Boundaries Are Fueling A New Wave of Queer Liberation

“I feel the most empowered when I say no,” says Venus Cuffs, an alternative lifestyle expert based in New York City. Cuffs, who once worked as a dominatrix, is part of a lineage of Black femmes who have used their positions to reclaim power — a strategy we’ll unspool post haste.

Mistress Velvet, the late Black femme domme who famously made her white clients read bell hooks, understood the same thing: the queer art of sabotage isn’t about tearing things down. It’s about survival in the form of refusal, boundary and redirection.

“Me saying ‘no’ has been met with like, ‘How dare you?’ My refusal to participate is offensive to people,” Cuffs says, recalling the backlash she faced for refusing race play in predominantly white kink communities. Her words point to a familiar script: the demand that Black femmes be endlessly available, compliant or grateful. Her refusal interrupts that script.

For Cuffs, refusal is the point. Rejecting race play meant rejecting the broader cultural script insisting Black women perform whatever role is demanded of them. “Race is nothing to play about,” she says. That refusal was sabotage. But walking away from the scene allowed Cuffs to stay aligned with her integrity.

Cuffs’ “no” became the foundation for something new. Leaving the scene didn’t just protect her; it opened the door to a creative and personal realignment that became political resistance.

“I broke off from the main scene and started my own dungeon,” she recalls. “I decided I don’t need to deal with this, and neither does my community.”

She founded Spread, a 4,000-square-foot Brooklyn dungeon where queer BDSM practitioners could host sessions and hold power dynamics safely. Spread quickly gained traction. The choice to open it was a declaration as much as a business move: fuck you to exclusionary spaces, fuck yes to something better.

“Refusal means refusing to follow the path we have been told to walk when our instincts tell us otherwise,” Madison Young, a filmmaker and sex educator in the Bay Area, tells me. Queer refusal, they say, looks like “refusing to be someone more palatable in an effort to not cause a disruption. Refusing to be risk-averse.”

Where Cuffs and Velvet confront the racialised demands placed on Black femmes, Young’s dissent takes another form. As a white queer filmmaker, their refusals reject industry scripts demanding palatability and compliance. For Young, refusal has meant creating films and performances that defy neat labels — queer family-making, kink, submission — all centred on authenticity. “I think this is the inherent nature of queerness,” they say. “To exist outside of the lines and boxes drawn for us and to instead follow the path our heart, gut, soul are guiding us toward.”

If refusal is saying “no,” sabotage is building “yes.” Queer sabotage refuses harmful systems not simply for resistance, but to open space for something authentically queer and joyful to emerge.

Young does this through filmmaking. On their sets, they hire predominantly women, nonbinary, and trans crew. “It shifts the dynamic on set when it is a room full of women and queers,” they say. “I can choose whose stories I’m elevating, who I’m collaborating with.” These choices build queer community and disrupt industry norms.

For Madison Young, refusal has meant creating films and performances that defy neat labels — queer family-making, kink, submission — all centered on authenticity.

Photo: Marina Green

For Madison Young, refusal has meant creating films and performances that defy neat labels — queer family-making, kink, submission — all centered on authenticity.

For Tracy Quan, a former escort and author of Diary of a Manhattan Call Girl, sabotage operates more subtly. “I viewed my novels more as a kind of entryism,” she says. Quan smuggles radical ideas into mainstream publishing by infiltrating oppressive spaces from within.

She points to Nancy Mitford, the British novelist who wove antifascist politics into frothy social comedies. “She was a serious antifascist who made the British government pay attention to her fascist sister,” Quan says. “She wrote witty novels that looked fluffy but carried sharp politics.” For Quan, writing sexy books that secrete away radical ideas felt like inserting feminist critique into commercial publishing.

If refusal protects integrity, sabotage extends it. Refusal shuts the door on the status quo. Sabotage opens a new one and creates conditions for a new yes, a yes rooted in creativity rather than compliance.

While Cuffs and Velvet resist the racialized demands placed on Black femmes, Young’s yes shows up in the work itself. “My heart tells me to make a feature film or a TV series or start a queer art gallery, and I just can’t do anything else,” they say. “The calling is strong and defies all logic.”

Early in Young’s career, the call sounded like chaos. “Any time I would even attempt to plug into the matrix, I would sabotage the situation. I just couldn’t do it,” Young explains. What looked like self-destruction was queer self-preservation: an inability to do “normal” — not for money, not for fame.

For Quan, sabotage also meant restraint. For decades, she withheld certain details of her personal life as a deliberate constraint. Instead of confession, she leaned into omission. That discipline, she explains, sharpened her craft. “When you have limits, when you have this denial kind of situation, it can really force you to be more creative,” she told me. What others see as a restriction, she frames as power.

Creating our own boundaries is one of the ways we carve out space for queer joy in a world determined to tell us which boundaries we are allowed to have. “When we state a boundary and work with refusal, we are making room for what we want more of,” Young says.

A no to the wrong collaborator opens a yes to the right one. Setting limits is a prophylactic. “We can protect our collective joy, our queer joy, our relationships, and our connections by being clear about our expectations and needs,” Young says.

Quan echoes that sentiment, describing constraints as creative pleasure rather than deprivation. “To me, creativity is a kind of power, like that’s the kind of power that I enjoy,” she says. For her, withholding shapes a more authentic vision.

Cuffs locates joy in boundaries even more explicitly — in reclaiming time, body, and power. Saying no, walking away from money, setting terms that feel good — each is a reclamation. “I don’t have to show up for anyone when I can’t show up for myself,” she says.

