SITE SEARCH

A Women’s Rights Network Investigation, 2025 By Faye McGinty Like an out-of-control bulldozer, the default implementation of a mixed-sex, village-style changing area in swimming pools and leisure centres is laying a trail of destruction through the lives of women and girls. Sport England, councils, architects and leisure centre operators are all sending a wrecking ball into spaces where women and girls are vulnerable – yet none will take responsibility for the disastrous outcome of ‘designing-in’ harm that is enabling spiralling levels of sex crimes. In our 2024 Leisure Centre Freedom of Information investigation, we reported that around 30% of local authorities provide no single-sex changing or showering facilities for pool users. A new WRN Freedom of Information investigation has provided data on sexual violence in leisure centres. Our figures reveal that in one year (2023) there were  16  rapes,  80  sexual assaults and  65  acts of voyeurism across 257 leisure centres in England and Wales. There is no doubt that mixed-sex changing areas attract predatory males; this is not a new phenomenon. But the situation in changing villages is compounded by the large gaps beneath and above cubicle partition walls and mixed-sex shower areas that are enclosed on three sides thereby hiding those inside from the view of patrolling lifeguards and on-duty staff. Village-style changing areas, inadequacies in cubicle design and the ubiquity of mobile phones have led to wholesale, widespread voyeurism in leisure centre swimming pools. In one particularly horrific case, two men were jailed for voyeurism after being caught with over 6,000 images of women and girls filmed in mixed-sex changing rooms. During our research, we came across numerous court reports where the perpetrators of sex crimes were multiple offenders, often returning to leisure centre facilities to prey on different women and girls. In their 2025 safeguarding document ‘Wavepower’, Swim England say that mobile phone voyeurism disproportionately affects girls; in their words, it is not a ‘gender neutral practice’. Earlier in 2025, a whistleblower told us that Swim England called an emergency meeting of its safeguarding officers after a spike in reports of voyeurism at public leisure centres used for swimming competitions - 7 young female victims were reported in January 2025 alone. While those responsible for the safeguarding of young women and girls at swimming pools are trying to improve behaviour in changing rooms, the critical factor remains the most obvious fixable problem – changing room design. In the Foreword to our new report, Sharron Davies comments that, “We have an epidemic of male violence against women and girls in this country. Every local authority leisure provider should read this report and take action to protect all female swimmers. This is too important to ignore.” The WRN Red Flag campaign, which is highlighting the catastrophic failure of the leisure industry to protect women and girls, has a core message: The safest changing room is a single-sex changing room. WRN demands that: Sport England must immediately withdraw all guidance promoting mixed-sex wet-side facilities as the default option for new and refurbished leisure centres. New facilities must provide single-sex changing facilities for swimming pool users. Councils must conduct a risk assessment on safety for women and girls before rubber-stamping plans for changing areas in new or refurbished leisure centres. Crime Prevention officers are consulted on all design plans and their expertise is used to help ‘design out crime’. Existing changing villages must be assessed for the risk of sex crimes and robust mitigation measures must be applied together with consideration of cost-effective solutions ensuring a female-only space. Sport England, local councils, leisure centre operators and architects are accountable. They must  act now  to ensure the safety of women and girls in UK leisure centres.

We don't need to suppress the puberty of more children to prove that it's a very bad idea. Claire Loneragan Dec 16, 2025 If you have written to your MP recently objecting to the proposed puberty blockers trial you may well have had a response similar to the one I received. The gist of it is that whilst he “ absolutely agree[s] that the safety and wellbeing of children must always come first ” and that “ care for children experiencing gender distress must be rooted in evidence and must prioritise safeguarding, talking therapies, and support for both the child and their family ”, this trial is needed “ to establish evidence where it is currently lacking and to ensure that exceptional cases, where clinicians believe puberty blockers may be appropriate, can be assessed under strict, transparent, and independently monitored conditions. A moratorium without scientific assessment would leave clinicians, families, and young people in even more uncertainty .” (As if the future health and well-being of more than 200 children is a price worth paying in order to eliminate uncertainty.) I don’t suppose I will convince him, but since Hannah Barnes made such a compelling case against the trial in her recent article for The New Statesman I thought it was worth sharing eight of the reasons she gave. My MP is unlikely to read Hannah’s excellent article, but he is supposed to read letters from constituents. Maybe a few seeds of doubt will be sown. 1. There is no control group All participants will be given puberty blockers - there is no group who are to be given a placebo - because it would be obvious which group that was. Therefore, the trial will, at best, be able to report on the difference in giving puberty blockers immediately versus waiting for one year. However, all the children in the group given puberty blockers immediately will be predisposed to be happier in the short term (because they are getting what they want which is puberty blockers now) compared to those who wait. Because outcomes will be judged by how happy the children are, this is a trial which will almost certainly report that giving children what they want immediately makes them happy. In the short term. 2. The time frame is far too short The timeframe for reviewing results is just two years, but it is impossible to understand whether choices that impact a person for their whole lifetime were the right ones in such a short timeframe and when they are still a child. And ALL the participants will still be children after two years since they will all be under 16 years old when the trial commences. For a child who is 10 when the trial commences (as is proposed) he or she won’t even be a teenager when the follow up period ends. 3. Puberty blockers are not a standalone intervention Systematic evidence reviews have shown that in the UK, 98% of children who were given puberty blockers progressed to cross sex hormones. This points to puberty blockers locking a child into their transgender ideation rather than giving them “time to think”. Despite this, they are being tested as if a standalone treatment, and the trial is characterised as a trial of puberty blockers only although the evidence suggests that approximately 220 of the 226 children involved will go on to cross sex hormones. (There is no suggestion that these children will be denied cross sex hormones when they reach 18 years of age - indeed it’s hard to see how that could be ethically justified in the context of having already halted their puberty). 4. Girls are likely to be disproportionately affected for no good reason Three further reasons for puberty suppression are considered: reducing or preventing worsening of distress; improving mental health; stopping potentially irreversible pubertal changes which might later make it difficult for the young person to “pass” in their intended gender role. There is no evidence for the first or second claims. The third claim is proven for boys. But because testosterone is such a powerful drug, it successfully masculinises women who have been through natural puberty, so we know that girls do not need their puberty suppressed to “pass”. Indeed, they may pass more successfully if they do not have their puberty blocked since they are likely to be taller. We also know there are significantly more teenaged girls identifying as “transgender” than boys, so it is likely that the trial children will comprise more girls than boys despite the potential benefits for them being practically non-existent. 5. There is no clear statement of the potential benefits of puberty blockers We should not be giving children irreversible medical interventions without being able to say why. The Labour government summarised Cass’s final review as concluding that “the rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear”. What other area of medical research would permit a clinical trial on children without being able to explain what benefit they might derive? 