored my faith.
    As for the blog campaign; this is a way to get our voice heard and action done, Discussion is good, so let’s not supress opinions.
    I hope that lessons have been learnt all round and that future events will be conducted and %

  20. I have it on very good authority that the statement has since been amended due to mistakes being made and the orginal being amended by a third party. The Met hold a copy for media enquiries, such as those from Pink News, who clearly never contacted them to verify the story. I myself will be requesting a copy this week.

  21. Toni,
    I see now what your mistake is. You are talking about the FIRST statement by the Met Police (and Pride).

    At the public forum meeting at the start of August, it was explained that the original (first) statement went out before it had been corrected or edited. A member from the press office spoke at the forum and said that they had been too slow in commenting on the draft – so the statement had been sent out with misleading suggestions of pushing and bad language by the trans protesters. Commander Allen has himself reviewed the evidence and has found that the trans protesters were in fact peaceful – and his second statement confirms this. As to the unfortunate language – that actually refers to one of the security staff calling the trans protesters ‘a bunch of trannies’. The security guard apologised for this at the time, witnessed by the police liaison officer.

    I don’t know why you think that the second statement is wrong – who are you and what is your vested interest in all of this, Toni?

  22. N.B. We are getting distracted now from the most unfortunate event of that day. As a result of being denied access to the ladies’ loos by the security staff, a trans woman was sexually assaulted in the men’s toilets. This is one of the two ‘criminal offenses’ which Commander Allen’s team is investigating.

    Now that the facts have been ascertained about the peaceful demonstration by the trans protesters, we should focus on what is being done to bring the attacker to justice and to help the poor trans woman who was unnecessarily assaulted as a consequence of this misguided policy.

  23. The final statement as held on file by the Met.
    8th August 2008

    On Tuesday evening, 29th July, I together with other MPS colleagues, met with a number of people from the transgender communities in an open meeting in Westminster. This meeting came about as a consequence of events during Pride celebrations on 5 July.

    The meeting generated a lively and helpful discussion about a range of issues covering the relevant incidents and wider issues of trust and confidence between the police and trans people. There were a number of areas talked about where I believe the MPS can now make further progress as a result.

    The point was made, a number of times during the evening, about the need for us all to listen to and learn from each other.

    Part of the learning has been about the impact on the trans communities of early responses from the MPS. In particular, it is clear that my “open letter” had a very different impact from the one I intended. My intention was to provide reassurance that a senior officer had taken ownership and was determined to learn the organisational lessons that would undoubtedly emerge.

    I offer my personal and sincerest apology that my letter did not have the effect I had intended and upon closer reflection I can see why this caused deep upset to some of the trans communities. It was never my intention to suggest that my officer’s actions would not be investigated or that there would be no need to offer advice and improved training to him and his colleagues.

    It is clear that members of the trans communities and the officer found themselves involved in a set of circumstances for which the trans communities were not responsible. They were clearly the victims. Despite the best endeavours and intentions of the officer, these actions became misinterpreted in the heat of the moment resulting in confusion and hurt.

    I hope that the response of the MPS speaks more loudly than my initial choice of words. We have taken ownership of the issues at a very senior level; we have circulated advice about the GRA to our officers; we have resolved the complaint against the police officer to the satisfaction of the party involved and continue to investigate with full vigour a number of criminal offences connected with these events. We have also, of course, held an open meeting to maintain dialogue with the community.

    I have asked the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate to hold a de-brief of these events with MPS practitioners to ensure we get the maximum learning from them. I know that a significant issue to be taken forward is the raising of awareness and training of our staff and the Diversity & Citizen Focus Directorate are now looking at options that further expand our developing partnerships with our transgender support associations who can assist us with our continued learning of this complex arena of diversity.

    We have to start from where we are, not where we would like to be. Mistakes have been made and I and certainly my colleagues within the Diversity and Citizen Focus Directorate are aware of the disappointment and anxieties the trans communities have felt over this highly regrettable incident. We have for some years striven to understand the many issues, which beset the trans communities and in so many ways we have succeeded in listening and responding.

    Obviously the MPS has let you down on this occasion for which we have to double our efforts to repair and restore the much needed trust and confidence which can enable us to progress these issues in order to deliver very real and meaningful change.

    Regards

    Steve Allen
    Commander

  24. It’s a shame that the people directly involved in this did not believe the pride stewards and the police officer involved at the time then isn’t it. I was there and witnessed the whole event…

    I agree it was wrong to deny Roz access to the female toilets, especially at Pride of all days! However it seems a bit strange how on the day none of the people involved who are causing all this fuss seemed interested in the poor Trans women who was the victim of a sexual assault! In fact it was stated that, that was most probably a made up excuse…!!! Now however the people causing all this fuss are changing there story and saying it’s all about the woman who was assaulted. Quote Christina “We are getting distracted now from the most unfortunate event of that day a Trans woman was sexually assaulted in the men’s toilets.”

    Shame how on the day none of the people involved believed this story and now it becomes part of your ‘agenda’!

