Labour leader Bella Sankey said that Brighton and Hove was a “city of friends in a country of neighbours” at the monthly meeting of the council’s cabinet.
Her comments today (Thursday 15 May) came days after the Labour Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was criticised for warning that Britain was at risk of “becoming an island of strangers”.
Sir Keir made his comments in a speech about the government’s approach to immigration less than a fortnight after Reform UK, the party led by Nigel Farage, made significant gains in the local elections.
Councillor Sankey’s comments also came after the Unison trade union wrote to the council leader, her fellow Labour councillors and to Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Chris Ward about the government’s rhetoric on immigration.
The union’s Brighton and Hove branch recently passed a motion which said: “The Labour government’s dangerous and misinformed rhetoric and communications on migrants and asylum-seekers must stop.”
Unison said: “A black migrant member of our branch has told us that the recent government ads boasting about how many migrants they have deported made them feel less safe both at work and in their personal lives.
“Brighton and Hove Unison is appalled by these ads and believes, as does our member, that the ‘othering’ and dangerous imagery and rhetoric they include contribute to an unsafe environment for migrant workers and, shamefully, increase the risks of hate crime.
“The ads use Reform style imagery and rhetoric and are dehumanising. These ads are also in direct conflict with Unison’s important work raising awareness of the exploitation of sponsored migrant workers.
“Our branch has also supported several migrant and sponsored workers (most of whom are black women) who have been exploited or bullied at work.
“We are clear that these ads and accompanying social media posts will expose them to more racist victimisation and harassment.”
In contrast to the phrase “an island of strangers”, Councillor Sankey told the cabinet: “I am proud to lead what I would describe as a city of friends in a country of neighbours.
“We are a ‘city of sanctuary’ that celebrates the extraordinary contributions of our migrant residents, many of whom are valued colleagues here at the city council.
“As the descendant of migrants on one side of my family, I understand how interwoven this country’s history is with much of the rest of the world.
“I will always defend the rights of all human beings regardless of their nationality and this council is proud to lead the country in our EDI (equalities, diversity and inclusion) programmes, our climate change work and to proudly fly our inclusive Pride flag at every opportunity.”
Councillor Sankey also addressed the recent Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act which she said had caused “confusion and deep anxiety” about services for trans people.
She said: “I want to make clear to our trans, intersex and non-binary residents and colleagues here at the council that we hear your anxiety and distress and that many aspects of daily life and routine have now been thrown into uncertainty.
“The Supreme Court judgment made clear that the Equality Act protects trans people from discrimination and harassment and this principle must be upheld as the government considers the judgment and its next steps.
“As drafted, the update provided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission would seem to create serious difficulties for trans people and their ability to access services and live with dignity.
“Brighton and Hove City Council will fully participate in the consultation on the full guidance when published to ensure that the protections of the Equality Act endorsed by the Supreme Court are properly upheld.”
i am very happy to see that our Labour council supports our wonderful migrant residents and our trans residents. Perhaps the government should take a leaf out of Cllr Bella Sankey’s progressive book
Supporting trans people should never mean allowing them to trample the rights of women and girls. Trans people absolutely deserve dignity and respect – but not at the cost of 51% of the population. True progress means protecting everyone’s rights, including the hard-won sex-based rights of women.
We absolutely must protect women’s rights, but that should never come at the expense of trans people’s safety, dignity, or existence. This isn’t a zero-sum game. The idea that inclusion for one group inherently undermines another is a divisive narrative not borne from evidence.
Leading women’s organisations such as Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis England & Wales have repeatedly affirmed that trans-inclusive services do not compromise the safety of women. What undermines all our rights is a politics that pits marginalised communities against one another. Brighton has long stood as a beacon of inclusion; let’s not forget that.
With respect, it absolutely is a zero-sum game. Women cannot retain their right to privacy, dignity, and safety in single-sex spaces like toilets and changing rooms if males — and trans women are male — are allowed in. You cannot protect women’s boundaries while simultaneously removing them. That’s not inclusion, it’s erasure.
Organisations like Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis may have taken a trans-inclusive stance, but many frontline workers and survivors strongly disagree — they just don’t get platformed. The truth is, safeguarding requires recognising sex, not feelings. Brighton should stand for genuine inclusion — but that means protecting everyone’s rights, including those of women and girls.
I’m glad we can have a calm, structured conversation about this. Thank you. I respect that this issue raises strong feelings, but the notion that inclusion is ‘erasure’ isn’t supported by evidence or practice. Safeguarding and inclusion are not mutually exclusive. Services across the UK, like those I have mentioned, have successfully provided trans-inclusive support for years while maintaining robust safeguarding standards.
