On the chilly morning of December 13, 2025, about 50 campaigners gathered in Sheffield, holding up placards that read things like "Brown owls against bigotry." Their protest was a direct response to recent decisions banning trans women and girls from joining the Girlguiding youth organization, Labour’s women’s conference, and the Women’s Institute. These bans, following a Supreme Court ruling widely described as transphobic, have stirred up a wave of anger and defiance among activists and community members across the United Kingdom.
According to the Socialist Worker, the protest was energized by a statement from Sheffield Trade Unionists For Trans Rights. The group insisted, “There is no legal basis on which these decisions have been made. The Supreme Court ruling has no legal guidance and none of these organisations have been forced to make their decision. In fact, their decisions are a breach to trans+ people’s human rights.” Their message to the Labour government was blunt: “Shame on you for tailing the far right in attacking trans women and the entire trans+ community.” The statement also called out the “transmisogynistic lie that trans women are a threat to cis women,” emphasizing that most violence against women and girls occurs at home or is perpetrated by someone known to the victim. “The way trans women and girls are targeted by segregation or painted as ‘predators’ is not only transphobia it is transmisogyny. The attacks on trans women and girls not only hurt trans women and girls, they hurt all women and girls.”
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the debate over trans rights and gender-based violence prevention has reached a fever pitch in Canada, particularly in Alberta. On December 17, 2025, The Tyee published a detailed opinion piece scrutinizing Premier Danielle Smith’s legislative record on gender-based violence. The article highlighted how recent policies have eroded the province’s ability to prevent gender-based violence, especially for transgender Albertans, girls, and women.
The context for this scrutiny comes from a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, which found that mandatory minimum sentences for child sexual abuse and exploitation material may be unconstitutional in certain cases. The court acknowledged the severe harm caused by such crimes, but criticized the Criminal Code’s one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing. This ruling prompted a flurry of criticism from some politicians, with Alberta’s Premier Smith stoking public outrage. Legal experts, however, warned against misleading the public and undermining trust in the judicial system.
According to The Tyee, Alberta’s legislative changes have made it harder for students to access comprehensive sexual health education, which is a proven tool in preventing sexual and gender-based violence. The province now requires parents to opt their children in for lessons on puberty, hygiene, and consent, making Alberta the only Canadian province with such a requirement. As a result, fewer students are receiving vital information about consent and healthy relationships. This, experts argue, leaves young people more vulnerable to harm.
As of December 2025, only four organizations have been approved to provide sexual assault prevention programming in Alberta schools. This has left significant gaps, particularly in rural communities where rates of gender-based violence are already higher. The government also now requires prior ministerial approval for all resources and third-party organizations supporting human sexuality education, even if the programming is unrelated to sexuality. These restrictions have left schools scrambling and students underserved.
Perhaps most controversially, Alberta’s government now mandates parental permission and notification for trans youth to use a different name or pronouns at school. This policy, copied from Saskatchewan, was found by Saskatchewan’s top court to create the risk of “irreparable harm” to youth, including a heightened risk of family violence. Yet, under Smith’s leadership, Alberta teachers must comply or face disciplinary action. In addition, the province has moved to restrict gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth under Bill 26, invoking the notwithstanding clause to shield three anti-trans bills from judicial review. Although an early injunction has delayed implementation, the government’s intent is clear: to limit access to care and support for trans youth.
These developments are happening against a backdrop of rising online child sexual abuse incidents in Canada. According to The Tyee, the number of reported online child sexual abuse material offences jumped from 9,131 in 2022 to 16,892 in 2023. Advocates are calling for prevention strategies that address the root causes of gender-based violence, such as sexism, homophobia, and transphobia, rather than relying solely on punitive measures after harm has occurred. They argue that comprehensive education and support for marginalized groups are essential to reducing rates of victimization and ensuring everyone’s safety.
South of the border, the United States has seen its own wave of anti-transgender legislation, with the federal government enacting new restrictions that have drawn national and international attention. On December 16, 2025, federal lawmakers passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2026, a massive bill authorizing approximately $900 billion in military and national security spending. As reported by Metro Weekly, tucked within the 3,086-page bill is a new federal ban on transgender women competing on female-designated sports teams at U.S. military service academies.
The NDAA’s provision defines eligibility for women’s teams based strictly on “reproductive biology and genetics at birth,” barring anyone whose sex is male from competing on women’s or girls’ athletic teams at military academies. However, the ban allows males to train or practice with female teams, provided they do not compete or displace female athletes from roster spots, scholarships, or participation opportunities. Notably, the ban applies only to students enrolled at military academies, not to transgender athletes from other schools who might compete against academy teams.
The bill, passed by a 312-112 vote in the House and a 75-22 vote in the Senate, was sent to President Donald Trump for his signature. It also includes language prohibiting the Department of Defense from maintaining offices or programs related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), or allowing employee groups based on race, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Additional anti-transgender riders remain in appropriations bills funding the Labor Department, Health and Human Services, and Education Department, including provisions that ban federal funding for gender-affirming care—a move that could strip funding from hospitals treating transgender patients.
These legislative moves have sparked fierce debate across the political spectrum. Supporters argue that such measures are necessary to protect fairness in women’s sports and ensure that resources intended for women and girls are not diverted. Critics, however, contend that these laws are rooted in misinformation and prejudice, and that they endanger the physical and mental health of transgender individuals, especially youth. The bans, they argue, reinforce harmful stereotypes and increase the risk of discrimination and violence against already marginalized communities.
Across the UK, Canada, and the United States, the past weeks have underscored a growing divide over how societies define and protect the rights of transgender people. Whether on the streets of Sheffield, in the classrooms of Alberta, or on the athletic fields of U.S. military academies, the struggle for inclusion, safety, and dignity continues to provoke passionate responses on all sides. As the legal and legislative battles play out, one thing is clear: the conversation about trans rights, gender-based violence, and the meaning of equality is far from over.