  25. Actually, Debs, the sexual assault on a trans woman in the men’s toilets happened AFTER the demonstration and AFTER the stewards said they would allow trans women to use the ladies toilets. However, after the demonstrators had left, his trans woman (who was the carer for a disabled woman) was STILL told to use the men’s loos … where she was sexually assaulted.

    This was the SECOND assault on a trans person in the same block of toilets… and the demonstrators would be very interested to know exactly what happened if only someone would come forward and tell us.

    Your ‘spinning’ of this event is shameful, Debs.

  26. Just to clarify, we know about the second assault but not the first. Please enlighten us.

  27. Roz Kaveney 29 Sep 2008, 9:34pm

    I can confirm what Christina says. We have consistently asked to be told about the woman who was the victim of the first assault. Unfortunately, no clear information about that earlier incident has been forthcoming, from any source. We cannot campaign without such information, much as we would wish to take up her case.

    We only found out about the second assault a week after Pride, and have campaigned about it ever since. Again, we could only campaign about it once we had information.

    If Debs has more information than us about the original assault, we would be grateful to receive it.

  28. Debs, you are so right. I think we’ve now seen what this is all about.

    A lesson for us all to consider the implications of “direct action” in the future so it doesnt set us back years like your actions did here Christina!

  29. So now we know that Pink News was fed a “non-official” version of the Met’s statement will they be printing a further correction and admitting they were duped?

  30. Christina – the assault did happen before the demonstration and I know this was explained fully to the people involved on the day, regardless of what you or any others say. Once again I stress that it is my personal opinion that regardless of any previous incidents that may have happened that day, I still think it was the wrong decision to implement the policy surrounding the use of the toilets.

    DiDi – Thank you for your kind words and I wholly agree with what you are saying. The fundamental cause here should have been limited to the decision by certain Pride officials to direct ‘assumed’ genders into designated bathrooms. I fully understand and appreciate the upset this has caused. This was wrong and many people have apologised for this including the director of Pride himself. The offer from the police officer to be a witness to this speak volumes for his personal integrity and I am satisfied he did his best on the day in question.

    Sandra – From the information I have received, the error re the statement was actually down to the police. I have been informed that the statement was sent out to certain members of the trans community asking for footnotes to be returned re the contents. The statement was amended by a third party and this was not checked by the police. The statement was released and the mistake was only realised when questions were rightly raised re it’s contents. In relation to this thread the fault here lies with the Pink News for not checking out the story – but information I have since received gives some prudence to their flawed decision. (I am not a liberty to discuss this)

    All I am concerned about here is the truth. No politics, no agendas… Facts and truths have been twisted and this incident needs to now come to a conclusion. Apologies have been made and promises made not to make the same mistakes again. Only time will tell if these promises can be fulfilled… but lets give those individuals the chance to correct the mistakes that have been made. Isn’t that what progression is all about?

    The final comment I would like to make is in relation to Christina’s comment;

    ‘Your ‘spinning’ of this event is shameful, Debs’

    Reply: Oh please…. let’s be honest now!

  31. Oh and for those of you that have emailed me re my post on the Facebook group, asking me to post it one here – well here it is… x

    Deborah Luze wrote
    at 1:20am on September 27th, 2008
    There is 1159 members of this group who need to know the truth!
    Review the pink press article again and read the comments…
    I agree to deny Roz access to the female’s toilets was wrong but what I disagree with is the lies that have been told!

    This is not about political gain this is about equal rights for each and every one of us! All the majority of us want is to be treated the same as everyone else in society, however some individuals seem to feel that by twisting the truth they can gain extra sympathy/reaction, which is the long term does none of us any good…

    To gain equal rights we must accept each other! Challenge is due when we are discriminated against… but to exaggerate that discrimination is despicable and it does more harm than good to the whole LGB’T’ community.

    I know people that attended the public police meeting who were scared to speak up for fear of being ridiculed by people in their own community.. That is wrong and speaks volumes about the individuals involved.

  32. Thanks Debs that has cleared things up no end. So I ask again – will Pink News admit and correct its mistake? After all this story was sold as a correction of a previous story and now turns out to be incorrect.

    I couldnt agree more that what happen to Roz was awful. The lies that have been told since are an insult to her!

  33. Again i think the CCTV footage needs to be seen. Then the truth will be seen, what is there not to be seen.

  34. It has gone quiet. Maybe people would not like the CCTV to be seen. We need it to be seen. People tell me that what is seen is different to what was said. Let us see the truth, and then if it different we can ask why.

  35. the obfuscation and tendentiousness in Debbs and Bentcopper’s responses will be obvious to so many reading these comments.

    I’m sorry but you cannot just shout longer and harder and throw more mud and expect to win this kind of argument.

    Certain facts are known and are NOT for ‘renegotiation’.