The idea that all trans women are ‘biological males’ misrepresents both the law and the diversity of gender identity. Under the Equality Act 2010, trans people are protected against discrimination, and service providers can make nuanced, risk-based decisions where needed. That’s already the law, nothing has been ‘erased.’
As for frontline workers, many do support inclusion. But anecdotal disagreement does not outweigh the positions of established organisations that base policy on extensive consultation, trauma-informed practice, and evidence. Brighton has never had to choose between rights, it’s always chosen compassion and safety for everyone. I think it is important that we continue that legacy.
@BENJAMIN:
I appreciate the civility too — but let’s be honest: inclusion can mean erasure when it overrides the rights of others, particularly women and girls. If the price of inclusion is removing sex-based boundaries, then yes, that is by definition the erasure of single-sex spaces. You can’t safeguard effectively if you deny the relevance of biological sex.
Let’s be clear: all trans women are biological males. That’s not a slur — it’s a biological fact. Gender identity is subjective. Sex is not. The law recognises this too. The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination because of sex and because of gender reassignment — and the two are not the same. Under Schedule 3, service providers are absolutely permitted to exclude trans-identifying males from female-only spaces where it’s a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim — like safeguarding or privacy.
Yes, some services claim to be inclusive without issue — but many frontline workers, survivors, and users report the opposite. They’re just afraid to speak publicly, because doing so often results in harassment, professional risk, or reputational damage. That’s not inclusion — that’s intimidation.
Brighton’s legacy of compassion should include listening to women. Real safeguarding isn’t about identity. It’s about risk, vulnerability, and boundaries. We don’t remove those just because it makes someone feel uncomfortable. We uphold them because they protect the most vulnerable — and half the population is vulnerable in sexed contexts.
Choosing compassion means protecting everyone’s rights — including the right of women and girls to say “no” to male bodies in private spaces. Anything less is erasure — no matter how kindly it’s worded.
Benjamin we’ve had our disagreements in the past but once again I’m in full agreement with you.
Very true. Women and girls must not be sidelined or mistreated for the sack of the Trans community.
Until she is prepared to challenge her Leader Keir Starmer about his abhorrent language her words feel empty to me. She’s aware of the political mood in Brighton and will have read the room and realised it’s sensible to say something. Yet to only say something in a local forum, rather than doing the brave thing of standing up to bullies and those causing fear in our communities, like her friend Keir, and challenging him directly on it about impact his language has – there’s no applause from me about her comments.
It’s shocking to me that so many Labour councillors up and down the country, many of them standing as candidates initially because of solid Labour principles, are not now calling out the cruelty and hardship their colleagues in Westminster on things like Keir’s divisive language and other plans like welfare reform and winter fuel allowance.
Sex is binary. Always has been, always will be. The vast majority of people in this country – even here in Brighton – know this. Conflating sex and gender, claiming sex can be changed or doesn’t matter, is exactly the sort of confusion Cllr Sankey has promoted. It’s no wonder so many are anxious and confused. Now the Supreme Court has clarified the law, the only barrier trans people face is the false promises made by politicians who told them otherwise.
I can tell from your name that knowing the latest scientific evidence is important to you. It is therefore worth checking out this evidence before you make confident public pronouncement. Putting aside the trans stuff for one moment, sex never has been nor never will be a binary and is very difficult to define as external physical features, chromosomes and hormones don’t necessarily match. I might know what sex my external features suggest, but do not know if my chromosomes or hormonal profile agree with my best guess! There is so much natural sex variation that we must view sex as a spectrum
@Pemela – This is absolute nonsense masquerading as science. Sex is not a “spectrum” – it’s defined by the type of gamete your body is organised to produce: large (egg) or small (sperm). That’s it. No third gamete. No grey area. Intersex conditions are disorders of sexual development, not a third sex. Every single person is male or female, no matter what cosmetic or hormonal changes they undergo. Confusing people by pretending otherwise is not progressive – it’s deeply irresponsible pseudoscience dressed up as compassion.
It’s important to distinguish between political rhetoric and actual biology. While gamete production is one part of defining sex, it’s not the whole story. The idea that sex is strictly binary ignores the existence of intersex people, who are born with naturally occurring variations in chromosomes, hormones, or anatomy that do not fit typical definitions of male or female.
The Endocrine Society and Nature Reviews Genetics both recognise that sex characteristics exist on a spectrum due to developmental biology. The ‘spectrum’ isn’t about ideology; it’s about the observable diversity in human biology.
Using biology as a cudgel to exclude or dehumanise others is neither scientific nor ethical. Good evidence-based care is rooted in evidence AND compassion, especially in a city like Brighton, where respect for difference is part of our civic fabric.
@Benjamin – Let’s be absolutely clear: sex is defined by the type of gamete your body is organised to produce — large (eggs) or small (sperm). That’s not “one part” of the story, it is the definition. There is no third gamete. That makes sex binary, full stop.
