U.K. Pride events ban political parties over anti-trans rulings, Uganda faces international outrage after harsh anti-LGBTQ laws spark abuse, and India’s Supreme Court questions a discriminatory blood donor ban.

Political Parties Banned From Pride in the U.K.

Four of the U.K.’s largest Pride organizers — London, Manchester, Birmingham, and Brighton — have banned political party participation in upcoming events. The decision follows a controversial U.K. Supreme Court ruling defining “woman” as “biological,” excluding trans women.

“The recent ruling ... underscores the urgent need for immediate action,” read a joint statement, which outlined demands including full protections under the Equality Act and access to gender-affirming healthcare.

“This is not a symbolic gesture ... it is a direct call for accountability,” the groups stated.

According to the Washington Blade, organizers did not name individuals but emphasized broken trust.

“Pride is a protest,” said longtime activist Peter Tatchell. “Our main parties have let us down.”

Uganda’s Anti-LGBTQ Law Fuels Abuse

Photo by Dylan Walters, Wikimedia Commons.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) reports a surge in state-sanctioned abuse, violence, and discrimination following Uganda’s passage of the world’s harshest anti-LGBTQ laws. 

According to the Guardian,the report, They’re Putting Our Lives at Risk, documents arbitrary arrests, NGO shutdowns, entrapment via dating apps, and police extortion.

“For the last two years, LGBT Ugandans have suffered a range of abuses because of the government’s wilful decision to legislate hate,” said HRW researcher Oryem Nyeko.

Activist Clare Byarugaba added, “The human cost … is very high … We need protection, not criminalisation.”

Signed in 2023 by President Yoweri Museveni, the law includes the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” and continues to draw global condemnation. HRW urges Uganda to end its “assault on LGBT people.”

India Court Questions Trans Blood Donor Ban

Photo via Pexels. 

India’s Supreme Court has directed the central government to consult medical experts and re-evaluate blood donation guidelines that label transgender individuals as “high-risk” donors. 

According to the Washington Blade, the court's May 14 order came in response to a petition challenging the constitutionality of the 2017 rules, which ban trans people, MSM (men who have sex with men), and others from donating blood based on presumed HIV risk.

“Are we going to brand all transgender individuals as risky and stigmatize them?” asked Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. They emphasized that evolving science enables individualized risk assessments rather than blanket bans.

Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati argued the rules aim to protect public health, not stigmatize. However, advocates say the policy enshrines harmful stereotypes.

“The current policy creates the paradoxical situation where a heterosexual person engaging in high-risk behaviors faces less scrutiny than a transgender person in a monogamous relationship,” said Ankit Bhupatani, an LGBTQ activist.

Activist Harish Iyer added, “There is no test on fidelity ... The solution is to speak of safe sex practices and to test every packet of blood before transfusion.”

The court’s move signals potential reform toward evidence-based, inclusive health policy that balances safety with equality.