    1. A transwoman was attacked in the ladies in Trafalgar Squ.
    2. Instead of policing the toilets to prevent a further occurrance, the security firm elected to separate the transwomen by forcing them to use the disabled cubicle.
    3. Roz Kaveney was denied access and came to the Trans With Pride Stall to tell us.
    4. We went and protested the denial of her rights under the Goods and Services Provisions (Amendments April 2008) of the Sexual Discrimination Act 1975.*
    5. One of the security guards reported our action using the unfortunate phrase “bunch of trannies”
    5. No assault took place but a vigorous verbal exercise of the issues.
    6. An off-duty police officer came to try to resolve the situation and stated erroniously, and regrettably somewhat loudly and repetitively, that we had to produce a GRC to use the target gender facilities.**
    7. After much discussion, and some support from the largely L and G folk queueing to use the facilities (although none from Pride management who were notified early by the Chair of Trans@Pride of the situation)the security staff received a radio message and said ‘you can use whatever facility you like’. We thanked them and dispersed.
    8. The committee members and others who had protested left Pride to take our iconic statue of Shiva from the parade to a place of storage.
    9. (The security officers re-instate the ban. We did not know this at the time) The following Sunday I was informed at the Beaumont Society by a Transwoman I know that she had been assaulted in the MEN’S toilets. She was still in some distress about the incident. She and the woman she had been caring for on the day told me what had happened. She had reported it to Police on the day and MP had made strenuous attempts to catch the perpetrator, cordoning off part of Trafalgar Square and gathering evidence etc.
    10. In the following week the Met issued the misleading press release about the incident. We talk to GALOP about what really happened and the subsequent assault and they talked to the Met.
    10. The meeting with Commander Allen who genuinely seemed to be listening to our issues. Roz Kaveney and a Det Sgt both said they had watched the CCTV in its entirety and that no violence was perpetrated or threatened by the demonstrators. Chair of Trans@Pride statedas much to the meeting and it was not challenged by any of the many senior police officers there.
    11. The statement by Met Police retracting the allegations and apologising.

    Others speaking on this board and others calling for stern measures speak for themselves not those who were there, although I do understand their depth of feeling *blows big kiss to Abi*
    Michal Trans@Pride committee member 2008

    * If I have misquoted for date or wording please put me right.
    ** I listened to the LGBTLO officer until he stopped repeating GRC as proof of identity (its what I do for a living) and told him that that is not what the GRC is for, and he started up again, also saying we could all be arrested for public order offences. To be fair he was just one guy trying to fix a situation that was too much for him. All we wanted afterwards was for him to be trained in what the law now states in this matter and what a GRC is for.

  36. I quote “there seem to be a number of correspondents who are trying to muddy the waters on the Pink News comments section and here.”

    Michal, you are 100% right… there is a number of people trying to muddy the waters surrounding what really happened on that day and thank goodness some of the people who have an interest in this debate are now starting to see through some of the misrepresentations made by certain individuals…

    I quote again “the obfuscation and tendentiousness in Debbs and Bentcopper’s responses will be obvious to so many reading these comments (on Pink News). I’m sorry but you cannot just shout longer and harder and throw more mud and expect to win this kind of argument. Certain facts are known and are NOT for ‘renegotiation’”

    Again I agree 100%… you CAN NOT just be the ones who shout longer and harder and expect to win this kind or dispute. CERTAIN FACTS ARE NOT FOR RENOGOTIATION…. (And those facts are finally reaching this audience… it is now for them to decide)

    And finally I agree again with the fact that I am sure some people will find mine and Bentcopper’s responces too be obvious to some readers of this site.. (again as quoted by Michal) The refreshing thing is that we are challenging some peoples outright distortions of the truth surrounding that unfortunate event, and some readers are starting to see that there is always too sides to any one story…

    The most important point here is what happened that day was wrong, but distorting the truth to suit others is darn right irresponsible and does not one any good in the long run…

  37. MichalTGO the problem is some of those facts ARE disputed – but the police; by other transpeople; by observers.

    For example “Vigorous verbal” does in fact fall into the definition of Assualt (which is causing someone to believe they are in danger) but doesnt fall into the definition of Battery (a physical assualt).

  38. BentCopper 20 Nov 2008, 3:31pm

    I am sorry you feel my comments were unclear (although in conversation with someone using terms like obfuscation the bar seems high!). My pelase remains for positive dialogue and problem solving rather than endlessly repeating a version of events that there seems to be disagreements about.

    The uncontestable fact is that trans people are just people and deserve to be respected living their life as they choose; just like everyone else.

    There doesnt seem to be much gained from endlessly arguing over this situation….

  39. This argument is still going on.

  40. Debs,

    from what I heard from friends who were at the initial protest; the security guards initially claimed they were responding to a sexual assault on a cisgender woman by a trans woman by barring trans women from the women’s toilets. There was no such sexual assault, it was just used as justification for bigotry. There was however a later assault on a trans woman in the men’s toilets after the protest died down and the security guards reinstated the ban on trans women in the women’s toilets.

    That is the version that reached me on the day of pride (shortly before I myself was transphobically assaulted by an elbow to the head on the train home) and nobody has since seen fit to tell me otherwise.

    Artemis.

  41. @Artemis – it’s time to drop it I think, we’ve made our point.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all