Intersex conditions are disorders of sexual development — they don’t create a third sex, and every intersex individual is still either male or female. Determining sex is not difficult, and in medical practice, legal contexts, and safeguarding, it’s essential to get it right. Developmental quirks or rare conditions don’t erase the fundamental binary of human reproduction.
Invoking compassion doesn’t change biology. We can be kind and respectful without rewriting scientific reality to suit ideology. Sex is always binary — whether or not that’s politically convenient.
I appreciate your clarity, but it’s important to distinguish between reproductive biology and human sex development more broadly. Gamete size is one way to define sex, yes, but it does not account for the many variations in chromosomal patterns, hormone levels, or anatomical differences observed in intersex people.
Intersex conditions aren’t just “quirks” – they are medically recognised variations. The Endocrine Society and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights both reject the idea that intersex people can be neatly boxed into ‘male’ or ‘female’ in all cases. Not all intersex individuals can be categorised based on gamete potential, and in fact, many never produce gametes at all.
The idea that sex is ‘simple’ or ‘easy to determine’ is contradicted by decades of clinical practice. That’s why modern medicine approaches sex characteristics as multifactorial, not ideological, but grounded in complex human biology. Recognising this isn’t about ‘rewriting science,’ it’s about reflecting what science actually tells us.
At medical school in the 1990s I was taught there are 5 sexes based on chromosomes – XX, XY, XO , XXY, XYY – not sure what the current teaching is. While the term “five sexes” gained popularity, it’s important to note that the human body’s sexual development is a spectrum, and there are numerous variations in chromosome patterns and physical traits that don’t fit neatly into the traditional male or female categorie
Ah, that’s Anne Fausto-Sterling! Thanks for reminding me of that one.
Male, Female, Merms, Ferms, and I forget the other one…
And the five sexes model wasn’t rigid either, in her own words, she said it was not intended as a literal reclassification of the human species. Instead, it was a provocative intellectual intervention aimed at challenging biological determinism prevalent in both science and public discourse at the time.
@SAMMY:
That “five sexes” idea is a long-debunked misreading of biology, popularised by an essay — not science. There are two sexes: male and female. Full stop. Every single human is either one or the other, defined by whether their body is organised to produce large gametes (eggs) or small gametes (sperm). That’s it. That’s sex.
Chromosomal variations like XO, XXY, or XYY are disorders of sexual development — not new sexes. They don’t create additional categories. People with these conditions are still male or female. This isn’t controversial in actual medical science — only in ideological circles trying to blur the lines.
Sex is not a spectrum. Human reproduction depends on a binary system, and every person fits into it, even if developmental quirks make diagnosis more complex. To pretend otherwise is to confuse students, mislead the public, and undermine women’s rights.
@BENJAMIN:
Exactly — it was never science. Even Anne Fausto-Sterling later admitted her “five sexes” model wasn’t literal biology but a provocative political statement. It was a rhetorical device designed to challenge so-called “biological determinism,” not a genuine attempt to redefine human sex classification.
But biology isn’t up for political reinterpretation. Humans are sexually dimorphic mammals. Sex is binary, based on gamete production — eggs or sperm. No third gamete means no third sex. Disorders of sexual development don’t make new sexes; they are rare medical conditions, not proof of a spectrum.
Using a deliberately provocative essay to undermine settled science only spreads confusion. We don’t organise medicine, law, or safeguarding around “intellectual interventions” — we do it around reality. And the reality is: sex is binary. Always has been. Always will be.
You’re right that Fausto-Sterling’s model was intentionally provocative, not meant as a literal taxonomy. Like I had said, it was used as a catalyst for further discussion. But that doesn’t discredit the broader biological reality: human sex development involves more than just gamete production. The binary framework works well for reproduction, but it doesn’t capture the full complexity of chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, and anatomical diversity observed in human beings.
As I’ve mentioned already, many medical bodies acknowledge that sex characteristics can vary meaningfully, especially in the case of intersex people. These aren’t fringe ideas. They inform clinical care, human rights law, and policy in inclusive and evidence-led systems.
Saying sex is “binary, always has been, always will be” may feel like clarity, but it overlooks the spectrum of biological variation we see in real life. No one is denying sexual dimorphism. But insisting it explains everything does a disservice to the people whose biology doesn’t fit neatly into the binary model. That’s not ideology – it is respectful science grounded in reality.
@BENJAMIN:
It’s important to distinguish between understanding complexity and redefining categories. Yes, human sex development involves chromosomes, hormones, gonads, and anatomy — but all of those exist in support of a binary reproductive system. Sex is defined by the type of gamete the body is organised to produce: large (eggs) or small (sperm). There is no third gamete. That makes sex binary — not because it’s tidy, but because it’s how reproduction works.