In a political moment defined by rampant transphobia, book bans targeting queer literature, legislative attacks on bodily autonomy, and the ongoing criminalization of sex work, boundaries and refusals are not just private choices. They are collective, political strategies. Our joy is political.

Mistress Velvet knew this when she turned her domme sessions into lesson plans, insisting white submissives grapple with Black feminist thought to earn her attention. Cuffs, Young and Quan know it when they walk away from exploitation, infiltrate hostile industries, or reshape the spaces they inhabit. Sabotage isn’t nihilism. It’s survival. It’s creativity. It’s care.

Cuffs leaves us with a reminder: “Do what feels right for you. Don’t be influenced by the amount of money, the amount of power, what other people tell you it should look like. Slavery is over.”

Share Button

Campaigners Attack Labour Amid Fears New Trans Advice Gives ‘Licence To Discriminate On Looks’

Trans campaigners have hit out at the government’s draft EHRC code of practice, and warned it would lead to policing people on their appearance and gender presentation.

The UK’s Supreme Court ruled in April that sex is defined by biology not gender identity, sending shockwaves across the LGBTQ+ community.

But many councils, NHS trusts and businesses have chosen not to prevent trans women from using female single-sex spaces – like toilets – just yet, and say they are waiting for new guidance from the government.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)’s advice is yet to be published – despite allegedly sitting on equalities minister Bridget Phillipson’s desk for three months – but it was leaked to The Times this week.

According to the report, hospital wards, gyms and leisure centres will be allowed to question transgender women over their use of single-sex services – solely based on their appearance, their behaviour or concerns raised by others.

The draft advice suggests that if any trans people are then excluded from such a space, organisations must consider whether there is a suitable alternative – although it also acknowledges this might be difficult due to physical constraints of buildings or high costs.

Campaigners have criticised the leaked guidance, warning that it would be a “licence to discriminate based on looks, plain and simple”.

A spokesperson for TransActual said: “Astonishingly, the UK’s ‘human rights watchdog’ is attempting to mandate that staff at cinemas, hospitals, bars and cafes must try and judge whether users are trans or not based on appearance alone. This is a licence to discriminate based on looks, plain and simple.

“We’ve seen this before – people trying to make our society into a place that is only safe for ‘normal’ ladies. Not just loos. But sports centres, changing rooms and more.“They continued: “We know from experience that women of colour and butch lesbians are more likely to be seen as unfeminine by strangers, so this policy would have racist and homophobic impacts as well as being obviously incredibly harmful for trans people.

“We offer our solidarity to the many cis women who have been targeted and harassed for their appearance by ‘gender critical activists’ who believed they were trans, and who would be put even further at risk by these rules.

“We cannot believe that government would be so foolish – so hell-bent on shooting itself in the foot – as to go along with this. We therefore trust that equalities minister Bridget Phillipson will treat it with the contempt it deserves and reject this costly, cruel and unworkable guidance, sending it back to the EHRC to be completely rewritten.”

Labour MP Stella Creasy also criticised the leaked advice, writing on X: “If this is true it means the culmination of this process is now a proposal to reinforce gender stereotypes, with those who don’t fit them having to justify themselves regardless of their biological sex. Thus, the EHRC itself now seeking to legitimise stereotypes rather than tackle them.”

Labour for Trans Rights group said following this advice “would be a disaster”.

It added: “Ministers must send the draft back to EHRC. If they don’t improve the terrible guidance, Parliamentarians should vote against approval.”

The minister for children, families and wellbeing Josh MacAlister told Times Radio that the government was still trying to “get it right”.

He said: “I think that the public now looking at the draft guidance … will recognise that when you drill down into examples of how this might be applied, it has big implications for individuals, businesses, public services.”

Share Button

‘I Told My Son I Knew He Was Gay, My Daughter Said I Made A Big Mistake’

A parent has sparked debate over their choice to address their son’s sexuality with him directly – after finding out he had been romantically involved with another man.

The 62-year-old said their wife died a decade ago and, in her absence, he’s tried “to be a more nurturing presence for my kids”.

When attending church, he found out through a friend that his son, who’s in his twenties, had become romantically involved with another man.

“At first I was just surprised, but after I digested the news I was concerned that he clearly didn’t feel able to share this important part of his life with me,” said the parent in a Reddit post.

“We live in a more conservative part of the US and I am an active churchgoer, and we had never really discussed sexuality as a family. As such, I was concerned that he thought I would disown him or something: when in reality, I just love him and want him to find the happiness I had with his mother, whatever form that takes.”

Rather than wait for his son to approach him about it, he decided to address it directly with him, “so he knew I loved and supported him and he didn’t have to worry about telling me”.

“I invited him over for a beer, told him what I knew, and expressed as best I could that it wasn’t something he needed to hide from me,” said the parent, who noted that after his son’s initial shock, he hugged him and told him he appreciated it.

“I felt like the conversation went well and I was closer to him,” he added.

The story doesn’t end there however, as when his daughter found out what had happened, she told him he’d made “a big mistake” and warned that he’d “robbed” his son of the opportunity to come out in his own time.

“I really didn’t get the impression my son felt that way about our conversation, and she didn’t hear from him that he feels that way, but she says it’s obvious he’d be upset,” said the parent.

“So now I’m wondering if I’ve been an asshole telling him I knew? And if so, what I should do next?”

Was he in the wrong to approach his son about this?

Society’s default setting is often to assume someone is heterosexual, which means anyone who isn’t might feel they have to “come out” and share their sexuality with others. This can bring with it a range of emotions, including fear and anxiety, but also relief and excitement.

Whether someone comes out or not is their own personal choice – and they shouldn’t feel the need to do this before they’re ready.

That said, some have praised the father for how he handled this scenario.