6. There are no objective criteria to identify which children are likely to benefit The children selected for the trial must have a diagnosis of “gender incongruence”. This is defined by the WHO’s diagnostic manual as “ a marked and persistent [at least two years] incongruence between an individual’s experienced gender and the assigned sex, which often leads to a desire to ‘transition’, in order to live and be accepted as a person of the experienced gender ”. A definition that only makes sense if sex is “assigned” (it isn’t) and “experienced gender” is an objective reality that can be somehow measured. But it is such a contested idea that there is little agreement on what is even meant by “experienced gender”. Clinicians must also believe that there is “a reasonable prospect of benefit” for each child, but there is nothing on which to base this belief. There was a small trial between June 2011 and April 2015 that included a group of 44 “highly selected” children. In other words, children who would be most likely to benefit because they had longstanding distress around their sex. That trial showed the drugs provided no clinical benefit: “no changes in psychological function, quality of life or degree of gender dysphoria.” A later re-analysis of the study data showed outcomes for individual children varied widely: Approx one third saw their mental health deteriorate significantly , Approx one third saw no change Approx one third saw significant improvement. Long term outcomes are not available, but in two thirds of cases the children were not helped. No criteria were established that would help clinicians to determine which cohort any child would fall into. 7. Puberty blockers lead to infertility, anorgasmia, and other health issues Although we don’t know which children could fall into that third group of improved mental health, we do know that the intervention of puberty suppression if given early enough combined with progression to cross sex hormones (and almost all do) will result in irreparable damage. The sperm and eggs of children whose puberty is blocked effectively will not have the opportunity to mature leaving them infertile as adults. They will never experience orgasm and there are known risks to bone density, memory and cognitive ability. 8. We already have data from approximately 2,000 children Around 9,000 children passed through the GIDS clinic at the Tavistock. Of those, it is estimated that around 2,000 were given puberty blockers - the exact number is unknown, which is a cause for concern in its own right. The Cass Review   requested the outcomes data for both those who been referred for medical treatments and those who had not, many of whom had been later referred to adult gender services as they turned 17 or 18 years old. The NHS adult gender services refused to cooperate with data sharing​ –​​ t​​​hey blocked the study. Until that extant data is analysed, it is unconscionable that we would run an experiment on healthy children with no clear understanding of benefits, but with known serious risks. In the interests of maintaining the highest standards of safeguarding, transparency, and evidence-based care, any MP supporting the trial should be comfortable that these points have been satisfactorily addressed. And if not, they must surely demand that the trial is paused until answers are found. Children and young people deserve nothing less. Do feel free to copy any or all of the above if you would like to share it with your MP.

We're in more trouble than we realise. Buy this book, read it, and share it. By Claire Loneragan I didn’t have taking an interest in pornography on my bucket list of retirement activities, and yet, here I am. For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not a content creator or a user. Instead, I belong to that group of women commonly derided as prudes, pearl clutchers and killjoys. But as Jo Bartosch and Rob Jessel explain in their new book Pornocracy , the real killjoy is pornography itself which has the capacity and tendency to immiserate everyone pulled into its orbit. Reading the book was both surprising and depressingly exactly as expected – nobody emerges from the porn industry in better shape than they went in, except perhaps the platform providers and promoters who are likely to be making substantial sums of money. If they’re smart, they won’t be using the content that’s making them rich. Last week I had the great pleasure of meeting Jo and Rob in Taunton at an event to promote Pornocracy , hosted by Women’s Rights Network Somerset and Dorset. Actually, that’s not quite true; I met them at the very enjoyable pre-event meal, and despite the difficult subject matter it was a very successful evening. No prizes for guessing the group of individuals who thought the event shouldn’t go ahead, though. The #BeKind brigade emailed the venue to “warn” them that the authors “are amongst the most radicalised extremists of the anti-LGBTQ hate movement” along with a slew of other nonsense too tedious to repeat. How revealing that those claiming to care so earnestly about the marginalised and oppressed ™️ prefer to suppress any discussion of how pornography preys on some of the most vulnerable people in society. Or perhaps trans identified men are just more concerned than most about any challenge to their supply of pornographic material? I’m very happy to report that the venue manager was having none of it. He’s clearly a man who recognises baseless accusations and harassment when he sees them – and thank goodness for that. The demands to cancel were firmly rejected, and the evening went ahead with no trouble. The venue staff seemed as interested as the rest of us in what Jo and Rob had to say, too, with Charlotte from our local WRN group expertly guiding the conversation. If I had to sum up the message they delivered in two words, those words would be deeply troubling . It won’t be a surprise to learn that pornography content creators are frequently trafficked and abused, and may find themselves in an environment of escalating violence and degradation. But readers might be surprised to learn that pornography users are victims too. Research shows that pornography rewires the brain’s neurological pathways, redirecting the chemical stimuli that relate to desire, love and human bonding, and relationships away from healthy loving relationships and onto the computer screen. Use of pornography results not just in moral corruption but corruption of the human relationships that make life worth living. It’s so, so grim. And it’s likely that the younger the process starts, the worse the outcomes. Sexual dysfunction often follows, along with an escalating desire for more extreme material and a spiralling retreat from real life into the online world. Don’t be fooled into thinking this is an adult problem, either. Children are seeing pornography at a younger age than ever before, and the prevalence of smart phones, means that your child or grandchild is only as protected as the weakest link in their friendship chain. Worse still, there’s plenty of content that is clearly aimed at children with algorithms driving it to their screens. The question is not if your child sees extreme pornography, it’s when. The RSE and PHSE material used by schools doesn’t help much. Produced by unregulated third parties, it’s too often a Trojan horse for normalising and destigmatising the use of pornography and unsafe sexual relationships via claims that children need to know about such things as how to “safely choke” a partner and what it means to consent to anal sex. Both being activities that can lead to catastrophic outcomes for girls and young women. There’s too much money, too many vested interests, and the industry is already too closely linked to illegal activities such as trafficking and prostitution, drugs and money laundering, for legislation alone to fix this. We need to find another way to pull us back from the world that Pornocracy describes, which is not a dystopian future so much as a dystopian here and now. Challenging events such as Drag Queen Story Hour that are marketed to children and families is essential, as is demanding to see curriculum material taught in schools. RSE and PHSE should be no more hidden by copyright clauses than maths and geography. But most of all, we need tell better stories about what a good and fulfilling life looks like. Strong family ties, the love that parents have for our children and hope for a shared future all sound so much better than the solitary and porn addled moaning of a lost soul in his bedroom.

