Inside the split over trans women that's threatening to drive a wedge through Labour
A poll for Labour news site LabourList, shared exclusively with Metro, asked 1,300 people who identified themselves as party members if they agreed with the government's approach to the decision.
While 42.7% of members said they believed trans women should be excluded from women-only spaces – the stance taken by Sir Keir Starmer's government – 40.2% did not agree. Just over 17% said they don't know.
It was an even closer result among men – just 0.6% separated men who agreed with the position and the slightly higher number who disagreed.
The polling comes months after the Supreme Court announced in a landmark decision that the words 'sex' and 'women' in the Equality Act 2010 should be defined in biological terms.
That meant trans women could legally be barred from women-only spaces, whether or not they possessed a gender recognition certificate.
The government immediately welcomed the ruling, saying it brought clarity to an issue at the centre of an often aggressive debate.
But in the months since Lord Hodge's ruling, it appears the issue is far from settled.
With thousands of members from all over the world, our vibrant LGBTQ+ WhatsApp channel is a hub for all the latest news and important issues that face the LGBTQ+ community.
Simply click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! Don't forget to turn on notifications!
The results from the Survation poll also found that the age groups of party members – of which there are around 309,000 in total – are split on the debate, with the majority of members aged 18 to 44 believing that the government's stance was wrong, while members aged 45 to 65+ believe it was correct.
Trans people involved with LGBT+ Labour, the party's queer member group, told Metro the divide is all too clear.
Georgia Meadows is LGBT+ Labour's trans officer and the only trans person on the group's National Committee.
Labour's landslide election victory, which decisively swept the Conservatives out of power, gave her 'hope'.
That hope didn't last long. 'They [the voters] really put their trust in us. They were hoping we'd be different, but a lot of what we've done is what the Tories would have,' she told Metro.
Georgia, who has been a Labour member for three years, added: 'A lot of the membership is trans-supportive, or at the least, neutral on the issue.
'The few who are overtly transphobic are loud and well-funded.'
She described post-ruling comments from a No 10 spokesperson, saying explicitly Starmer does not believe trans women are women, as 'disgusting and wholly against commitments [the PM] made to LGBT+ Labour'.
Steph Richards, a trans woman who serves as the chief executive of the advocacy group TransLucent, was put forward in July as a candidate for LGBT+ Labour's women's officer by the Trans Rights Alliance, a bloc of pro-trans members, only to face criticism from a gender-critical members group called LGB Labour.
She said: 'I speak to lots of MPs, none of them that I've spoken to are happy, where we're going at the moment, on numerous issues, Gaza in particular, but around benefits, around the cap benefit, winter fuel payment. What a disaster.
'I think it reflects also where the party's gone, from a socialist party to a light blue Tory.'
In the wake of the Supreme Court announcement, both the LGBT+ Labour annual general meeting (AGM) and the party's annual Women's Conference were suspended.
The decision to postpone the two events – which Labour's governing body the National Executive Committee said was out of concern for the potential legal implications of the ruling – has been met with backlash from figures on both sides of the issue.
Labour Women's Declaration, which describes itself as backing 'sex-based rights', said the postponement of the Women's Conference was a 'knee-jerk reaction'.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Reacting to the new poll, the group said the government's response was 'a complete vindication for us, although there can be no compensation for the years of abuse and vilification we have experienced within the party'.
They added: 'We call on our Labour government to show leadership in this matter to those vocal Labour parliamentarians who are still refusing to accept the legal clarity of the ruling and have been demonstrating a clear ignorance of the law.'
Georgia, who is aiming to become co-chair of LGBT+ Labour's committee, suggested the AGM was suspended to prevent a slate of pro-trans candidates from being voted in.
An email from organisers, reported by LabourList, said they were waiting for 'clear, practical, and workable guidance' from the Equality and Human Rights Committee (EHRC).
That guidance is now being developed 'over the summer', the equality watchdog said, after a consultation into the plans generated more than 50,000 responses.
Katie Kneeves, 56, an ambassador at Cool 2b Trans, said she voted for Labour in 2024 for the first time in years.
She said: 'I felt hopeful that trans people would not be treated as a political football. I even joined the Labour Party. How wrong I was.
'I will never vote for Labour again while Keir Starmer is the Prime Minister and while Wes Streeting is the Health Secretary.'
In December, Streeting banned trans young people from being prescribed puberty blockers, which pause puberty, a move that one parent of a trans teen told Metro she 'begged' Streeting not to do.
Kneeves added: I'm excited by Your Party, as I hope it will put enough pressure on Starmer to stop chasing Reform voters and bring it back to being a left-wing party.'
