logo
Labour voters support trans ruling, first poll reveals

Labour voters support trans ruling, first poll reveals

Yahoo29-04-2025

The Supreme Court ruling that trans women are not legally women has been backed by a majority of Labour voters.
A poll of more than 2,500 people found that 42 per cent of Labour voters agreed with the Supreme Court judgement that transgender women are not legally women under the Equality Act.
A third – 32 per cent – disagreed with it, while 12 per cent did not know.
The findings, the first major polling since the ruling, suggest that Sir Keir Starmer's previously equivocal statements on transgender women are out of touch with the majority of his party voters.
Some 48 per cent of Labour voters said it was acceptable to exclude transgender women from women's sports, 41 per cent said the same for women's prisons and 38 per cent agreed it should be the case for women's toilets, according to the survey by pollsters Electoral Calculus and Find Out Now.
Labour voters were, however, concerned that the ruling would lead to an increase in discrimination against transgender people, with 57 per cent believing this would be a consequence. Only three per cent believed it would decline.
They were also split over JK Rowling's efforts to help fund organisations that advocate for women-only spaces, with 33 per cent against while 32 per cent were in favour.
The Supreme Court ruled that when the term 'woman' was used in the Equality Act, it meant a biological woman and 'sex' meant biological sex.
It also made it clear that if a space or service is designated as women-only, a person who was born male but identified as a woman did not have a right to use that space or service.
Overall, the public backed the Supreme Court ruling by 59 per cent in favour, against 18 per cent who disagreed – a three-to-one majority.
Tory voters and Reform voters had the biggest majorities in favour, at 83 per cent and 88 per cent in favour, respectively. Lib Dem and Green party voters were least likely to back the judgement at 31 per cent and 24 per cent in favour, respectively.
Support for the ruling also declined with age. While 41 per cent of people aged 18 to 24 supported, it rose to 68 per cent among those aged 55 to 64 and 76 per cent for those aged over 65.
More than half of voters backed exclusions on transgender women from women's sports (58 per cent), women's prisons (52 per cent) and women's toilets (51 per cent). It fell to 44 per cent for women's gyms and 41 per cent for rape crisis centres.
Lesbian groups were some of the biggest supporters of the Supreme Court ruling, with the LGB Alliance stating that the decision is a 'landmark for lesbian rights in the UK'.
Yet, access to Lesbian social groups ranked significantly lower among the public, with only 27 per cent saying that trans women should be excluded from those groups.
Nearly half of voters believed that the ruling will have a positive impact on women's rights and safety (47 per cent) with just 19 per cent disagreeing.
Reform UK and Conservative voters were most likely to believe it would have a positive impact, at 76 per cent and 67 per cent respectively.
The Supreme Court ruling was prompted by the Scottish Government's bill on gender recognition. However, despite its calls for stronger transgender rights, more than half of Scots (53 per cent) believed the ruling would improve women's rights.
When asked whether they approve or disapprove of Ms Rowling's support towards women-only spaces, 47 per cent of the public said they backed her compared to just 18 per cent who disapproved.
Younger generations were split. Amongst voters aged 18 to 24, 32 per cent approved of her actions – exactly the same share as those who disapproved.
While most people agree with the ruling that trans women are not legally women, 41 per cent accepted that the outcome could increase discrimination towards transgender people compared with the 37 per cent who believed it would be unchanged or even reduced.
Voters from the Green party (74 per cent) and the Liberal Democrats (62 per cent) overwhelmingly believed that this could lead to an increase in discrimination. Labour voters come close behind at 57 per cent compared to 32 per cent of Conservative voters 27 per cent of Reform voters.
The Scottish government's controversial bill on gender recognition was challenged by For Women Scotland. Despite support from the Scottish government for stronger transgender rights, over half (53 per cent) of Scottish respondents think the ruling will improve women's rights.
On Tuesday, Alex Sobel, a Labour MP and former frontbencher, said he was 'deeply concerned' by the implications of the Supreme Court decision.
In a break with the Government position, Mr Sobel wrote in a blog post that he was 'a firm believer of self determination, self ID and allowing all to live their lives as long as they do not cause harm to others'.
He said: 'Our manifesto was clear that we must protect the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity.
'We need to stick to our manifesto commitment to modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law to a new process. We must remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court Ruling in Mexico Gun Case Fails to Absolve the US
Supreme Court Ruling in Mexico Gun Case Fails to Absolve the US

Bloomberg

timean hour ago

  • Bloomberg

Supreme Court Ruling in Mexico Gun Case Fails to Absolve the US

A few days ago, it was shaping up as a bad week for gun manufacturers at the US Supreme Court. On Monday, the justices refused — for the moment, at least — to entertain challenges to state laws banning the AR-15 and other semiautomatic rifles. But on Thursday, the court unanimously tossed a lawsuit by the government of Mexico seeking damages from multiple US firearm manufacturers for the harm their guns have caused within its borders. First, a quick word about the lawsuits that the justices announced this week they would not hear. In a pair of landmark decisions in 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to own firearms 'in common use' — in those cases, handguns. The decisions have been controversial, but they're the law of the land, so gun control advocates have since shifted their attention to semiautomatic weapons. About 10 states ban or tightly restrict possession of the AR-15, which happens to be the most widely owned rifle in the country. The lower courts have upheld the ban. The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals, although I think Justice Brett Kavanaugh was correct when he wrote that the court will be forced to revisit the question in the next term or two.