By Cathy Larkman Dear Eluned Morgan, First Minister of Wales. I’d like to ask you a very direct and personal question: “What have you got to lose anymore”? And I’d like to follow that up with a plea to you: “ Just do it. Implement the Supreme Court judgment now . No more kicking the can down the road. Stand up to the activists and the lobbyists around you. Make this your legacy  for the women and girls of Wales. Before it’s too late for you”.   OK. Your Welsh Labour colleagues in the Senedd will likely be very upset. After all, they’ve been pledging allegiance to Stonewall and trans groups for years, announcing that ‘transwomen are women’ and freezing out women who don’t agree with them.  But at least half of those colleagues are standing down at the Senedd elections in 2026 anyway, including your predecessor, Mark Drakeford. And your party are going to lose many seats in Wales in 2026. Welsh Labour are facing bleak electoral times and the recent Caerphilly by-election should have brought that into painful sharp focus. Labour dominance is over in Wales. What have you got to lose anymore?   OK. You could lose your role as First Minister. Let’s be honest though – you are going to lose this role anyway . All polling right now points to the expanded Senedd in the May 2026 elections being dominated by Reform and Plaid Cymru. Even if Labour join with Plaid Cymru (as many anticipate) to form a majority, you will not be First Minister after May 2026. Let’s be brutally frank too, you may even lose your seat. The time between now and then is borrowed time. Borrowed time in which you can still make your mark and do something. What have you got to lose anymore?   Use that time left to you.  Let your legacy be the First Minister who asserted the rights of women and girls in Wales, who swept away all the policies of self-ID from Government, who provided leadership to all the public authorities currently dillying and dallying ‘waiting for the EHRC’, and be the First Minister who said enough is enough, this is the law and we are doing it right now . That’s going to take a lot of courage and a lot of leadership.   Senedd Event speakers and organisers Unfortunately, those important characteristics aren’t on display right now. Earlier this month, WRN Wales along with Merched Cymru arranged an event sponsored by Natasha Asghar MS at the Senedd to educate members and your staff on the implications of the Supreme Court judgment. You had Susan Smith of For Women Scotland, the group that brought the Supreme Court action of April - and a women’s rights shero of our times, actually in the building to educate and inform you, along with brilliant equalities and discrimination barrister Naomi Cunningham.   What a privilege, what an opportunity! We received your apologies for not attending of course, but not a single one of your Labour MS colleagues or your staffers attended. Not even to pop in momentarily. That’s an incredible failure of leadership. Of course, not a single Plaid Cymru representative attended either – but they are arguably even more myopic and intransigent on this subject than your own colleagues . That’s yet another important reason YOU need to act NOW. While you have that unique chance.   If you or any of your colleagues had attended, you would have heard that you don’t need to wait for further guidance from the EHRC of course. Perhaps it’s just that you’d rather not hear this uncomfortable truth. That particular excuse, repeatedly trotted out by your Minister Jane Hutt, was declared absolutely null and void at this important event. It was repeated in an incredible public event held later that evening at the New Plaza in Port Talbot, in which we were also joined by Kate Harris, lesbian icon from the LGB Alliance, a group that formed part of the lesbian intervenors in the Supreme Court judgment, and the legendary Olympian and campaigner, Sharron Davies.   Of course, we also saw you all hurrying out of the Siambr  when Laura Anne Jones MS introduced a short debate on the Supreme Court judgment last week. You may well have had a reason, but what on earth do you think this all looks like to the women and girls of Wales? The answer of course is that it looks like none of you even care.   It’s time to put that right Eluned. Before it’s too late. Pull on your big girl pants and speak up for the women and girls of Wales. Ignore those who will call you ‘hateful’ for doing so. After all, the women of WRN Wales and other Welsh women’s groups have faced all this and worse every single day, and we are unbowed. Speak up for the terrified women in refuges needing space away from men; speak up for the traumatised women in rape crisis needing single sex support; speak up for the vulnerable elderly and disabled women needing same sex intimate care; speak up for the brave women and girls trying to achieve success and fairness in sport that is protected for females only; speak up for the frightened women in hospital wards with a man in the next bed to them; speak up for the fed-up women who cannot associate in lesbian groups now without men calling themselves lesbians and muscling in; speak up for the women and girls who want to undress in changing rooms away from intruding males. Speak up for women and girls Eluned. And implement the Supreme Court judgment in Wales. It’s already been 199 days after all. Do it now. Not later. Now. Take a deep breath and join us on this hill. Let this be your legacy.