Intersex conditions (better called Disorders or Differences of Sexual Development, DSDs) are medical deviations from typical development — not evidence of a third sex. These individuals are still male or female, even if diagnosis is complex. They do not form a spectrum, and they do not occupy some “middle sex.” In fact, the vast majority of DSD cases are diagnosable and clearly fall into one of the two sexes — a fact well understood in clinical care.
The idea that biological sex is a “spectrum” misrepresents the consensus of biology. The Endocrine Society and other medical bodies might acknowledge variation in sex characteristics — but variation within a category doesn’t mean the category doesn’t exist. People can be born with atypical limbs — that doesn’t mean “number of limbs” is a spectrum.
Sexual dimorphism is real, universal in mammals, and foundational to human biology. Sex matters in medicine, law, safeguarding, and sports. To pretend that gametes are just one “small part” of a bigger mystery is to ignore why the binary exists in the first place.
Saying “sex is binary, always has been, always will be” isn’t ideology — it’s the bedrock of reproductive biology. That’s not disrespectful, it’s simply reality. And good science starts with facing reality, not reshaping it to suit political narratives.
I don’t care who empties my bins or fills in the potholes just get it done!
Yes !
You make an excellent point. There are a lot of people who just want the basics done well.
Surely as a lawyer she will respect the law and comply with the ruling of the Supreme Court and not seek to oppose its will ?
Exactly this. As both a council leader and a lawyer, Cllr Sankey has a duty to uphold the law – including the Supreme Court’s clear ruling that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. Personal beliefs shouldn’t override legal obligations, especially when it comes to safeguarding and protecting everyone’s rights.
I agree that legal obligations must take precedence over personal beliefs. That said, many of these discussions could be defused with practical solutions, like single-unit unisex changing rooms and toilets that protect everyone’s dignity and privacy.
But let’s be clear: safeguarding should never be misused as a smokescreen for prejudice. There is no credible evidence linking transgender identity to increased safeguarding risks. On the contrary, trans people are far more likely to be victims of abuse and violence than perpetrators. We owe it to all residents to lead with… evidence-based care, please.
Yes, legal obligations do take precedence — and the Equality Act, now clarified by the Supreme Court, allows for single-sex spaces because sex matters. Safeguarding isn’t a “smokescreen,” it’s a legal and moral duty to protect the vulnerable — especially women and girls — whose rights to privacy and dignity are being eroded in the name of inclusion.
The risk isn’t about claiming all trans people are predators — that’s a straw man. It’s about the policy of allowing any male, regardless of identity, into spaces where women undress or are vulnerable. If males can self-declare access, safeguarding collapses — because abusers exploit weak policies. That’s a fact borne out time and again.
Unisex cubicles might work in some settings, but they’re not a universal fix, especially in schools, gyms, and refuges. Women fought for sex-segregated spaces for good reason — and they are still needed.
This is not about prejudice. It’s about recognising that sex is real, immutable, and relevant. Pretending otherwise is not evidence-based care — it’s ideology dressed up as compassion.
It’s important to note that the Equality Act already allows for single-sex spaces where proportionate and necessary. It doesn’t mandate exclusion, it provides a balanced, case-by-case framework.
There’s no legal or evidential basis for the claim that trans inclusion ‘erodes’ women’s rights. On the contrary, as the risk of repeating myself, numerous service providers have operated trans-inclusive spaces for years with robust safeguarding in place. There’s no widespread evidence of harm – just fear amplified by policy debates that rarely centre real-world practice.
As for unisex solutions, they aren’t a universal answer, but they do work well in many public settings and allow for dignity and privacy for everyone. The conversation shouldn’t be about imagined policy collapse, it should be about how to maintain safe, inclusive spaces using evidence and respect. I believe we are agreed on that aspect, at the very least.
@BENJAMIN:
You’re right that the Equality Act allows for single-sex spaces where proportionate and necessary — but what you’re glossing over is that this provision exists because sex matters, and because women fought for those protections. The Act explicitly recognises biological sex, and the recent Supreme Court ruling confirmed that “man” and “woman” mean biological male and biological female. That ruling has direct implications for who may and may not be lawfully excluded from single-sex spaces.
To pretend that “inclusion” doesn’t erode women’s rights is deeply disingenuous. If any male can access women’s spaces based on identity, then by definition, those spaces are no longer single-sex. That isn’t inclusion — that’s the removal of boundaries women rely on for privacy, dignity, and safety.
The absence of “widespread evidence of harm” is a dangerous bar to set. Safeguarding isn’t about waiting for harm to occur — it’s about preventing it. And there are cases: from self-identifying males in women’s prisons committing assaults, to women leaving changing rooms in distress because they no longer feel safe. The fact those women’s experiences are so often dismissed only highlights the misogyny at play — where women’s discomfort, fear, and boundaries are treated as an inconvenience to someone else’s identity.