One Redditor said: “Personally, as a lesbian who has really religious parents who I was terrified to come out to, I think what you did was lovely.”

Gay men also commented to say he “did good”. One person replied: “Gay here. NTA [not the asshole]. Robbing someone of coming out? That’s like robbing me of being drunk driver hit with a car. You didn’t rob anything. You did a great thing.”

Another respondent said: “Being forced out by someone else is unsettling (trust me, I know) and often dangerous. But this isn’t that. This is just a father saying to a son ‘I love you, gay, straight or purple dinosaur’ and sister needs to stay the hell in her lane.”

What a therapist thinks…

Bhavna Raithatha, BACP accredited psychotherapist and author, said there is “no manual for how to approach such a situation”.

“We don’t know the son’s reaction or response, however from experience, both personally and professionally, there can be immense relief in such a situation as for many, it is hardest for them to come out to their parents due to a variety of reasons including culture, religion, societal norms for them,” she said.

“For this father, he did what he felt was supportive. His intervention will have provided a safe place for his son – albeit sooner than the son might have felt ready, and that is something that can be discussed in due course.”

She noted that for parents in this position, another approach could be to wait until your child approaches you, while creating a safe space. So, if sexuality comes up in the media, on a show, or in conversation, her advice is to be open to discussing it, show that you are supportive, and use affirmative language.

The therapist acknowledged that there may also “be a myriad of emotions that come up as well as concerns, [as] the world still has an issue with LGBTQ+ people”.

“There are a huge number of variables to consider for a parent – their own feelings around sexuality, their religion, culture, family dynamics and their OWN sexuality which may be hidden, etc.”

She advised seeking out resources to educate yourself, such as through support groups like fflag.org.uk.

As for what the father should do now, BACP member Dr Paul C. Mollitt said the important thing is to continue being there for his son. “For now, it helps to centre his feelings, not your own – however difficult that might be. What matters most is that he feels safe, loved, and accepted as he is,” he said.

“In time, when he does talk to you, there may be space to explore what made it hard for him to open up.

“But for now, relating to him with warmth and genuine interest in his life, language that signals openness, and affection that doesn’t change will provide the conditions for him to share more about his personal life when he is ready.”

Share Button

A Strange Condition Ruined My Sex Life For 40 Years. Then A Doctor Said 1 Word That Changed My Life.

I couldn’t have been more than 19 years old when, as a happy-go-lucky UCLA student, I looked down at my penis and decided I was dying.

Cancer, I thought, noticing small red bumps at the tip of my penis. Since I wasn’t having sex with anyone — not for lack of trying, I might add — what else could they be? I was doomed before it was even legal for me to drink.

A quick trip to the university’s emergency room followed, where, under harsh lights, a female doctor held and studied my genitals, then, in front of a female nurse, broke out into laughter.

“My husband has those,” she told me. “They’re varicose veins in an uncommon place. Nothing to worry about. Go Bruins!”

It turns out, I had a lot to worry about… but not for reasons the doctor dismissed.

As a young, gay actor who moved to New York City right after college, in 1987, having red bumps on my penis wasn’t exactly the invitation to sex that I was hoping to find. Not every guy I slept with noticed, but the ones who did often thought they were a sign of AIDS, herpes or god knows what else. I’ve never forgotten the man who said, simply, that I was “a whore,” and, since he was in a relationship with another man, he couldn’t take any risks. Um, kettle…?

That said, jovially saying to guys, “relax, they’re just varicose veins,” didn’t work as well as my former doctor insinuated. Perhaps I should have had her write a note.

In reality, who could really blame these men for being suspicious? Guys were dropping dead from AIDS on a daily basis, and vigilance was everything. I spent a lot of time trying to have sex in the dark or simply praying that guys wouldn’t examine my tip too closely. Many a hard-on was deflated just worrying one of my hook-ups would suddenly scream out, “Dude, what’s wrong with your dick?!” One guy did just that.

Even in the midst of the AIDS pandemic, I slept with a lot of strangers (I always used protection for intercourse), and to them, I was just another dick — pun intended. I’m certain that, if the situation had been reversed, I’d have had a difficult time believing the varicose vein story, too.

During the periods when I had steady boyfriends, the situation diminished because they trusted me and knew I wouldn’t place them in harm’s way. (Although I’ve read reports to the contrary, I’ve never once had one of the blood vessels break, during sex or otherwise.)

However, even those men weren’t always polite about my “deformity.” One guy I dated for a long time told me that having oral sex with me was like eating ice cream with nuts — and he didn’t like nuts. Charmed!

The author when he was in college

Courtesy of David Toussaint

The author when he was in college

I’ve spent a lot of my life single, though, and as I grew older in a new century, I learned that no matter what time of life you choose to be sex-positive, there will always be a target on your back from groups who find sex with multiple partners shameful.

I also found that as I got older, most complaints would come from men much younger than myself. Being a “Dilf” or a “Daddy” has been a sweet time of life for me, but the sexual scrutiny from millennials and Generation Z has become more intense. I’ve had guys show up at my door and get naked, then, after foreplay, examine my penis like I was having a medical exam. Some were polite when they walked out the door, some were not.

Since this rarely happens with men close to my age, I chalked it up to retro-fear of older men — an AIDS-era residue that meant those of us who were sexually active during that horrifying time were still physically scarred.

By 2022, I’d had enough. I was seeing a man 20 years younger than myself and having a great time, until the night he abruptly stopped oral sex and demanded to know why I had bumps on my penis. I told him they’d always been there and that he’d just never noticed, which he didn’t believe, and he said he never wanted to see or talk to me again. I’ve not spoken to him since.

