Trooniversity Challenged: Leeds launches unlawful guidance for 'trans+' researchers

Leeds University has rushed to the aid of its most marginalised and vulnerable academics, publishing a fieldwork survival guide for “trans+ researchers”.

In the same week the NHS finally banned males from female spaces, the university’s advice came to light. It tells staff to disregard the Supreme Court and EHRC guidance, explicitly advising that “trans+ researchers should be supported to use whichever toilet facilities they prefer” and that there should be “no barriers…and no interrogation of their gender in order to access these spaces”.

The 2026 document is clear that the decision to use a single-sex facility “should be made purely by the trans+ researcher and they should never be forced to use a single-sex space which does not align with their gender.”

While the resources are replete with vague activist language and pander to the demands of trans activists, this exercise in DEI-by-numbers is noticeably short of meaningful safeguarding recommendations. For example, while recognising that many countries criminalise consensual same-sex relationships, Leeds University fails to give examples of the dangers to LGBTQ+ researchers conducting fieldwork in, say, Yemen – or practical advice on how they might protect themselves. 

Instead, it frames a number of trans demands and entitlements as “challenges”, including the suggestion that “medically transitioning researchers” be granted extra funds to buy clothing because their changing body shape “may requir[e] several purchases of additional clothing over a relatively short time period.”

Other highlights include the observation that “international travel can be very stressful for trans+ researchers, especially when…by plane.” This should be mitigated by considering alternative forms of transport, such as trains or ferries.

Particularly worrying for an academic institution, the authors of the ‘Trans+’ resources claim they are “unable to give clear advice on legal responsibilities and limitations”, recommending that project leads consult specific up-to-date guidance “elsewhere”. It provides no suggestions or links for those searching for such lawful guidance.  

Robert Laverick, formerly an academic at Leeds University and founder of the local branch of Academics for Academic Freedom, told TERF Times that the request for organisations to place themselves at legal risk demonstrates a failure to understand or respect the balance of rights that the Equality Act places on service providers. 

“Seeking more favourable treatment beyond legal obligations placed on organisations will infringe on the rights of others, something this guidance isn’t seemingly bothered by,” said Laverick. “It’s entirely reasonable to include those doing the fieldwork in discussions of their needs, and a one-size fits all approach is rarely the best way of addressing additional needs. But a framework for supporting staff should include practical advice on meeting those needs – and should of course be lawful. This guidance fails on both counts.”

The PRIDE Guidelines for LGBTQ+ Inclusive Fieldwork Project is funded by the Research England Enhancing Research Culture Fund, and is led by Professor Martin Zebracki, who specialises in “the whys and hows of processes of inclusion and exclusion in arts practises in urban public spaces”. Zebracki gives particular “intersectional emphasis” to socially marginalised populations, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer people and people who “identify themselves through non-heteronormative gender and sexual characteristics (LGBTQ+).”