Suggesting these concerns are based on “fear” rather than lived reality is patronising at best and misogynistic at worst. Women aren’t afraid of policy debates — we’re angry that, once again, our rights are being bargained away for the sake of political trends.
You may call that “inclusion.” Many women call it erasure. And thanks to the law, we are entitled to say “no.”
An issue for a small proportion of the population… meanwhile the City lumbers on with massive economic disparity, extortionate housing costs, litter, homelessness and a dysfunctional schools system..
Exactly. While Sankey fixates on ideological distractions that affect a tiny minority, the real issues facing Brighton – housing, poverty, education, and basic services – are left to rot. Residents deserve leadership focused on reality, not identity politics.
It’s a false choice to say we must pick between addressing systemic issues like housing and standing up for marginalised groups. Good leadership tackles both. Brighton’s strength lies in its diversity, and creating safety and dignity for all residents, including LGBTQ+ people, isn’t an ‘ideological distraction,’ it’s basic governance.
The same systemic injustices that cause poverty and the housing crisis also fuel discrimination. Pretending these struggles aren’t interconnected helps no one.
Supporting marginalised groups should never mean sacrificing the rights of others – yet time and again, this council has done exactly that. Privacy, dignity, and safety for women and girls – 51% of the population – are repeatedly sidelined in favour of ideology. That’s not progress, it’s imbalance. Yes, we should tackle both inequality and discrimination, but not by erasing sex-based rights in the process. That is, and always will be, wrong.
No rights need to be erased for others to be respected. This isn’t a zero-sum game. Safeguarding, dignity, and privacy for women and trans people can and must coexist, and many frontline organisations already manage this well. Women’s services across the UK have successfully operated trans-inclusive policies for years without compromising safety.
What’s being sidelined is nuance, in my opinion. Trans people, especially trans women, also face high rates of violence, poverty, and homelessness. Treating inclusion as a threat only amplifies division. This kind of framing, one where one marginalised group is pitted against another, is a tactic increasingly used by right-wing groups like Reform, who present trans inclusion as incompatible with women’s rights. But that isn’t evidence-based governance; it’s a deliberate wedge strategy that distracts from real systemic failures, such as underfunded services and social inequality.
In my view, real leadership refuses to play communities off against each other. That’s not imbalance, it’s justice.
@BENJAMIN:
This is a zero-sum issue — because dignity, privacy, and safety in intimate spaces cannot coexist when males are allowed into female-only areas. You can’t protect women’s rights while simultaneously removing the boundary that defines them: biological sex. Trans women are male. No amount of empathy or identity changes that fact. And when males are given access to women’s changing rooms, refuges, or prisons, it is women who are forced to compromise — not the other way round.
The idea that this debate is a “right-wing wedge” is lazy deflection. Women from across the political spectrum — including lifelong left-wing feminists — are raising these concerns. And they’re being silenced or smeared instead of heard. That’s not justice. That’s cowardice in the face of uncomfortable truths.
As for services being “trans-inclusive without compromise,” many frontline workers will quietly tell you otherwise. They are gagged, pressured, and ignored. Real safeguarding requires recognising that males, however they identify, do not belong in female-only spaces. This isn’t about treating anyone as a threat — it’s about setting rules based on reality, not identity.
The systemic failure is not in recognising sex — it’s in pretending it doesn’t matter. And that harms everyone.
I’ve read your reply carefully, and I’ll be honest: I think one of the problems in this whole conversation is that it can become so polished, so rigidly black and white, so artificial, that we forget we’re talking about real people. Brighton’s never been a place that shuts its doors on the vulnerable, whether they’re women fleeing violence or trans people facing discrimination. We can and must protect both, that is in my mind, the right thing to do.
The idea that this is a zero-sum issue just doesn’t match the reality on the ground, as I keep repeating. Of course, safeguarding matters. Of course, women deserve safe spaces. But that’s not in conflict with inclusion. We don’t solve anything by creating new margins or casting doubt over people’s humanity.
When we reduce complex lives to legal definitions or abstract principles, it stops sounding like care, it starts sounding like something generated to win an argument, not to understand.
@BENJAMIN:
I understand the desire to be compassionate — but compassion without boundaries is not care, it’s negligence. You say this debate is too polished and legalistic, but when it comes to safeguarding women and girls, the law is the right tool. It exists to protect people when good intentions fall short — and when empathy is stretched too far and starts to erode rights.
The Equality Act 2010 — and now the UK Supreme Court — makes it absolutely clear that “man” and “woman” refer to biological sex, and that single-sex services are both lawful and vital. Schedule 3 exists precisely because there are real, material differences between the sexes — differences that matter in intimate spaces like changing rooms, toilets, and refuges.
