Majority of Labour voters support trans ruling, poll reveals
The Supreme Court ruling that trans women are not legally women under the Equality Act 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 judgment. 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 Labour 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 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 and 32 per cent 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 was designated as women-only, a person who was born male but identified as a woman did not have a right to use it.
Overall, the public backed the ruling, with 59 per cent in favour, and 18 per cent disagreeing – a three to one majority.
Tory and Reform UK voters had the biggest majorities in favour, at 83 per cent and 88 per cent respectively. Lib Dem and Green voters were least likely to back the judgment, at 31 per cent and 24 per cent in favour.
Support for the ruling also declined with age. While 41 per cent of people aged 18 to 24 supported it, that rose to 68 per cent among those aged 55 to 64 and 76 per cent for those over 65.
More than half of all voters backed exclusions on transgender women from women's sports (58 per cent), women's prisons (52 per cent) and women's lavatories (51 per cent). That 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 saying it was a 'landmark for lesbian rights in the UK'. But access to lesbian social groups ranked significantly lower among the public, with only 27 per cent saying trans women should be excluded from those groups.
Nearly half of voters believed that the ruling would have a positive impact on women's rights and safety (47 per cent), with 19 per cent disagreeing. Tory and Reform voters were most likely to believe it would have a positive impact, at 76 per cent and 67 per cent.
The Supreme Court ruling was prompted by the Scottish Government's Bill on gender recognition, which was challenged by For Women Scotland. However, despite its calls for stronger transgender rights, 53 per cent of Scots believed it would improve women's rights.
While most people agreed with the ruling, 41 per cent said it could increase discrimination towards transgender people compared with the 37 per cent who believed it would be unchanged or even reduced.
Green party voters (74 per cent) and Liberal Democrats (62 per cent) overwhelmingly believed that it could lead to an increase in discrimination. Labour voters come close behind at 57 per cent, compared to 32 per cent of Conservative voters and 27 per cent of Reform voters.
On Tuesday, Alex Sobel, a Labour MP and former frontbencher, said he was 'deeply concerned' by the implications of the Supreme Court decision, writing 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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
26 minutes ago
- BBC News
Swinney 'deeply concerned' over Alexander Dennis job cuts
The first minister has said the Scottish government will do "everything it can" to support workers at bus manufacturer Alexander Swinney said he was "deeply concerned" the firm was planning to move its full operation to a site in Scarborough, North Yorkshire, putting 400 jobs at factories in Falkirk and Larbert at he faced criticism from Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, who claimed his government had ordered more buses from China than it had from the said most bus ordering decisions in Scotland were made by private operators, and the government had to comply with state subsidy rules in the way it supported businesses. At First Minister's Questions Swinney said: "This issue has been occupying a great deal of the focus and the attention of the deputy first minister and I and the UK government ministers since we became aware of the situation over the last few weeks, and then ultimately to the decision that was announced yesterday."He quoted a joint letter from the UK and Scottish governments, which pledged to "work closely with Alexander Dennis at this challenging time". Alexander Dennis (ADL) cited strong competition from the China, which has seen its market share grow from 10% to 35%, among its reasons for the firm also criticised UK policy, and called for jobs and local economic benefit to be factored in when taxpayers money is invested. Earlier Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham pointed to an order of 160 ADL buses for the publicly-owned "Bee Network" in the city, and questioned why the Scottish government could not do the same. In a statement, Burnham - who has previously visited the Falkirk site - said: "Our iconic Bee Network buses are a bit of Scotland right here in Greater Manchester."We have over 160 Alexander Dennis buses criss-crossing our city-region every day - connecting our communities to opportunity."If Greater Manchester can invest in world-class Scottish bus manufacturing, then why can't the SNP Scottish government?"Sarwar claimed the Scottish government had secured just 44 buses from ADL as part of the Scottish Zero Emission Bus Challenge Fund (ScotZEB) scheme last fund was initially established in 2022 to "disrupt the bus and coach market" and allow operators the chance to make the move to zero-emission vehicles. Sarwar said that number was "five times" less than the number of buses ordered by Greater that figure only covered the second phase of the first phase, in which 276 buses were procured at a cost of about £62m, saw 137 buses ordered from additional 116 buses were ordered from Chinese manufacturer Yutong, while the rest were built in the UK, Ireland and predecessor, known as the Scottish Ultra-Low Emission Bus Scheme, also saw 207 electric buses ordered from ADL by operators between September 2020 and March 2021. Swinney said state aid regulations - in the form of the UK-wide Subsidy Control Act - prevented the government from directly procuring from a single Scotland, most public service buses are procured by private operators, who then run them on routes across the said: "What I am doing, what the deputy first minister is doing, is how can we find a way in which we can remain legally compliant with the Subsidy Control Act and enable these obstacles to be overcome?"We are going to do everything we can to find a way through the Subsidy Control Act provision, so the government can continue to work within the law, and so we can support manufacturing in Scotland."