Heather Herbert, 49, the trans officer for LGBT+ Scottish Labour until 2021, said she quit Labour for the party's 'inaction on transphobia'.
'I did not expect the pandering to the far-right we have seen,' she added.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Its publication will mark the start of a new reality for the UK's trans community, when the full ramifications of April's ruling finally become clear.
Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the current head of the EHRC, is expected to oversee the rollout of the guidance before handing over her role to Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson at the beginning of December.
Stephenson's appointment was criticised jointly by Parliament's women and equalities committee and the joint committee on human rights, who say her experience was not extensive enough in the areas of protected characteristics such as race and disability.
Committee chairs Sarah Owen and David Alton told the equalities minister Bridget Phillipson they could not endorse the move, writing: 'Our reasons relate to our concerns about vision and leadership, about breadth of expertise across the wide remit of the EHRC, and about rebuilding trust.' More Trending
In her response to the Supreme Court ruling in April, Phillipson said the government would 'will support the rights of women and trans people, now and always'.
She told MPs: 'This government will offer trans people the dignity that too often they were denied by the party opposite, too often a convenient punch bag, too often the butt of jokes made in this place by the party opposite.'
The Labour Party said it did not comment on polling, but pointed towards Phillipson's statements when asked to comment.
LGBT+ Labour has also been approached for a comment.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Corbyn vs Starmer, modern manners, and a crumbling NHS
MORE: Drag queens being loaded into police cars after storytellers protest sets 'terrible precedent', RuPaul star
MORE: UK and France's migrant deal comes into force – here's what it means
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's war on the middle classes has just taken a vicious turn
A government in severe distress always falls back into its comfort zone of issues it wants to talk about, rather than tackle the most important issues before it. And so, as the dog returneth to its vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly, and the Labour Party return to the comforting familiarity of fomenting class war. Another day when, instead of focusing on economic catastrophe, social meltdown and ever-more boat crossings, Labour are tinkering with their already-disastrous Equality Act to introduce a requirement for schools to consider the 'socio-economic' background of pupils when selecting children. This consideration is even likely to trump how far away a student lives from a school, whether they have siblings already there, and perhaps even whether they have disabilities. What these factors are is obviously not properly defined yet, as doing the hard work is too much for the brainboxes behind this scheme. Perhaps it will be based on the same policy surrounding civil service internships announced last week, where you can only apply if you are an ethnic minority or if your dad did a certain list of jobs when you were fourteen. Because being judged on who your father was is now, in this topsy-turvy world, something that the Left-wing progressives do, rather than the toffs. We already know the enormous, wonderful, inspiring, sacrificial steps that parents will take to get their children into the best schools. They take second jobs to pay for private school (much harder since Labour's ruinous and useless VAT increase); they will move house to be in better areas; they will even change religion to get into, for example, Catholic schools. So when yet another ladder of opportunity is removed and broken up for firewood, what will parents do next? Will they quit their jobs, sell investments, adopt a Cockney accent, all in a bid to contort themselves into Labour's increasingly narrow criteria of 'working class'? What then will happen to the economy? This will hurt children, it will hurt parents, it will hurt Britain. The same happened after the disgraceful attacks on the grammar school system. But Labour don't care. Theirs is a pathological hatred of middle England, the wellspring from which so many of them come, but bitterly resent. It is no more someone's fault to be born to loving middle-class parents than to be born to loving working-class ones, or unloving families or no family. As Alex Burghart, the Conservative shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said so well in these pages: 'Rather than dragging people down through social engineering, we should instead focus on improving equality of opportunity, so hard-working people can get on, irrespective of their class, colour or creed.' More broadly, this sorry little diminution of Britain is just the latest in a long list of examples proving that the Left, broadly defined, just does not understand human nature. The Rev Fergus Butler-Gallie put this perfectly recently: 'Liberalism believes that human nature can be bribed or oppressed or educated into goodness' and that this world view 'has been a catastrophe for the last 50 years of policy making'. Governments must work with the grain of human nature, understanding that parents will do everything they can for their children, and harnessing that rather than trying to deny it, or worse, decry it as evil and selfish. Some children will always be brighter than others, too. Again, a return of the grammar school system would allow those kids to thrive, regardless of their 'socio-economic' background. Capitalism works by harnessing human nature – socialism fails by denying it. No amount of moronic Labour policies will ever change that.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The Rushanara Ali scandal exposes Starmer's double standards on sleaze