And here’s the unavoidable truth: women cannot have privacy, dignity, or safety in single-sex spaces if males are allowed in. You know it. I know it. Every woman knows it. The moment you permit self-identified “inclusion” for males, you’ve made those spaces mixed-sex — and you’ve told women that their rights are conditional on someone else’s feelings.
This is a zero-sum issue. It’s not about reducing people to “legal definitions” — it’s about recognising that laws exist to protect the vulnerable, and women are still overwhelmingly the victims of sex-based violence, not the perpetrators. To frame that reality as somehow lacking compassion is, frankly, misogynistic. We must protect all vulnerable people — but never by asking half the population to give up their boundaries.
Brighton can be a place of compassion and clarity. But we cannot keep sacrificing women’s rights on the altar of inclusion. That’s not progress. It’s capitulation.
Ah so once you’ve gotten the result you wanted any further discussion is an ideological distraction and the victims should be ignored?
Crossdressing men are not an oppressed class of people.
Whether one sees crossdressing as a standalone identity or part of a broader gender expression, the reality is that gender non-conforming people, including transgender individuals and others who do not present in traditionally expected ways, do face significant discrimination and violence.
According to the Home Office’s 2023 statistics, hate crimes against transgender people in England and Wales rose by 11% in a single year, totalling 4,732 reported incidents. This reflects a sustained rise over the last five years.
The Galop 2020 report found that four in five trans people had experienced a hate crime in the UK, and one in four had experienced physical assault.
Globally, the Trans Murder Monitoring Project tracks hundreds of cases annually of trans and gender-diverse individuals being killed due to their identity or presentation.
These are not abstract numbers; they are real people who are targeted simply for not conforming to rigid gender norms. Whether you call it crossdressing, gender non-conformity, or transgender identity, the outcome is clear: there is real, documented risk and marginalisation that deserves acknowledgement and action.
No one is denying that all people, including those who are gender non-conforming, deserve safety and dignity. But we must be honest about the facts. Hate crime statistics, especially those from the Home Office, are based on perception and self-reporting – not convictions or proven motive. They lump in everything from online arguments to physical assault, with no scrutiny or consistency. The Galop report is based on small, self-selected survey samples, not representative data. And the Trans Murder Monitoring Project includes deaths from domestic violence, sex work, and unrelated causes, most of which occur outside the UK in countries with very different laws and protections.
Everyone should be protected from violence – but we must not let questionable statistics justify policies that erase sex-based rights, undermine safeguarding, or silence reasonable dissent. Compassion doesn’t require us to abandon clarity, truth, or the rights of others.
Home Office hate crime data is based on police-recorded incidents, not just self-reports. These are crimes logged by law enforcement after a threshold of credibility is met. Galop’s report may be based on surveys, but it is one of the few that captures lived experience in the UK, and its findings are consistent with the pattern shown in police data: trans and gender non-conforming people face disproportionate levels of hate and violence.
You are right that everyone deserves safety, and I share your view that we must protect all rights, including women’s. But that protection must be rooted in truth, not a hierarchy of whose rights matter more. Dismissing trans people’s risk because it complicates a political narrative doesn’t strengthen safeguarding; it weakens it.
Of course everyone deserves safety — including trans-identifying people. But let’s not twist that into a reason to dismantle women’s hard-won rights. The Home Office hate crime data is not robust evidence — it’s based on perception, not conviction. Anyone can report feeling targeted, and police must log it whether or not a crime occurred. That is not the same as proven violence or threat, and conflating the two distorts public understanding.
Galop’s surveys are self-selected, unrepresentative, and ideologically driven. They may reflect some people’s experiences, but they do not outweigh the need for evidence-based policy — especially when women’s safety, privacy, and dignity are at stake.
The truth is: women are not a political narrative. We are 51% of the population, and our rights are being eroded — in changing rooms, prisons, refuges, and language. When males — however they identify — are allowed into female-only spaces, women are the ones forced to step aside. That is a hierarchy. And we’re expected to be silent about it.
This isn’t about dismissing anyone’s experience. It’s about recognising that safeguarding policies must be based on sex, not self-identity. That’s the only way to protect the vulnerable — especially women and girls. If that truth is politically inconvenient, so be it. It doesn’t make it any less true.
To clarify, the Home Office data isn’t just based on feelings. It’s police-recorded hate crimes, logged after a threshold is met. That’s not ideological; it’s reality. Galop captures lived experience, yes, and it’s backed up by what frontline services have seen for years: trans and non-conforming people face a disproportionate risk of violence. I’m repeating myself here, but it is an important point I want to drive home to you to avoid a looping rhetoric.