I immediately made an appointment with my doctor, pulled down my pants in the office, and asked if there was anything that could be done about my grotesque abnormality.

After yet another bright-light examination, mixed in with small talk of his impending wedding and honeymoon, he told me that, contrary to what my initial doctor said, the bumps were not varicose veins, but more than likely angiokeratoma, benign blood vessels that form on the skin. His diagnosis was delivered in a tone so carefree I definitely wanted him to write a note to future lovers.

He gave me a referral to an excellent dermatologist in New York, Dr. Bradley Glodny, who, when he studied my penis — sometimes I think my flaccid package has gotten more attention than the stiff version — confirmed that I had genital angiokeratoma, and said that, for an affordable price, he could remove them via laser.

“Yes, please,” I said faster than he could turn on the equipment to fix my equipment.

When I told him that my dates were often repulsed by my groin area, he asked, flatly, “What kind of people do you go out with?”

Fair point.

I haven’t always been the best judge of character when hormones get in the way.

“What I’m baffled by — and what shocks me upon reflection — is that I ignored seeking help for my condition for 40 years, and, just as insane, I took the opinion of one doctor without seeking a second opinion.”

A week of healing went by, and, as promised, almost all of the bumps disappeared (some were too tiny to remove). My self-esteem and self-confidence jumped up 100%, and my sex life since then has become substantially more fulfilling. I had no idea that hearing Dr. Glodny say that one word could change everything.

In the bedroom, I’ve become, like, “Hey, feel free to examine my penis. Nice, isn’t it?” and “Sure, we can have sex in bright light. Sounds like fun!”

Since an internet search returned lopsided statistics on how many people have my condition, I asked Dr. Glodny for his thoughts.

“While I cannot give you an exact statistic, I believe that most men over the age of 30 have at least a few angiokeratomas in their genital area,” he said, adding that they become more prevalent as we age.

What I’m baffled by — and what shocks me upon reflection — is that I ignored seeking help for my condition for 40 years, and, just as insane, I took the opinion of one doctor without seeking a second opinion. Varicose veins run in my family, and I have them on my legs, so it did seem like a legit diagnosis. But doctors, lest we forget, are simply professionals with theories, and should always be questioned.

Part of me was embarrassed, too, to even discuss such a sensitive part of my anatomy with a stranger, let alone have them examine it. Clearly, I’ve grown up on that front. I hope that if you’re reading this and have any skin condition that scares or confuses you, you won’t be as stubborn as I was and seek help immediately.

I don’t regret having an active sex life — quite the opposite. But I should have been more dismissive of the men who disbelieved me when I told them they were safe. I accepted humiliation in the hopes that I could score some hot ass. (Remember the guy who called me a liar? I recently reached out to him so he could see the “new and improved” me. He never responded, and, frankly, I think I dodged a bullet.)

Like most guys I know, I want all of my body to be appreciated — the muscles, the hairy chest, the penis. We all have physical imperfections, wherever and whatever they may be. When we are humiliated on any level, it only increases the kind of body fascism that needs to be eradicated.

Laser removal for angiokeratoma doesn’t last forever, and I have them tweaked about once a year. Yeah, it hurts — a lot. Yes, insurance doesn’t cover it because it’s considered cosmetic. And, yes, I have to go off the market for a good week or two afterward. But at this point in my life, skipping out on the procedure and going back to hiding in the sexual shadows would be just plain nuts.

David Toussaint is a four-time book author, journalist, professional screenwriter and playwright, and actor. He lives in Manhattan with his pug, Deja.

Do you have a compelling personal story you’d like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we’re looking for here and send us a pitch at pitch@huffpost.com.

Share Button

I Work With Grandparents Of Trans Kids. I’m Constantly Stunned By What I Hear Them Say.

As a gender therapist, I’m used to seeing parents reach out in crisis, teachers struggle to find the right language, and young people vacillate between moments of quiet confidence and deep fear and uncertainty in the current landscape. But there’s one group that continues to surprise me in the best possible way: grandparents of trans youth.

When people imagine advocates for kids, they don’t usually picture these individuals. But week after week, these elders show up — choosing to learn, to grow, and to fight for a future they may not live to see.

TransGenerations began in 2023 as a small, educational support group that my colleague Dani Rosenkrantz and I hoped would meet a quiet need. To our surprise, it filled almost immediately. Within weeks, we had to add a second cohort, then a third, then a fourth. When our original partnership with the Union for Reform Judaism ended due to funding, the grandparents themselves urged us to keep the group going. They weren’t done learning — or loving.

While some of those original members are still with us, the group has grown into a vibrant interfaith, intergenerational community, united by one powerful desire: to show up for the young people they love. We welcome grandparents from all backgrounds and financial circumstances, thanks in part to a scholarship fund that helps make participation accessible to everyone.

In our group, grandparents speak openly about mortality — not with fear, but with clarity. They talk about the time they have left and what kind of world they want to help shape before they go. They know they can’t shield their grandkids from every injustice, but they show up anyway — determined to do everything in their power while they still can.

In a world where older generations are often written off as rigid or out of touch, these grandparents are rewriting the script. They are unlearning decades of assumptions, grappling with rapidly changing cultural norms, practicing pronouns, correcting one another gently, and even educating their adult children. They choose curiosity over certainty, growth over comfort.

There’s the 81-year-old in Florida who calls the group her “chosen family,” and another in Illinois who ends every Zoom call with, “I love you all.” A grandfather is dreaming of a cross-country documentary tour to share the grandparents’ stories of affirming trans youth. One grandmother in Los Angeles told us her teenage grandchild texted her, “Mommy said you’re in a support group for grandparents of trans kids. That made my heart grow 10 sizes.”