Scotsman
29 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Scottish landowners face massive £40k fines for 'management plan' breaches in 'attack on rural life'
Sign up to our Scotsman Rural News - A weekly of the Hay's Way tour of Scotland emailed direct to you. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The paper, which aims to improve transparency in landownership, includes a requirement for landowners to produce Land Management Plans (LMP) with an emphasis on promoting engagement within communities. Under current plans, if landowners breach such arrangements, fines up to £5,000 could be issued. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, an amendment has been put forward by Glasgow SNP MSP Bob Doris to increase this sum eight times over after the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee said the current fine would not be sufficient. Land around Loch Laxford seen through the hills. Picture: PA Rural Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon said the £40,000 figure will only apply to the maximum fine that could be levied under the new Bill, which is at stage two. Ms Gougeon said: 'Decisions on fines would be for the new Land and Communities Commissioner to consider in the event of a breach, and the maximum fine would not be levied automatically. I have always been clear that the intention is for the new commissioner to work with landowners and communities in the first instance, and the Bill makes provision for an appeals route as well. 'The Land Reform Bill sets out ambitious proposals that will change how land is managed in our rural and island communities for the better. Our Bill takes steps to better ensure that landholdings in scope are transferred and used in ways that support communities and take account of local need and I look forward to working with parliament as the legislation progresses.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scottish Conservative Tim Eagle MSP said the new sum was 'wildly disproportionate'. He said only Scottish Tory MSPs on the committee voted against the 'punitive' plans. The MSP for the Highlands and Islands region, home to a large number of estates likely impacted by the measures, said: 'This amendment put forward by a Glasgow-based SNP MSP is wildly disproportionate. 'These fines if they are passed in the final version of the SNP's Land Reform Bill will now hit land managers with £40,000 for merely failing to produce a plan. 'That is eight times the level of the current level of fines and will set alarm bells ringing among our rural communities. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'It was only the Scottish Conservatives on the committee who voted against these punitive measures. 'The fines are greater than people would get for a breach of the peace or for behaving in a drunk and disorderly manner. 'The SNP's version of the Land Reform Bill as it stands is an attack on the rural way of life and is backed by Holyrood's cosy left-wing consensus, some of whom want to go even further.
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
It is politicians – not regulators – who must make sense of the supreme court's gender ruling
It's almost two months now since the UK supreme court ruling on what makes a woman in the eyes of the law, which was hailed as a turning point in the battle over transgender rights. Not long enough for wounds to heal, in other words, but long enough surely to hope for a bit more clarity about what this means for everyday life: which toilets trans people can use, what this means for your local women's running club or gym, how employers can handle sensitive situations at work without outing or humiliating trans staff in front of colleagues and customers. But instead, the waters are getting muddier with every passing week. On Wednesday, Kishwer Falkner, now in the final five months of her term as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) watchdog, was grilled by the women and equalities select committee about the detailed code of practice she is due to submit to ministers next month, translating the ruling into everyday life. Since years of turning this issue into a political football haven't helped anyone, in an ideal world MPs could now leave it all in the hands of a trusted neutral arbiter, and resist the urge to meddle. Unfortunately, by the end of the hearing it was clear meddling may be urgently required. Within hours of the original supreme court ruling in April that 'woman' means 'biological woman' for the purpose of the Equality Act, and to the surprise of some lawyers, Lady Falkner had effectively pronounced inclusiveness dead. The EHRC issued interim guidance saying that trans people should stop using the toilets, changing rooms or NHS wards of their preferred gender – though for trans men who look male enough to be potentially frightening to women in female spaces, that's not straightforward – and only play on the grassroots sports teams of their birth sex. But is that really what the court intended? The former supreme court judge Jonathan Sumption has already warned of the risks of overinterpreting the ruling, arguing that he took it to confirm that single-sex services are entitled to exclude trans people, but not obliged to if they don't want to. Falkner, however, is sticking to her guns. Suppose you wanted to start a women's walking group, the Labour MP Rachel Taylor asked her, but you actively wanted to include trans women. Is that allowed? No, was the eventual answer: of course you can let your trans friend join, but then you'd be a mixed not single-sex group, and would have to also accept any man asking to join or risk getting sued. What the biological women in this group actually want – where they'd draw their own boundaries, or what feels right to them – is irrelevant on this reading, a position that may yet end up being tested in the courts. How any of this might be enforced in real life, meanwhile, seems vague at best. Asked how this imaginary walking group should check that every new member was definitely biologically female, Falkner suggested they might make a judgment on sight, but that nobody was going to be walking around with badges on policing it. Similarly on toilets, EHRC chief executive John Kirkpatrick told the committee that employers would need to provide facilities securing women's privacy and dignity, but that what that meant would vary locally and could be worked out 'on the basis of trust and openness and honesty'. With a large dollop of goodwill and forbearance on all sides, you can see how that might wash – except on this issue, there's vanishingly little of either to be found. The most awkward question, meanwhile, is whether a battle-scarred veteran of the culture wars such as Falkner is now sufficiently trusted to write the peace settlement. Originally appointed by Liz Truss to shake up an organisation seen by the Tories as too close to Stonewall, Falkner survived both attempted mutiny inside her organisation and vicious personal abuse from outside, as she dragged it into line with what would later end up being the supreme court's settled position: that trans women are not, in law, quite the same as biological women. She wouldn't be human if she didn't feel vindicated, and she was visibly emotional when the gender-critical MP Rosie Duffield (who has been through something similar) reminded her about the placards reading 'the only good Terf [trans-exclusionary radical feminist] is a dead Terf' or when protesters in 2022 dumped 60 bottles of urine on her office doorstep. But the legacy of those brutal years is that, fairly or unfairly, many trans people no longer trust the EHRC to defend their rights (as it's mandated to do for all protected groups). Falkner brushed off the committee's questions about that, saying she didn't see why people 'should become so fearful' when they haven't lost any rights (technically speaking, the court merely defined what the limits of those rights were). Yet where people do and don't feel welcome in society is determined by social norms as well as rights, and the former have swung from one extreme to the other in recent years; you don't have to disagree with the supreme court's ruling to see how that could be wildly disorienting. Though Falkner suggested it would be 'wise for space to be given to the regulator' to handle this – in other words, that parliament should back off – some Labour MPs are rapidly reaching the opposite view. A law that doesn't work in real-life scenarios is a law that doesn't work, full stop. On this evidence, parliament should prepare to roll up its sleeves. Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