Brits have consistently been against ID cards since they were phased out in the 1950s. But now we've got them anyway. By Claire Loneragan On 25th September it was announced that all British adults would be issued with digital ID, not as an optional tool to make our lives easier, but as a compulsory measure. It’s a response, apparently, to the very high levels of illegal immigration; the hope is that it will reduce the pull factor by making it harder to find work. But if working cash-in-hand without a National Insurance number is already so prevalent that it is a significant pull factor for illegal migration, lack of government issued digital ID is unlikely to make much of a difference. Whatever the motivation for this new – likely very expensive and certainly Draconian – measure, if we’re going to enforce it, the data quality had better be gold standard. But will it? When the issue of data quality was debated in Parliament, Sex Matters certainly had their doubts , and their lordships agreed. It will come as no surprise that the data causing most concern is sex. That particular data point has been deliberately corrupted by those who’ve bought into gender identity ideology to the extent that the 2021 census data on “gender identity” has been declared not fit for purpose . Many will likely already have forgotten that if not for Fair Play For Women and the funding by thousands of ordinary women, the question on sex would have gone the same way, and we’d be in the absurd position of not knowing how many men and women were resident in the UK on census day. Thank goodness for Nic Williams. But such is the calibre of our current crop of MPs that many seem entirely untroubled by such trivia. The implementation of digital ID will go ahead even if we can’t even be sure that even the holder’s sex is accurately recorded, because the Commons voted down the Lords’ amendment that: The Secretary of State must assess whether public authorities handle personal data accurately and reliably (clause 28(4)). Public authorities can only share data that is accurate, and they must know what it refers to (clause 45(6)). The Secretary of State may establish a “data dictionary” so that different items of data are not muddled up (clause 140). It’s not that MPs are unaware that the data may be flakey, or that they don’t understand the need for accuracy – they definitely do. And plenty have made the arguments against being required to identify who they are. But without robust data verification this Act allows some to “prove” that they are someone they are not. I wrote to my MP, Edward Morello (Lib Dem) back in early May with concerns and he didn’t beat about the bush: let me begin by saying that I absolutely agree with you that accurate data is essential for effective public policy—particularly in areas like healthcare, education, and safeguarding. We need to be able to gather and interpret information that reflects the needs of different groups across our society, including data on sex where it is relevant and necessary. But apparently the Lords were asking too much. Unfortunately, the amendment in question falls short of that goal. It calls on public authorities to “rectify inaccurate data” on sex, but fails to define what “inaccurate” means in this context, or how such determinations could be made in a way that is consistent with existing law. For instance, if someone has obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate and updated their legal sex on official documents, it is not at all clear how a public authority would—or could—access or verify that individual’s sex at birth without breaching their privacy or legal protections. I don’t know what to say to an MP who thinks it’s not possible to provide accurate data when that data point is accompanied by a definition. More than anything, it rather begs the question: what’s the point in holding a digital ID if we can’t trust the data that comprises it? His remark “ In short … I support the principle that data must be accurate and fit for purpose ” was probably meant to soothe, but it implies that in practice the data often will not be accurate, and Mr Morello is fine with that. Worse still, it’s probably not even his own work. I’ve had sight of other Lib Dem responses to women raising similar concerns and the phrasing is identical in parts, including calling the proposed amendment “knee-jerk” which struck me as a very odd phrase in the circumstances. So, we’ll be expected to trust digital ID that will, for some, include falsified data. And at least one “opposition” party, rather than explore solutions to such an obvious problem, is supporting the government all the way. What could possibly go wrong? Papers, citizen!

By Carolyn Brown - Retired Depute Principal Educational Psychologist     Kacey de Groot, a man who states that he identifies and lives as a woman is campaigning to be Deputy General Secretary of the National Education Union. This individual is already on the union’s executive. Postal ballots need to be received by 30 September. DeGroot has been endorsed in an open letter by numerous queer activists including Drag Race UK stars. The letter states ; “As LGBT+ people we know and understand the powerful impact places of education can have on LGBT+ young people,”   This is another example of activists of an unscrupulous ideology seeking to influence children and exploit their vulnerabilities. The fact is that all children, because of their stages of psychological development are suggestible and vulnerable to manipulation and grooming. Gender identity ideology is based on queer theory and has no basis in evidence.   Promoting the idea in education that individuals can change sex is psychologically harmful for all children as it creates anxiety and confusion for all children as it seeks to demand that children deny the evidence of their own eyes. It is especially harmful for those children who may be confused about their sexuality, going through puberty or have other issues such as trauma and autism. The idea of having a political activist pushing this ideology in schools is abhorrent and undermines public trust in our education system.   Instead of listening to best evidence and expert findings, politicians and public service leaders are at risk, like susceptible children, of being confused about what reality is, and what it is not. Telling children that it is possible to change sex and encouraging inclusion of gender identity ideology in schools is a particularly damaging intervention to have unleashed on our schools, children, and their families.   More can be read about the potential harms for children here .

by Cristiana E, NE Wales I urgently need an Extraction Team! Like the SNP in Scotland, Plaid Cymru is an important part of our political system and, even though they have never held a majority, their policies in the Senedd are influential. Depending on whichever polls you believe, they could end up the biggest party in Wales in the Senedd elections in 2026. However, like the SNP, they don’t have the rosiest record when it comes to representing, or listening to women, despite their boasts of ‘tolerance’. Plaid’s approach can be summed up by Fyodor Dostoevsky’s famous reflection: “Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be forbidden to think so as not to offend idiots”. Let me demonstrate. In December 2022 Nerys Evans, a former Senedd member for Plaid Cymru, was asked to chair a working group to examine the culture within the party. The Project Pawb Report made over 80 recommendations with many addressing sexual harassment. The working group found that most discrimination was sex based and concluded that Plaid, “needed [to] detoxify a culture of harassment bullying and misogyny and to make Plaid truly and visibly welcoming to women ” [emphasis added].   