And then there are the harder stories — the ones that show how transformation really happens.

There’s one grandmother who says in nearly every session that she’s not sure her grandchild is really trans. She has tested my patience more times than I can count — something we now laugh about — but her doubts haven’t disappeared. What has changed is her willingness to stay present and talk through her feelings.

At first, I thought she wouldn’t return after I gently challenged her. But she did — and not only that, she had read the articles I sent her. She brought notes. She came back with real questions. Most importantly, she continues to be respectful and affirming toward her grandchild in person. The group has become a space where she can wrestle with her fears honestly and be lovingly held accountable by other grandparents who once felt just like her.

You can see her softening, session by session. It’s in how she works harder to use the correct name and pronouns, even when it doesn’t come naturally. It’s in how she reflects on her missteps without defensiveness. Recently, after pausing mid-sentence, she said with a wry smile, “I know I shouldn’t care about anyone’s parts — so now I know better than to ask!” The group chuckled — not at her, but with her. Another grandparent added, “That was hard for me too.”

She’s growing. And so are all of us.

One grandfather recently said, “Sometimes I think it’d be easier if my grandchild were just gay.” That comment opened the door to a powerful conversation. Many in the group lived through the AIDS epidemic — when being gay meant watching friends die, being disowned by family, and living with constant fear. “Thirty years ago,” he added, “I would’ve done anything to keep my grandson from that kind of pain. And now, I’m saying the opposite. That’s how much the world — and I — have changed.”

Others, especially among our original Jewish cohorts, carry the weight of family histories marked by persecution and forced assimilation. These grandparents know what it means to be othered — to be told that hiding who you are is the only path to safety. During one session, a grandparent reflected on how deeply that instinct to blend in had been passed down in their family. “We survived by making ourselves invisible,” they said. “But I don’t want that for my grandchild.”

As the group explored these intergenerational echoes, a theme emerged: the desire to break the cycle. Just as these grandparents would never want their grandchildren to feel they must hide their faith or ethnicity to stay safe, they don’t want them to feel they must hide their gender identity either. That understanding didn’t come from a textbook — it came from their own stories, their own bodies, and a shared sense of what it means to carry inherited fear and choose love anyway.

There’s something profoundly moving about watching a Zoom screen full of people in their 70s, 80s and even 90s — people who could choose comfort or disconnection, but instead, show up week after week with notebooks in hand, eager to learn. One grandmother put it perfectly: “What better reason for becoming a lifelong learner at an advanced age than to love and support our grandchildren?”

They reflect on the gender roles they were raised with. They unlearn language they never questioned. They practice saying “my granddaughter” or “my nonbinary grandchild” aloud, letting the words settle on their tongues like a promise they’re learning to keep.

Having lost my grandparents in recent years, facilitating this group has felt like gaining a room full of wise elders I didn’t know I still needed. They come to learn from me, but the truth is, we’re all learning from each other.

And their growth isn’t just meaningful — it’s potentially lifesaving.

More than 1 in 4 LGBTQ+ youths report experiencing homelessness or housing instability at some point in their lives — often as a direct result of family rejection. The stakes are painfully high. But the presence of just one affirming adult can change everything.

According to The Trevor Project, LGBTQ+ youth with at least one accepting adult are 40% less likely to attempt suicide. For trans youth, being called by their chosen name and correct pronouns leads to 71% fewer symptoms of severe depression and a 34% drop in suicidal thoughts.

That’s the power these grandparents hold — not just to grow, but to protect. Their affirmation can be the difference between isolation and belonging, between despair and hope.

It’s not that they don’t have fears. They worry about their grandchild’s safety. They’re devastated by the current political climate. But they don’t let those fears close their hearts. They keep asking questions. They stay in the room. They volunteer. They sign petitions. They join boards and send money to grassroots organisations. They act.

In a world that often dismisses older adults as immovable or irrelevant, these grandparents are showing what radical love looks like. They’re not just bearing witness to their grandchildren’s identities — they’re actively shaping the legacy they leave behind.

A legacy of compassion, not silence. Of courage, not fear. Of love, lived out loud.

They won’t be here forever — but what they’re choosing now will outlast them all.

Note: Some details have been changed to protect the identities of individuals in this essay.

If you’re a grandparent — or know someone who is — curious, questioning, or simply wanting to show up for a trans or gender-expansive grandchild, the next TransGenerations cohort begins in late June. No knowledge required — just a willingness to grow.

Rebecca Minor, LICSW, is a queer clinician, consultant and educator specialising in trauma, gender and sexuality. Rebecca is the founder of Prism Therapy Collective, offering therapy and coaching to parents and caregivers of transgender youth. She has authored articles on LGBTQ+ youth, contributed to textbooks, and is frequently quoted as an expert on gender-affirming care. Her internationally recognised consulting and coaching work supports organisations, schools and businesses in building cultural responsiveness and inclusivity. She is adjunct faculty at Boston University and the author of the forthcoming book “Raising Trans Kids: What To Expect When You Weren’t Expecting This” (Row House, 2025).

Share Button

Supreme Court Ruling Is Anything But Clear – And Endangers All Women’s Rights, Trans Group Warns

A leading trans advocacy group has hit out at the “widespread confusion and fear” caused by the Supreme Court’s ruling that a woman is defined by biology.

The momentous judgement came after years of campaigning from gender-critical groups and has left the trans community in disarray.

Keir Starmer has shifted his stance on trans rights recently too. His spokesperson said on Tuesday that the PM no longer believes a trans woman is a woman – even though he said the opposite in 2022 – and said the government welcomes the judgement.