What concerns me is how this topic sometimes feels oddly rehearsed, like it’s been run through a filter that prioritises rhetorical symmetry over human complexity. The phrases are tidy, the structure predictable, but the humanity is strangely absent. That’s not how people usually talk about deeply felt fears.
Safety and dignity matter to all of us. But real safeguarding – genuine safeguarding, requires more than sticking to a formula. It needs us to sit with uncomfortable truths, to accept that marginalised people exist, and to find solutions that don’t erase anyone. Brighton’s strength is in its ability to do that. Let’s not lose that in a rush to win arguments.
@BENJAMIN:
Let’s be absolutely clear: Home Office hate crime data is not the gold standard of evidence. It’s based on perception, not conviction. Police are required to log incidents as hate crimes if someone believes that’s the motive — even if no crime occurred or no evidence is found. That’s not a high threshold. That’s not objective proof. And it should not be used to undermine women’s rights or justify policy that removes single-sex protections.
As for Galop, their reports are based on self-selected, small sample surveys — not representative, peer-reviewed research. Lived experience matters, yes, but it’s not immune to scrutiny. And lived experience cuts both ways: many women feel silenced, sidelined, and endangered by policies that prioritise gender identity over sex-based rights — but those experiences are often ignored.
The idea that safeguarding is just a matter of “sitting with complexity” misses the point entirely. Real safeguarding is about clear, consistent boundaries based on risk, not feelings. And the reality is this: you cannot protect women’s privacy, dignity, and safety while letting men — and yes, trans-identified males are men — into female-only spaces. That is the uncomfortable truth. You can try to soften it with poetic language, but the risk doesn’t go away. The rights of women and girls are not abstract. They are material, and they are being eroded.
Brighton’s strength isn’t in compromising the rights of one group to validate the identity of another. It’s in facing hard realities and protecting the vulnerable. And in sex-based contexts — toilets, changing rooms, prisons, refuges — women are the vulnerable class. Not because of prejudice, but because of biological reality.
This isn’t a script. It’s a defence of truth — and of women’s fundamental right to say: no.
Thanks for the reply, but I don’t think we’re actually having a conversation at this point. I’m trying to offer something grounded in lived experience and evidence, but what I’m getting back feels like a pre-written script. Everything is polished and neatly structured, but it never really responds to what I’ve said. It’s like arguing with a document. So I’ll finalise this here.
I’ve shared police data, frontline insight, and asked for a bit of nuance around people’s realities. But instead of engaging with those points, you’ve circled back to the same lines about “sex not feelings” and “small sample sizes”. Repeating something confidently doesn’t make it true. It just makes it clear that the conversation isn’t moving.
The biggest issue here is that we risk losing sight of actual people. In trying to defend one group’s safety, we end up erasing another’s completely. Brighton has always been better than that. We’ve built a community where people look out for each other, even when it’s uncomfortable. That takes courage. If we can’t make space for that in policy or debate, then it’s not safeguarding. It’s exclusion and gatekeeping. And we should be honest about that.
@BENJAMIN
The biggest risk is that you have lost sight of the fact women and girls deserve privacy and dignity. And that that is never compatible with makes entering those spaces. Thats the end of the matter.
As per usual Cllr Sankey is out of touch with the majority of residents in the City & out of touch with her Prime Minister.
The only party out of touch is your Conservative Party, Cllr Lyons. Reduced to a handful of seats in the city, being trashed in the recent local elections and on the verge of being redundant as a political party.
All due to being out of touch for 14 years. And if you don’t recognize this then unfortunately you are out of touch!
The Greens got a good clobbering at the last local elections – because they didn’t listen to residents and tried to impose their dogma upon the city
Spot on. Cllr Sankey seems more interested in pushing fringe ideology than representing the views of the majority – even here in Brighton. She’s not only out of step with residents, but clearly out of step with her own party leadership.
As ever, it’s disappointing to see Cllr Lyons resort to personal attacks rather than engaging in a constructive debate. Residents deserve representatives who use their platform to elevate discourse, not diminish it. We should expect better from those elected to serve.
Are you a real person or AI?
A person who sighs deeply every time you deflect because you get criticised with an uncomfortable challenge. It feels robotic to you because I have to repeat the same criticism to your disingenuous political jabbing…again, and again, and again.
May I suggest that instead of spouting hot air to your mirror in your bathroom, or sitting by your PC 20 hours a day, trying to condescend all & sundry with your high & mighty opinions, that you role your sleeves up, get out there & do something tangible. A job? Charity work? Become a Councillor – & make some real differences …
Cllr Lyons, you’ve made a lot of assumptions about me, again. You’ve questioned whether I’m real, implied I do nothing with my time, and tried to publicly belittle me. But the truth is, the very things you accuse me of not doing, contributing, showing up, caring about my community, are exactly what I already do. The communities that matter already know this. And you already have this information, so once again, you’re being untruthful.