So much for ‘tolerance’. After this damning indictment of a toxic culture within the party , Rhun ap Iorwerth was elected Leader of Plaid Cymru, unopposed on 16 June 2023 . Celebrating his election, Mr ap Iorwerth said; "… I'm determined that we will be, and I will be uncompromising in making this a welcoming party where everyone  feels safe  and supported and empowered  to play their parts" [emphasis added] Did his speech signal new beginnings for Plaid Cymru, particularly for women? In a word, no. FiLiA, the largest annual grassroot feminist conference in Europe, booked a stand at Plaid Cymru’s annual conference in March 2024 . With less than 48 hours to go, FiLiA was told that they would not be welcome, and their stall booking was revoked. In their statement, Plaid said: “While there are many issues and campaigns on which I expect we would agree, it has come to my attention that some of FiLiA’s positions are potentially contrary to the party’s values – for instance on trans rights." Fast forward then to 31 July 2025, and an event organised by Plaid Cymru in Wrexham kick starting their campaign for the Senedd elections. I did not hesitate to join my fellow WRN-ers of all political persuasions who wanted to raise awareness about the party’s lackadaisical, and now unlawful stance on women’s rights (see their website for their ‘values’ on Trans Equality and Inclusion - The Party of Wales ), and engage in a constructive dialogue with its representatives. Rhun ap Iorwerth started his campaign in Wrexham with a bang and plenty of energy, posting on social media: “Looking forward to being in Wrexham next Thursday to hear your ideas for a fairer , more ambitious Wales – and how we can deliver that change together ” [emphasis added] And he marked the end of the day on the same high energy note, posting again: “What a way to kick off Plaid Cymru’s tour of Wales – diolch Wrecsam. Great day. Great people. Great conversations  about the future  of Wales. It’s time to give Wales the fresh start it needs with Plaid Cymru” [emphasis added].  Unfortunately, the carefully polished photographs accompanying his post do not tell the full story. I feel it is upon me to present the missing detail from Maesgwyn, Wrexham, where the Leader of Plaid Cymru met his followers and local residents to have those ‘ great conversations ’ about the ‘future of Wales’  to be forged with his party at the helm. Our small group of WRN members were eagerly awaiting his arrival at that venue, hoping that we would get to engage with him on matters where his party is still reeling from concerns about embedded misogyny in its ranks and a deafening silence on how it is going to protect women’s rights in the light of the Supreme Court judgement (Hallelujah!)  Our small group of WRN members were eagerly awaiting his arrival. We came prepared with placards and informative bilingual leaflets for all attendees. We even made ourselves more distinguishable by wearing our campaigning regalia of ‘XX’ hats and ‘adult human female’ (oedolyn dynol benywaidd) T-shirts.  Rhun arrived in his SUV which he parked opposite us. Judging by his parking spot, he would certainly have been able to see us in his rear mirror.  He spent a considerable amount of time in his car which could have been for a variety of reasons. Perhaps, like us, he was watching the attendees, wondering why the number of women attending was so disproportionately low compared to that of men?  Or was he wishing that he had an underground tunnel from his car into the venue? Our little group effectively engaged outside and most people we stopped and talked to were courteous, some showing a genuine interest in our cause, with many looking rather surprised at what they were hearing. But many attendees in their 30s or younger refused to engage with us at all. One woman brushed passed us, dismissing a welcoming greeting from one of our members. As a rule, we do not pressure people to engage with us and politely thank them and wish them well. Becca Martin, a Plaid Cymru councillor for Wrexham County Borough Council. But on this occasion, I made an exception, because the woman in question was none other than Becca Martin, a Plaid Cymru councillor for Wrexham County Borough Council and Plaid Cymru’s prospective candidate for the Wrexham constituency in the 2024 general election.  Ms Martin would do well to remember that under Nolan’s Seven Principles of Public Life – which form the basis of her professional Code of Conduct - she must uphold several standards of behaviour, notably ‘Objectivity’ which requires holders of public office to act impartially, without discrimination or bias. I asked her: “ do you believe that women deserve single sex-based spaces, Becca?”. Upon hearing her name and realising that she had been recognised, Cllr Martin stopped in the entrance and responded with an emphatic “No”. I responded with the only phrase that she and her Party deserved: “We will remember your answer next year” , in reference to the upcoming Senedd elections in May 2026. Then Mr ap Iorwerth finally emerged from his car! Despite his professional background in media and journalism, he did not look at all confident having to walk past a group of ‘old fashioned’ women… you know the ones with wombs, those old dinosaurs (thanks, Ricky Gervais).  His supporters praise his communication skills, “ his ability to get his chosen message to the rest of us ”. Judging by the way he walked towards our little group on that day, I thought that the only communication skill he excels at, is sign language. His height did come in handy, as his legs helped him fly past us even quicker than Becca Martin! With a robotic smile frozen on his face and hardly any eye contact, he barely muttered ‘You are alright?’. Unsurprisingly he refused to take any of our leaflets or even attempt the most basic small talk. Making his way to safety inside the venue, Rhun ap Iorwerth opened up the meeting by saying how popular Plaid Cymru have become under his leadership. At this point, it’s worth noting that Plaid Cymru have also consistently voted alongside Welsh Labour on anything infringing women’s sex-based rights, including championing self ID for the purposes of the failed Gender Quotas Bill, and many of their leading representatives openly advocate for self ID, this also being their most recent manifesto position. When the Q&A session came, our members inside the venue finally got their chance. Our area coordinator Beth spoke up and referred to the findings of the Project Pawb and their discrimination against the gender-critical FiLiA organisation just ten months ago. As a prospective candidate for the top position in the Senedd, Beth asked him what he would do to ensure that the Supreme Court ruling would be respected and enacted in all policies across Wales to ensure the provision of single-sex spaces for women and girls. The Plaid Leader started by saying that Plaid had not discriminated against FiLiA. For the benefit of readers, here is the link to an article dated 20 September 2024 whose opening line is, “Plaid Cymru has admitted unlawfully discriminating  against a grassroots feminist  charity by barring it from the party’s Spring Conference” [emphasis added]. The First Minister hopeful appears to have a different relationship with the truth. Having provided a blatantly misleading answer, he went on to tell our members that he would  comply with the ruling of the highest court in the land. However, he emphasised the importance of balancing this ruling against the rights of vulnerable groups (the inference being “trans” groups). Such a caveated answer showed again that Plaid’s stance on women’s sex-based rights remains dubious. Barrister Naomi Cunningham’s description of this party’s sneering attitudes to the law protecting women is still valid a year on: “Plaid Cymru’s tight-lipped and grudging concession implies that it thinks ‘the law as it stands’ is unsatisfactory, and it is hoping for a change  of law that will enable it to discriminate  on grounds of ‘gender-critical’ belief in future” [emphasis added].  Plaid Cymru members have confided in us that they are still being shouted down, harassed and disrespected for expressing gender-critical views and seeking fair debates about the protection of women’s rights to privacy, dignity and safety. These women will not let their rights be erased, diluted or their presence in public life be just tolerated. Nor will they be silenced or treated with contempt! If the Leader of Plaid Cymru can have a ‘great day’ only with the ‘great people’ who tell him what he and his entourage feel comfortable to hear, then the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes needs to be on his reading list!