But, in a new letter to the prime minister, campaigners from TransActual challenged the government’s repeated claim that the top judges’ decision had brought “clarity” and pointed out the 14 issues the ruling has not addressed.

The letter asked: “How is ‘biological sex’ to be defined other than by certification on original birth certificates? Hormonal? Genital? Chromosomal? How will outliers in these be treated?”

The campaigners also looked at how women who are not trans will be impacted by the Court’s decision, particularly women with “gender non-conforming appearances or attributes”.

The group said: “In the course of early legal analysis, a number of huge risks have been identified for all LGBTQ+ people, as well as women with gender non-conforming appearance or attributes, which arise from this deviation from the clear original intentions and definitions in the Equality Act.”

It also asked: “What mechanisms will be available to correct ‘administrative’ mistakes such as the young girl recently reported as having M marked on her original birth certificate last autumn, or the woman who discovered a few years ago that she was legally male when she went to marry her long-term partner and father of their child?”

The campaigners then questioned single-sex issues around policing.

TransActual asked: “How will policies like that of the British Transport Police (BTP) – who announced that trans women would be strip-searched by male officers – not create a huge risk to all women?

“How will the BTP determine who is trans and who is not? What will the remedy be for those women who are not trans who end up being strip-searched by male BTP officers? What is the impact on trans people’s privacy?”

The group also looked at the issues around public places after the minister for equalities and education secretary Bridget Phillipson said people should use toilets according to their biological sex.

“How would access to single-sex spaces be policed?” the campaigners asked. “How would this be funded? What laws would be brought in to enforce this as, for example, the only laws around public toilets are around their provision, not who accesses them?”

It also asked: “If trans women should be barred from female single-sex spaces, and trans men be barred from female and male single-sex spaces, which facilities should trans men use, and how will you ensure trans women’s safety and dignity?”

This morning we wrote to the Prime Minister to express concern in respect of last week’s Supreme Court’s ruling and the confusion that has brought to all equalities law. You’ll find more info on what we said, and the letter itself, at: transactual.org.uk/blog/2025/04… #Trans #Nonbinary

TransActual (@transactualuk.bsky.social) 2025-04-22T19:00:19.941Z

TransActual head Helen Belcher concluded the letter by writing: “We hope that these urgent questions demonstrate this ruling has brought widespread confusion and fear, not clarity, and that equalities law in the UK must be immediately returned to a sound legal footing.

“There are many other questions which also arise from the judgement which will follow as legal study is done and the practical effects continue.”

When LBC presenter Nick Ferrari asked about the British Transport Police policy that male officers would now be conducting strip-searches on trans women, policing minister Diana Johnson appeared to support it.

She said: “My understanding from the Supreme Court judgement last week is, that it would be done on the basis of biological sex…yes, that’s the law of the land. And I support the law of the land.

“I’m very pleased we’ve got that clarity from last week as to biological sex being the basis of that.”

But Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer, later hit back at the government’s response.

She told HuffPost UK: “Sadly for women, both trans and not, many of [our] rights have been eroded in recent years.

“Cuts to healthcare, a rise in misogyny and transphobia, and government neglect of public services have made us all less safe and less supported.

“I’m deeply concerned that this government’s response to the recent Supreme Court ruling will entrench these problems for trans people, while doing nothing to address the real issues facing all women – making it harder for trans people to exist in public spaces, to access support, or to get healthcare.

“I am also worried that rather than standing up against a tide of hatred and fear directed against trans people, this government is giving ground to those who would see trans people pushed out of public life.”

All of us, whether we’re trans or not, deserve dignity and respect, and the freedom to go about our daily lives without fear of abuse or harassment. Govt has urgent Qs to answer about how it will ensure those rights for trans people – sadly I didn’t get those answers yesterday.

Carla Denyer (@carladenyer.bsky.social) 2025-04-23T09:46:20.689Z

Share Button

5 Judges Just Decided How To Define A Woman – And Have ‘Set Trans Rights Back 20 Years’

The Supreme Court has just ruled that the term “woman” refers to those born as biologically female.

The landmark moment has delivered a blow to the trans community and comes after years of campaigning from gender-critical groups.

Here’s a look at how we got here, and just what that means.

What just happened?

The UK Supreme Court, operated by the five most senior judges in the country, has officially defined what a woman is.

Lord Reed, Lady Rose, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Simler and Lord Hodge have all ruled sex is defined by biology.

It comes after gender-critical campaigners escalated a case looking at Scottish legislation about how to define gender.

Judges were looking at this question: “Is a person with a full GRC [gender recognition certificate] which recognises that their gender is female, a ‘woman’ for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010?”

Lord Hodge announced today: “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”

Essentially that means defining someone based on their reproductive organs and chromosomes rather than their gender identity and any gender-recognition process.

It has defined sex as binary.

Why was this issue even in the courts?

It comes after campaign groups of gender-critical women, For Women Scotland and Sex Matters, brought a case against the Scottish government to the Supreme Court.

They were fighting against legislation led by former first minister Nicola Sturgeon in 2018 which aimed to set up gender quotas for public boards.

This law recognised trans women with gender recognition certificates (GRC) as women.

But the campaigners claim sex is biological and binary.

They said the legislation had broken with the separate definition of women and trans women as explained in the 2010 Equality Act.

They claimed that sex based protections should only be offered to those who were born biologically female – and therefore not include those with a GRC.

So they began contesting the legislation in 2021 with a judicial review.

The Scottish government argued its legislation was in line with the definition of women in the Equality Act and trans women as defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

The 2004 legislation states: “Where a full gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person that their acquired gender is female, the person’s sex is that of a woman.”

The Scottish courts already ruled twice in the Scottish government’s favour, saying sex is “not limited to biological or birth sex” – including those with GRC.