Bill Clinton warns 'The View 'why Americans 'should be worried,' wants Supreme Court to 'rediscover the Constitution'
Bill Clinton warns 'The View 'why Americans 'should be worried,' wants Supreme Court to 'rediscover the Constitution'

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Bill Clinton warns 'The View 'why Americans 'should be worried,' wants Supreme Court to 'rediscover the Constitution'

Bill Clinton and James Patterson joined The View to promote their new book. Clinton warned the audience why they "should be worried" about America's political future. He also said that he hopes the Supreme Court will "rediscover the Constitution."Former President Bill Clinton sounded a political alarm during his latest appearance on The View. The 78-year-old Democrat and author James Patterson appeared Thursday morning on the talk show to promote their new novel The First Gentleman, though the conversation naturally turned to real-world politics amid controversial policies and patterns of conduct under President Donald Trump's Republican administration. "We need to talk about the future," panelist Sunny Hostin told Clinton, before observing that she feels Trump is "working to dismantle, in my view, our foundational institutions" through his conflicts with American universities, deportations, and his tumultuous dealings with judges in the legal system. "Are you confident that the courts will hold, and what concerns you most about what he's doing now?" "That the courts won't hold until we have our midterm elections," Clinton replied, going on to reference the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an El Salvador man whose "deportation violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded Abrego Garcia from expulsion to his native country," per the Associated Press. "The guy is still there in jail, so I'm worried about that, and you should be worried about that. Whatever your politics [are]," Clinton said. "Because, although I have a sneaking suspicion, if our party wins the White House in the next election, there will be a hallelujah moment and the Supreme Court will rediscover the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and limits." Clinton said he'll "be happy if that happens because all of us should operate under guard rails," and that "the whole purpose of the Constitution was to repeal royal governance, unaccountable governance, that no Democrat or Republican can be without accountability." Later in the discussion, Joy Behar asked Patterson if the pair wrote The First Gentleman hoping that "life would imitate art," seeing as the book revolves around a female president and her spouse, mirroring a scenario that would've resulted for Clinton if his wife and 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would've won the presidency in her race against Trump. "I wanted the job," he told the cohosts. "It's the only political job I ever wanted that I didn't get."Whoopi Goldberg then jumped in to offer a bit of hope: "There's still time, nothing is off the table, that's what I say." The View airs weekdays at 11 a.m. ET/10 a.m. PT on ABC. Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly

How Trump's new travel ban differs from his first term
How Trump's new travel ban differs from his first term

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

How Trump's new travel ban differs from his first term

President Trump issued a new travel ban that targets 12 countries and includes partial restrictions on seven others, expanding on the policy he put into place during his first term. Trump's attempts to restrict entry into the United States from certain countries in his first term drew legal challenges and protests at airports across the country. This time around, the administration laid the foundation for the proclamation with an earlier executive order focused on enhanced vetting. Here are the countries targeted by the travel ban and how they differ from those included in Trump's first-term policy. Trump's first-term travel ban went through multiple iterations after federal courts blocked the initial version. The policy stopped entry into the U.S. for nationals from seven Muslim-majority nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Its attempted implementation led to mass confusion and was blocked by a federal judge. The version eventually upheld by the Supreme Court barred entry into the United States for nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. Chad was later removed after the administration said it met its security requirements. Former President Biden revoked Trump's travel ban upon taking office. Perhaps most notably, Syria and North Korea are no longer included on Trump's new travel ban, which goes into effect Monday. Trump during his first term developed a warmer relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and they held two in-person summits. The president last month announced he would lift U.S. sanctions on Syria following the ousting of dictator Bashar Assad in December. Trump said he was encouraged to do so by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Chad, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen are back on the travel ban list. Venezuela is one of seven countries that will have travel 'partially' restricted. In total, the travel ban issued on Wednesday affects 19 countries. Nationals from 12 countries face a full ban. Those are Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Nationals from seven countries will have entry into the United States partially restricted. Those are Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. The New York Times reported that the State Department issued roughly 170,000 visas in total to the 12 countries that are banned from entry, most of which were for tourism, business or study. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store