One of the reasons Keir Starmer won a landslide at the last election was voters' repulsion at the endless sleaze and hypocrisy of the last Tory government. Starmer tore into Boris Johnson time and again over his abuse of power as prime minister and refusal to deal firmly with misconduct by his own ministers. That would all end when Starmer entered No 10, we were told. And we believed him. Starmer may be dull, he may have no great vision and precious few clear policies, we thought. But he was an honest and decent man who would drain the swamp that Westminster had become under the Tories. Addressing Parliament in 2021 at the height of the so-called 'Wallpapergate' affair, when Johnson was caught taking secret loans to refurbish his Downing St flat, Starmer called the prime minister 'Major Sleaze.' Labour MPs cheered as Starmer seized the moral high ground, accusing the Conservatives of being 'mired in sleaze, cronyism and scandal.' If he won power, he would have no truck with such corrupt antics, he said. Barely a year into Starmer's administration, it is depressingly clear that little has changed. We have already had the scandal of his wife taking thousands of pounds worth of free clothes from Labour donor Lord Waheed Alli, while Starmer himself accepted free football tickets, clothes and even spectacles. We have even had a Labour MP forced to resign after being caught punching a constituent outside a pub. But it has reached a new low with the resignation of homelessness minister, Rushanara Ali. The gross double standards that led to her exit from the government – forcing out tenants from a property she owned before whacking up the rent by £700 a month and seeking new tenants when new legislation she is responsible for would outlaw such action – is bad enough. The arrogant manner of her departure – and Starmer's refusal to condemn her in clear terms – is worse. She blithely declares she had 'at all times' followed 'all legal requirements' and had taken her responsibilities 'seriously.' She was resigning to avoid 'being a distraction from the ambitious work of the government.' No mention of an apology. Judging from his ringing denunciation of Johnson you might imagine Starmer would send Ms Ali packing with a stern rebuke. You would be wrong. From a cursory look at his formal reply to her you might think Ali was being promoted not punished. Starmer thanks her for her 'diligent work' at her department, saying it will have 'lasting impact.' How mistaken he is. The only impact Ms Ali's departure from Starmer's government will have is as a reminder to the electorate that when it comes to sleaze, Labour's approach appears little different to their Conservative predecessors. As the saying goes: 'Do as we say, not as we do.'
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Rushanara Ali's resignation hands yet another gift to Nigel Farage
For a government with a majority of more than 150, Sir Keir Starmer's administration already has a strangely beleaguered air. Losing a fourth minister over personal scandals in little more than a year will only add to the damaging sense of exhaustion, more familiar from the end of a term of office than the start. Rushanara Ali's resignation as homelessness minister was at least swifter than that of Tulip Siddiq, who exposed Starmer to weeks of painful headlines about whether it was really possible to remain as anti-corruption minister while facing questions her links to her aunt's ousted Bangladeshi regime. But Ali's departure also comes with less of a sense that she was pushed out than Louise Haigh's resignation as transport secretary over a past fraud conviction, or Andrew Gwynne's sacking as health minister over offensive WhatsApp messages. • Homelessness minister quits after 'hiking rent at house by £700 a month' Indeed, No 10 initially failed to see the problem and went on the offensive on Ali's behalf. A senior government official even phoned an executive at the i paper, which broke the story, to demand they retract claims that Ali had ejected her tenants. Senior ministers including the chancellor and home secretary were then sent out to say Ali had not broken any rules. It quickly became obvious on Thursday that this stance was not tenable. Ali had indeed not broken any rules — but only because the government's Renters' Rights Bill banning exactly what she had done were not yet in force. It is reasonable to argue that Ali did nothing wrong in giving her tenants notice because she was trying to sell her house and then, when she failed to do so, reletting it at a market rent. It is also perfectly reasonable to argue that booting out tenants and then jacking up the rent is so egregious that it should be made illegal. What it is not reasonable is to make both arguments simultaneously. By Thursday afternoon all main opposition parties were calling for Ali to quit and it became clear she had lost the confidence of housing charities. There was public criticism from some on the Labour left, always unhappy with the idea of MPs being landlords. Even some Labour MPs expressed private frustration that Ali could not see how bad it looked. Starmer rode to power on a wave of public disgust at a Tory government where — as he repeatedly put it — it seemed like there was 'one rule for them, another for everyone else'. Labour may feel that Tory accusations of 'staggering hypocrisy' are, well, staggering hypocrisy. But there is no doubt about how corrosive it will be for Starmer if voters start to believe that Labour have become as sleazy and hypocritical as the last lot. After all, a party whose core argument is that they are all the same and all as bad as each other is leading in the polls. Once again, the person who will be happiest this morning is Nigel Farage.