So the group escalated it to the Supreme Court – meaning the ruling will now impact the whole of Britain.

How did the judges come to this decision?

Hodge said the predecessors to the Equality Act used definitions of biological sex and gender reassignment was added as a separate characteristic.

He said: “Although the word ‘biological’ does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman.

“These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation.

“Men and women are on the face of the definition only differentiated as a grouping by the biology they share with their group.”

Hodge also noted if people with Gender Reassignment Certificates were included in the sex group, it would make the Equality Act read in an “incoherent way”.

He said any issues linked to pregnancy and maternity can be read as referring to biological sex, but other parts of the Act referred to “certified sex”.

However, he said this ruling should not be seen as a victory for either side of the argument, and claimed trans people are still protected in the law.

What does this mean for the trans community?

Lord Hodge said the marginalised group are still protected through the Equality Act 2010 against discrimination – indirect and direct – as well as harassment.

But trans rights campaigners fear this means they will lose protections and that public bodies and organisations will change how they operate in regard to single-sex spaces.

Statista found the number of police recorded hate crimes against trans people has been rising in recent years. In 2023/24, there were 4,780 recorded incidents.

Trans women with GRCs may not be able to access women’s single-sex services.

The Good Law Project also claimed the court did not hear from a single trans person.

The campaigners added: “This ruling sets a dangerous precedent and erases trans women from protections. It puts trans rights back 20 years.”

<div class="js-react-hydrator" data-component-name="Twitter" data-component-id="1143" data-component-props="{"itemType":"rich","index":47,"contentIndexByType":1,"contentListType":"embed","code":"

The Supreme Court sided with FWS. But it didn’t hear from a single trans person.

This ruling sets a dangerous precedent and erases trans women from protections. It puts trans rights back 20 years.

We won’t stop fighting for trans rights 🏳️⚧️

— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) April 16, 2025

","type":"rich","meta":{"author":"Good Law Project","author_url":"https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject","cache_age":86400,"description":"The Supreme Court sided with FWS. But it didn’t hear from a single trans person. This ruling sets a dangerous precedent and erases trans women from protections. It puts trans rights back 20 years. We won’t stop fighting for trans rights 🏳️‍⚧️— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) April 16, 2025\n\n\n","options":{"_maxwidth":{"label":"Adjust width","placeholder":"220-550, in px","value":""},"_theme":{"value":"","values":{"dark":"Use dark theme"}}},"provider_name":"Twitter","title":"Good Law Project on Twitter / X","type":"rich","url":"https://twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1912436399724216402","version":"1.0"},"flags":[],"enhancements":{},"fullBleed":false,"options":{"theme":"news","device":"desktop","editionInfo":{"id":"uk","name":"U.K.","link":"https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk","locale":"en_GB"},"originalEdition":"uk","isMapi":false,"isAmp":false,"isAdsFree":false,"isVideoEntry":false,"isEntry":true,"isMt":false,"entryId":"67ff5f03e4b051f6e26e5e91","entryPermalink":"https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/explained-supreme-court-has-decided-how-to-define-a-woman_uk_67ff5f03e4b051f6e26e5e91","entryTagsList":"lgbtq,transgender","sectionSlug":"politics","deptSlug":null,"sectionRedirectUrl":null,"subcategories":"","isWide":false,"headerOverride":null,"noVideoAds":false,"disableFloat":false,"isNative":false,"commercialVideo":{"provider":"custom","site_and_category":"uk.politics","package":null},"isHighline":false,"vidibleConfigValues":{"cid":"60afc140cf94592c45d7390c","disabledWithMapiEntries":false,"overrides":{"all":"60b8e525cdd90620331baaf4"},"whitelisted":["56c5f12ee4b03a39c93c9439","56c6056ee4b01f2b7e1b5f35","59bfee7f9e451049f87f550b","5acccbaac269d609ef44c529","570278d2e4b070ff77b98217","57027b4be4b070ff77b98d5c","56fe95c4e4b0041c4242016b","570279cfe4b06d08e3629954","5ba9e8821c2e65639162ccf1","5bcd9904821576674bc55ced","5d076ca127f25f504327c72e","5b35266b158f855373e28256","5ebac2e8abddfb04f877dff2","60b8e525cdd90620331baaf4","60b64354b171b7444beaff4d","60d0d8e09340d7032ad0fb1a","60d0d90f9340d7032ad0fbeb","60d0d9949340d7032ad0fed3","60d0d9f99340d7032ad10113","60d0daa69340d7032ad104cf","60d0de02b627221e9d819408"],"playlists":{"default":"57bc306888d2ff1a7f6b5579","news":"56c6dbcee4b04edee8beb49c","politics":"56c6dbcee4b04edee8beb49c","entertainment":"56c6e7f2e4b0983aa64c60fc","tech":"56c6f70ae4b043c5bdcaebf9","parents":"56cc65c2e4b0239099455b42","lifestyle":"56cc66a9e4b01f81ef94e98c"},"playerUpdates":{"56c6056ee4b01f2b7e1b5f35":"60b8e525cdd90620331baaf4","56c5f12ee4b03a39c93c9439":"60d0d8e09340d7032ad0fb1a","59bfee7f9e451049f87f550b":"60d0d90f9340d7032ad0fbeb","5acccbaac269d609ef44c529":"60d0d9949340d7032ad0fed3","5bcd9904821576674bc55ced":"60d0d9f99340d7032ad10113","5d076ca127f25f504327c72e":"60d0daa69340d7032ad104cf","5ebac2e8abddfb04f877dff2":"60d0de02b627221e9d819408"}},"connatixConfigValues":{"defaultPlayer":"16b0ecc6-802c-4120-845f-e90629812c4d","clickToPlayPlayer":"823ac03a-0f7e-4bcb-8521-a5b091ae948d","videoPagePlayer":"05041ada-93f7-4e86-9208-e03a5b19311b","defaultPlaylist":"2e062669-71b4-41df-b17a-df6b1616bc8f"},"topConnatixThumnbailSrc":"","customAmpComponents":[],"ampAssetsUrl":"https://amp.assets.huffpost.com","videoTraits":null,"positionInUnitCounts":{"buzz_head":{"count":0},"buzz_body":{"count":0},"buzz_bottom":{"count":0}},"positionInSubUnitCounts":{"article_body":{"count":9},"blog_summary":{"count":0},"before_you_go_content":{"count":0}},"connatixCountsHelper":{"count":0},"buzzfeedTracking":{"context_page_id":"67ff5f03e4b051f6e26e5e91","context_page_type":"buzz","destination":"huffpost","mode":"desktop","page_edition":"en-uk"},"tags":[{"name":"lgbtq","slug":"lgbtq","links":{"relativeLink":"news/lgbtq","permalink":"https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/news/lgbtq","mobileWebLink":"https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/news/lgbtq"},"section":{"title":"News","slug":"news"},"topic":{"title":"LGBTQ","slug":"lgbtq","overridesSectionLabel":false},"url":"https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/news/lgbtq/"},{"name":"Transgender","slug":"transgender","links":{"relativeLink":"news/transgender","permalink":"https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/news/transgender","mobileWebLink":"https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/news/transgender"},"section":{"title":"Life","slug":"lifestyle"},"topic":{"title":"Transgender","slug":"transgender","overridesSectionLabel":false},"url":"https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/news/transgender/"}],"isLiveblogLive":null,"isLiveblog":false,"cetUnit":"buzz_body","bodyAds":["

