TRANSLUCENT'S LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE EHRC CODE. I founded TransLucent because I believed the trans community deserved an organisation that would fight misinformation wherever it matters - in Parliament, in the media, and, if necessary, in the courts. Today, that fight may be heading to the High Court. On 3rd July, TransLucent served a formal legal notice on the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, challenging the new draft statutory Code of Practice for misstating the law on trans inclusion. We do this as a trans-led Community Interest Company with a recognised voice in this space and direct, ongoing engagement with the EHRC on this very Code. That matters — it means we're not speaking as outsiders, but as the community this Code will deeply affect. In short, TransLucent has "standing". We know the @EHRC has faced very serious criticism from many people over the past years, and we fully understand why - we were there at the start. There can be no doubt that thousands of people have been harmed by the actions of this organisation because of its past makeup of gender critical bad faith actors put in place to facilitate a culture war against a tiny and highly vulnerable minority. But this challenge isn't about relitigating that history - it's about fixing specific, identifiable errors. Here's what winning would mean in practice. Right now, the Code tells every employer and service provider in England, Scotland and Wales that including trans people in appropriate facilities is "very likely" unlawful. That single phrase has already led some employers, NHS trusts, councils and universities to change long-standing inclusive policies — not because they wanted to, but because they believed the law left them no choice. If we win on this point, that overreaching language goes. Employers and service providers who want to run inclusive services would regain the legal clarity to do so, with the Code supporting them rather than working against them. The Code also suggests that offering mixed-sex facilities could itself amount to direct sex discrimination against women. We say that's a mischaracterisation: at most, this could only ever be indirect discrimination, which the law allows to be objectively justified. Winning on this ground would confirm that mixed-sex provision, where proportionate, is legally defensible — not a trap for providers trying to do the right thing. These aren't abstract legal technicalities to us. They could be the difference between a trans woman being able to use appropriate facilities at work, an NHS patient being cared for on the right ward, or a trans teenager using the right facilities at college. To be clear: we are not asking the court to rewrite the Equality Act, though in the longer term that must be an aim. We're asking it to correct a statutory Code that overstates the law against trans people — using reasoning the High Court has already recognised in a previous judgment. We need your help to get there. Judicial reviews are expensive — often costing well over £100,000. However, we are applying for a costs cap, but nevertheless, we still need to raise £20,000 via CrowdJustice to cover the pre-action phase and reach the permission hearing. Finally, a huge thank you to the team of ten people (including six lawyers) who worked flat out over five weeks to get us here. Please help. Every share....every donation....however small... moves us closer. Thank you, Steph x crowdjustice.com/case/challe…