I don’t need to doxx myself to prove that, but your eagerness to attack says far more about your approach to public service than it does about me.
This isn’t the first time your conduct has been called into question. Lest we forget, you were previously forced to step down as a Conservative candidate after sharing Islamophobic “jokes” online. It appears that wasn’t just a lapse in judgment, it was part of a pattern. A pattern of dismissiveness, mockery, and a refusal to treat residents with basic respect.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17533574.conservative-candidate-resigns-making-series-islamophobic-jokes/
You don’t have to agree with criticism, but you do have a responsibility to engage with it honestly, especially when it comes from the people you claim to represent. Instead, you’ve chosen to deflect, insult, and demean. That’s not leadership. It’s avoidance. And it’s exactly the kind of behaviour that damages public trust in politics.
Brighton and Hove deserves better than contempt dressed up as confidence, and better than councillors who respond to scrutiny with personal attacks. You aren’t stupid, Councillor, so you don’t need me to spell it out further. If you’re not prepared to treat people with decency, maybe you’re not prepared for the responsibility that comes with public office.
He’s a member of Pseuds’ Corner.
Favourite word = ‘disingenuous’…see below
Appreciate the attention, Mike. If “disingenuous” feels overused, it’s probably because it fits the situation. I’ll gladly consider other words for public deflection, insincerity, or bad faith if you have any. But if the worst thing you can say is that I care too much about how things are said, I’ll take it. There are worse reputations to have than being precise – see above.
Cllr Sankey calls Brighton a “city of sanctuary” and a “city of friends” – but that rings hollow when the memorial in Palmeira Square to Israeli victims of the October 7th massacre has been vandalised so many times. What kind of sanctuary tolerates repeated attacks on its Jewish community’s grief and remembrance?
I join you in disgust at people who vandalise a memorial. Shouldn’t your ire be aimed at those who are vandalising the memorial though?
I completely agree – the vandals are the ones doing the damage, and it’s appalling. But leadership matters too. Those who run our city set the tone. When they ignore or downplay these repeated attacks, or fail to bring communities together with fairness and courage, they leave space for division and hatred to grow. We need leaders who take this seriously and act to unite, not just manage.
It is a fair point; broken glass syndrome has a powerful effect. My follow-up question, to put a constructive focus on it, would be, what would you want to see happen instead?
I appreciate the constructive spirit of your question. What I’d like to see is clear leadership from those in charge of the city — a firm public stance condemning the repeated vandalism of the memorial, consistent enforcement action, and an effort to bring communities together around shared values of respect and remembrance.
Instead, we’ve seen silence, deflection, or selective outrage depending on who the victims are. That erodes trust and creates the “broken glass” effect you mention — a sense that some forms of hate are tolerated more than others. Brighton can and should be better than that. A city of sanctuary must actually be safe for everyone, including our Jewish community.
Absolutely, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect a clear condemnation of vandalism. I also expect that it would be very openly offered if asked directly, although I take the point it should also be given even if it was obvious. Reading the article Cllr Lyons posted, it sounds like there has been a strong coming together around this memorial. In this aspect, I’m at least hopeful that the hateful and destructive individuals will always remain a minority, in both numbers and personal dignity.
Really saddened to read this.
https://www.thejc.com/community/memorial-to-the-british-victims-of-october-7-destroyed-by-vandals-lutariy4
With a council which acts like an enemy of and traitor to its people via a closed cabinet system we never consented to or voted for.
Please publish full and unredacted accounts of all city spending. Let’s start fixing our city with the full transparency we should already have.
I would like to thank @Benjamin and Evidence Based Care for the very measured and thoughtful debate on trans inclusion and the biology of sex. These discussions can often be heated, with aggression on both sides, leading to snap judgements and a lack of engagement from those not directly affected. Here, I learnt something and was actively “listening” to the end.
Why won’t Cllr Sankey condemn Sir Kid Starver’s racist rhetoric. Never trust new Labour
Why won’t Cllr Sankey condemn Sir Kid Starver’s racist rhetoric. Never trust new Labour
Why won’t Cllr Sankey condemn Sir Kid Starver’s racist rhetoric. Never trust new Labour
Why won’t Cllr Sankey condemn Sir Kid Starver’s racist rhetoric.
Labour has been in power for less than a year and already serious splits. One of the benefits I saw from having a Labour council, Labour MP and Labour government is that they couldn’t finger point and would have to get on with fixing things. So far, we’ve had lots of blame for the previous government and council. This is looking tired now – but moving to start blaming other parts of Labour isn’t a good idea! What we really want is solutions; lower the cost of living (nationally), collect rubbish, keep streets/transport etc working (locally).