This poem was written by WRN Afghanistan member Sara. You can hear Sara read the poem on our podcast released 12 August 2025. To my dear father My dear father, I will stand and fight Because I am your daughter. People say that Afghan fathers do not support their daughters against oppression, But I tell the world that my father is not like other fathers. I  will tell them how much you have always supported me, How much you try to help me to get progress  in my life and serve my people and humanity. My father, you are a miracle to this world. I have always been a rebellious and ambitious girl. I know how difficult it has been for you to protect me from such a society and people around me since childhood, How much you have tried so that my inner passion and ambition never goes away from me and still, among all these people who are full of grudge, hatred and jealousy, I survive and move forward. My father, I always cried in pain and despair, And I gave up many times, But you helped me with your right and considered guidance and I continued by receiving the warmth of your support on my shoulders. My dear father, If I had not endured all the hardships I have ever endured in my life, If I had not had your endless support and kindness every time, If I had given up many times when facing difficulties, I would not be your daughter today. Today I would not be who I am today. My childhood dream was always that I would live in a world of peace and tranquility when I was young And achieve whatever I wanted, But now I have realised that life is nothing more than a battle, My youth, when I thought I was going to live, And pursue my dreams, It is spent in the corner of the house. The obstacles and dead ends are so many that they leave no room for motivation and hope. When the hands of the oppressors are squeezing my throat more and more every moment, I don't know how I would live now if I were not your daughter. But I have the great honor of being your daughter,  who will not bow down under the breathtaking attacks of the Taliban and those around me on my rights and my life. I have learned steadfastness, courage, strength from you, I have learned to fight for my goals from you. I have learned to remain patient in the midst of all the suffering, ugliness, and betrayal. I have learned to take revenge by remaining good. My dear father, I am strong and powerful Because I am your daughter. Now it is because of you that I find the courage in myself to stand up to the oppression that is being done to me and all the women and girls of my country. Even alone I will win Because I am your daughter. My dear father, I will stand and fight

Leisure centres – Putting Women and Girls at Risk: When a hero steps up WRN is an extraordinary movement driven by extraordinary women, but we know we have the support of many men who stand by our sides with words of encouragement and more than the occasional cup of tea as we labour on plans, research or calls. None of this is taken for granted and thanks is due; however, one man deserves particular recognition for stepping up and speaking out when what he saw made his blood run cold. Chilling sight Alan* was working as a lifeguard at Wilmslow leisure centre swimming pool in July of 2024, a venue operated by Everybody Health and Leisure, when he noticed a couple arriving; one went into the male changing room and the other went into the female changing room. When emerging from the changing rooms to enter the swimming pool, Alan noticed that the person coming out the female changing room was wearing a bikini and had long hair, …but was in fact clearly male. Like the vast majority of people, Alan was immediately concerned; he knew this was a threat to the privacy and dignity of women and girls, and a huge safeguarding issue. He addressed this with the facility manager as soon as he could, reporting that he had seen a man using the female changing room. Everybody Health and Leisure runs 17 facilities in partnership with Cheshire East Council. You know what’s coming right? The manager replied by saying this is ok and the right thing to do according to a nationwide policy of self-identification (self ID) – if a man says he’s a woman, then he can use female-only facilities. Furthermore, if women didn’t like the fact that there was a man in their changing room, they could use the accessible (disabled) facility instead! Safety of women and girls was not a priority Despite Alan’s warning, no manager challenged the man in a bikini. It was obvious by this reaction that leisure centre management did not consider it a priority to ensure the privacy, dignity or safety of women and girls in the female changing area. An attitude shared top down by organisations from Sport England, to councils, to architects and to leisure centre operators. Alan was shocked. He had no idea that the facility was operating on a self-ID basis, there had been no training, no guidance, nothing in black-and-white posted on the staff room wall. None of the other staff knew about this affront to the safety and dignity of women and girls either. ‘Fundamentally wrong’ This situation was completely unacceptable to Alan. He wrote a letter shortly after the incident he witnessed in July of 2024 stating that the policy of allowing males into the female changing room is ‘fundamentally wrong’. The letter was co-signed by 18 other leisure centre staff members, who fully supported Alan and the principle behind the complaint, and it was delivered to the facility manager. Almost two months later, Alan and a lifeguard colleague were called in to a meeting with various senior managers and given a dressing down. Alan was told that writing a letter of complaint was not the best way to deal with the situation, he was questioned on whether he had actually seen a man emerging from the female changing room, accused of coercing or even forcing people into signing the letter, and of course the word ‘transphobia’ was mentioned. Quite the reaction. Unimpeachable policy At this meeting, it became crystal clear that the industry-standard policy of self ID, a policy that puts women and girls at risk, is not to be queried; it is non-negotiable and Alan is unreasonable, even hateful to suggest so. A few months later, Alan resigned from his lifeguarding role at the leisure centre. His colleague continued to warn women that men are allowed to use the female changing room, despite being told to stop talking about it and risking disciplinary action. There is no available policy on the Wilmslow leisure centre website, and a Google search provides no clues as to the policy of the centre operator Everybody Health and Leisure. It seems that this operator was using the industry standard CIMSPA / UKActive Transgender Access Guidance document, which has now been withdrawn following the Supreme Court ruling on the For Women Scotland vs Scottish Ministers case in April 2025. The industry standard UKActive guidance for the access of males into changing areas where females are undressed and vulnerable.  None of the frontline staff at Wilmslow leisure centre knew about the confusing, overly-complicated, some might say unlawful, flow diagram in the guidance. UKActive has issued a statement on the current situation here . They recommend a case-by-case assessment of user access until the EHRC issues new guidance which will inform new guidance from UKActive. In our opinion, UKActive does not need to wait for any guidance. Equality law is clear – males can be lawfully excluded from female-only spaces, where it is proportionate to a legitimate aim, that being the safety, dignity and privacy of women and girls.  While UKActive dithers, women and girls using virtually every leisure centre, health club and gym in the UK remain exposed to the potential for a man to be present in their changing rooms. “…suitable alternative facilities for transgender customers” Alan recently asked Everybody Health and Leisure whether they were reviewing their self ID policy following the Supreme Court ruling, and the response stated that, “We will provide suitable alternative facilities for transgender customers”. Let’s hope this new policy is swiftly communicated to all 17 facilities operated and managed by Everybody Health and Leisure. Alan is still shocked and disgusted that women and girls are treated so badly by the leisure centre he worked for. He stepped up with decency, moral courage and integrity. The leisure centre managers could learn some lessons from Alan.  This is not an isolated incident, which is why we are highlighting the dangers of mixed-sex changing rooms and self ID policies in our Red Flag campaign this summer.  We are calling on sports and leisure providers to make SAFEGUARDING the No.1 priority when building and refurbishing leisure facilities.  The safest changing room is a single-sex changing room. Check out our website  and find out how you can get involved. *Alan is Alan’s real name, because Alan has the courage of his convictions and is willing to go on the record with his story. Thank you Alan.