\r\n\r\n HPGam.cmd.push(function(){\r\n\t\treturn HPGam.render(\"inline-1\", \"entry_paragraph_1\", false, false);\r\n });\r\n\r\n","

\r\n\r\n HPGam.cmd.push(function(){\r\n\t\treturn HPGam.render(\"inline\", \"entry_paragraph_2\", false, false);\r\n });\r\n\r\n","

\r\n\r\n HPGam.cmd.push(function(){\r\n\t\treturn HPGam.render(\"inline-2\", \"entry_paragraph_3\", false, false);\r\n });\r\n\r\n","

\r\n\r\n HPGam.cmd.push(function(){\r\n\t\treturn HPGam.render(\"inline-infinite\", \"repeating_dynamic_display\", false, false);\r\n });\r\n\r\n"],"adCount":0},"isCollectionEmbed":false}”>

The Supreme Court sided with FWS. But it didn’t hear from a single trans person.

This ruling sets a dangerous precedent and erases trans women from protections. It puts trans rights back 20 years.

We won’t stop fighting for trans rights 🏳️⚧️

— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) April 16, 2025

Scottish Trans told the public “not to panic” as it was working to “properly understand what the court has decided today”.

Writing on BlueSky, it said: “There will be lots of commentary coming out quickly that is likely to deliberately overstate the impact that this decision is going to have on all trans people’s lives. We’ll say more as soon as we’re able to. Please look out for yourselves and each other today.”

Helen Belcher, chair of trans advocacy group TransActual, said trans communities “are devastated by today’s ruling”.

“The Supreme Court has made a ruling which appears to contain a number of contradictions. Irrespective of the small print, the intent seems clear: to exclude trans people wholesale from participating in UK society. Today, we are feeling very excluded.

“Yet, we have come through worse before and are not going away. Whatever the world throws at us, we will be back, each time, stronger and bolder than before.”

Amnesty International ’s chief executive Sacha Deshmukh, said the ruling was “disappointing”, adding: “All public authorities in the UK need to unequivocally enforce protections for trans people against discrimination and harassment.”

What does it mean for British society as a whole?

The question over socialised gender and biological sex has been a culture war touchpoint for years now, leading to spike in abuse against the trans community.

Because the issue was escalated to the most senior court in the UK, the ruling will now impact the way the whole of Britain perceives sex and gender.

The outcome of the justices’ decision will hit the interpretation of the Gordon Brown-era 2010 Equality Act.

It will affect how single-sex services work, how future equalities or gender policies are written.

A UK government spokesperson responded: “We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.

“This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.

“Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”

And, despite the judges’ warning not to see this as a victory, it is already being celebrated by the gender-critics.

Tory Party leader Kemi Badenoch praised the decision, saying: “Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact, and now isn’t true in law either.

“This is a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.

“The era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end. Well done to For Women Scotland!”

Activists sing as they hold placards including "Women are born, not some bloke with a form" and "Women are women, men are men, you can't change sex with the stroke of a pen" during a protest in Parliament Square across the Supreme Court in London on April 16.
Activists sing as they hold placards including “Women are born, not some bloke with a form” and “Women are women, men are men, you can’t change sex with the stroke of a pen” during a protest in Parliament Square across the Supreme Court in London on April 16.

HENRY NICHOLLS via AFP via Getty Images

Help and support:

  • The Gender Trust supports anyone affected by gender identity | 01527 894 838
  • Mermaids offers information, support, friendship and shared experiences for young people with gender identity issues | 0208 1234819
  • LGBT Youth Scotland is the largest youth and community-based organisation for LGBT people in Scotland. Text 07786 202 370
  • Gires provides information for trans people, their families and professionals who care for them | 01372 801554
  • Depend provides support, advice and information for anyone who knows, or is related to, a transsexual person in the UK
Share Button