Spoiler - it's not much By Claire Loneragan Finally! Woman’s Hour have finally caught up with the question that has been causing so much trouble for women all over the country. Are men women if they say they are? The Supreme Court ruled on 16 April 2025 that if it actually matters what sex someone is, then they are not. Men are never women for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. And any organisation or workplace that claims to be providing a service for women must ensure that it is for female people only. The Woman’s Hour interviews have been very revealing – but perhaps not in the way the BBC intended. They’ve made a certain bias against women very evident. Take a bow, Nuala McGovern – or should that be Aunt Lydia? And it’s rarely been clearer that Gender Identity’s aims have been to remove women’s boundaries so that men – any and all men – can access women’s spaces and services if they want to. It's not just that Nuala pointed out that Helen Joyce and Kate Barker’s (perfectly ordinary) views that men aren’t women will be “offensive” to some listeners, but didn’t feel the need to make the same claim about Robin White’s views that women must accept men as women if they say they are. No – it goes much further than that. That two men – Robin White (activist barrister) and Sacha Deshmukh (CEO Amnesty International UK) – were invited to make the case that women having our own sex-based protections infringed the human rights of some men was an interesting choice. Perhaps Woman’s Hour struggled to find women to talk for that side, or maybe they didn’t notice. Whatever the reason, all five discussions so far have focussed on men who want to: Use women’s toilets Be called “trans women” and are upset at being called “men” Access women’s crisis centres (and why Refuge will continue to help men) Use women’s toilets (again) Not to be called “men” (again) Be called “lesbians” Neither Nuala McGovern nor Anita Rani appeared interested in the impact of men in women’s sports, in women’s hospital wards or in women’s prisons. They had no interest in the corruption of data including the police recording male crimes as committed by women, or the importance of correctly sexing people seeking medical help. And despite the surge in teenage girls identifying as boys, there was no discussion of how “transmen” will be impacted, nor the implications for schools. I guess that would have been a bit awkward. Anita Rani even asked Sacha Deshmukh “What’s your advice to transwomen?” It’s bewildering how little regard anyone has for women – female people – in all this. No matter how they identify. I’m sure Nuala in particular felt she had done well to hold Helen Joyce and Kate Barker to account, but through her focus on the “gotchas” she exposed the weakness of these men’s demands. And it was very telling. Kate Barker turned Robin White’s argument back on him when she pointed out that if nobody had challenged this great hulking (obvious) bloke with his baritone voice in women’s toilets, they’d be unlikely to challenge women with short hair. She’s quite right, of course. But there is also the consideration that if the expectation is that women with short hair will start to be challenged for using the wrong facilities because we think they’re men, then clearly women do mind if men are using our facilities. We’re not perfectly relaxed about mixed sex toilets. That it isn’t OK for the men who “just want to pee” to have the choice of which facilities they use. That the only reason we didn’t do it before was because we’d been told we couldn’t. No, Robin, it’s not because you “pass”. And we don’t care what pronouns you use. Robin White was clear, though; despite being a barrister he won’t abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. That would have been worth exploring in terms of a professional conflict of interest, but nothing doing from Nuala. Neither Robin nor Sacha were asked for solutions. Only women are expected to find solutions for the problems caused by men wanting women’s stuff. Only Sex Matters and LGB Alliance were called “hate groups” and accused of having offensive opinions. Only Helen and Kate were asked why they wouldn’t use activist language. Robin and Sacha’s language and opinions were treated as if they were entirely reasonable throughout. And the main reasons why men must be allowed to use women’s toilets? Some people are offended if we don’t pretend that some men are women (even though the law says women are placed at a detriment if we do) Nobody has complained so far (we have) The European Court for Human Rights says we must (it doesn’t) Lesbians won’t be able to use women’s toilets if men can’t (of course they will) Mothers won’t be able to take their little boys into the women’s unless all men are given free access (oh, for goodness’ sake!) Some men suffer domestic abuse (and women need to fix it) Nobody can tell the difference between a man and a woman anyway …. Is this really what For Women Scotland and others have been dragged through the courts for? They’ve had decades to come up with something more compelling.

By Cathy Larkman April 2025 Eluned Morgan, First Minister of Wales speaking in the Senedd. “What is a woman”? A simple question you might think.  It was asked of you Eluned, as Wales First Minister, by the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Darren Millar, on 11th March 2025. Mr Millar clearly taking advantage of the blatant open goal provided by the opposition, taking aim and firing a fine shot into the net. https://www.gbnews.com/news/labour-wales-gender-morgan   Any observer who had not been following the news over recent years, might be forgiven for thinking that it warranted a very simple answer too. Particularly as you are clearly a woman yourself and this question has been asked of many squirming politicians already. You should have therefore been very well prepared to answer this with a pithy “of course I do Darren, I am a woman myself, an adult human female”. Many women would have cheered you on, myself included and thought ‘At last!’ Nation Cymru reports  on ‘uproar’ in the Senedd at FMQs on 11th March, in the week after International Women’s Day  Not so, however. What followed was, to use the words of a Nation Cymru reporter, ‘uproar’. Collective gasps were heard, chairs were swivelled around, hard disapproving stares were quickly improvised and there was much audible tutting. Mr Millar was tartly accused of engaging in a ‘culture war’ by you, and you then notably failed to answer his question altogether.  As we all know, the ‘woman’ question has already caused serious embarrassment to an ever-growing array of politicians, including the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has stuttered and stumbled over it, including a bizarre moment when he claimed that a small percentage of women can have a penis.  He’s not the only one either. The question usually elicits a ‘rabbit in the headlights’ moment and much shambolic bumbling. Your mothers need to urgently have a word with you all, not to mention your school biology teachers. This is the litmus test question of our times. Of course, in the world of your party, Welsh Labour who govern in Wales, it can be tempting for you to portray this as just a silly distraction. As women know however, it is not. This is the litmus test question of our times. It instantly tells you if a politician has the integrity to speak a commonly understood material truth and, in doing so, stand up for the rights of over half the population. The female half.  Alternatively, it tells us if they are abject cowards and would rather appease, or at least not upset, the extreme activists who believe it is possible to self-identify as the opposite sex and in doing so, spout highly contestable, harmful and often nonsensical lines instead.  Women and girls in Wales should listen very carefully to the answers that Senedd politicians give. As should anyone with a mother, daughter, sister or female partner.  Unfortunately, your government in Wales would rather you didn’t pay too much attention at all. And here comes the rub. Your party, Welsh Labour’s policy position is currently that you believe ‘trans women are women, trans men are men and non-binary identities are valid’. Just to make things very clear, you are stating that you believe males are women, females are men and there is such a thing as being neither – as long as you say so. This reality denying mantra is hard baked into your policies.  Equality law is UK wide and cannot therefore be interfered with. It is only the fact that Equality law is UK wide and cannot therefore be interfered with, that prevents your Welsh Government from making self ID law in Wales. Your party has learnt nothing from the white-hot battle that is still raging in Scotland. Instead, your party is committed to pursuing powers to introduce self-identification in Wales and is completely in denial about the impact on women and girls, stating that: “We believe that extending rights for one group does not mean eroding rights from another. We do not believe improving rights for trans women will damage rights for cisgender women and girls”. LGBTQ: Aim to make it easier to change gender in Wales - BBC News LGBTQ Action Plan Not a surprising statement, given that your colleagues have stuck their fingers into their ears and have doggedly avoided meeting with any concerned women’s campaigners, preferring instead the nodding heads of the Welsh Government funded lobby and campaign groups, who repeat back at you all everything they want to hear.  And we ourselves have yet to hear back from our two letters to you, offering to meet. Time is ticking. The reality denying mantra was repeated with fervour and conviction by previous First Minister Mark Drakeford, including on the floor of the Senedd. This is a fact that must be awkwardly restricting your ability to honestly answer the ‘woman question’. The mantra must be disposed of and the sooner the better. You are a pragmatic woman. We know you are highly politically experienced, Ms Morgan. And you are a pragmatic woman. Yet your timidity on this issue is particularly disappointing. However, given the activists within your party and the dominance of ideologically driven special advisors behind the scenes, your reluctance to dip your toes into the gender critical waters may be understandable. Yet, we need you to find the courage to do so. This is important – for single sex services in Wales in all of the areas where sex matters. For rape crisis services, domestic violence centres, hospital wards, intimate care, changing rooms and sports. We could go on. You know that these are already corrupted by ‘trans inclusive’ policies and that Welsh women cannot access single sex services or spaces. This is unacceptable, it is an all-out war on our rights as women and girls.  WRN Wales exposed an early iteration of the ‘Gender Quotas Bill’ On a positive note, we noted that one of your first acts when you took up the reins as First Minister in Wales was to dump the so-called ‘Gender Quotas Bill’, an Act which claimed to seek 50/50 parity in political representation between men and women, and advance the position of women, while also allowing anyone putting themselves forward to self ID as a woman without challenge. Ironically, we could have ended up with all women shortlists consisting of, well, all men. WRN members gave evidence at the Senedd Reform Committee hearing on Gender Quota legislation. Those with keen memories will remember that WRN Wales exposed an early iteration of this Bill and gave evidence at a Senedd Reform Committee hearing regarding its eventual publication. You may also recall that Welsh Government, supported by Plaid Cymru, pushed aside all objections, including those that drew attention to the fact that it didn’t actually have the legislative powers to introduce it. As well as WRN Wales, these included the EHRC and some of your own legal advisors. So at least you had the will and the courage to stop the madness, or maybe you did not fancy the first act of the newly incumbent UK Labour Govt taking the Welsh Govt to the Supreme Court? A tad embarrassing. So Eluned, please reconsider. The ‘what is a woman’ question is not just a question, but a useful barometer for our times. Those politicians shuffling and stuttering around in their responses, failing to reply properly at all, or professing faux outrage, know that they are lying, we know that they are lying, and they know that we know they are lying. But they still do it. So what trust do they deserve from the public? And do you care enough about the females in Wales to speak up about it? Take a deep breath and say those three little words Eluned. Adult human female. Women are waiting.

THE CONCERNING EXTENT OF SEXUAL ASSAULTS AND RAPES IN SCOTTISH HOSPITALS 2019-2024 By Carolyn Brown Mary Howden Our latest report focuses on sexual assaults in our Scottish hospitals, How safe are our Scottish hospitals? The concerning extent of sexual assaults and rapes in Scottish hospitals 2019-2024 . The report highlights that NHS boards and private hospitals are failing to safeguard women and girls. This report surveyed 198 hospitals, which included 11 private hospitals, in Scotland with FOI requests sent to Police Scotland. We found that data regarding sexual assaults is not routinely kept by all hospitals. Police Scotland were unable to provide data on the number of sexual assaults and rapes committed in 133 of 198 hospitals and refused to provide data for 8 hospitals on privacy grounds. As a result, the figures we gathered only apply to 57 hospitals. Between 2019 and 2024, 288 sexual assaults including rapes were reported. 163 of these assaults occurred on hospital wards. These figures will be much lower than the actual number of assaults perpetrated due to NHS Boards’ lack of systematic and coherent data gathering. Our report gathered data from all types of hospitals: general, psychiatric, maternity, children’s, private and palliative care. Sexual assaults were recorded in all hospital types. Our politicians and NHS leaders have known about these safeguarding issues for at least the last ten years, and yet they have done nothing to address these shocking statistics. They have done nothing to facilitate the implementation of measures which could have reduced the risk of women and girls being assaulted in NHS provisions.