Labour's cynical shift on biological sex

New Statesman​

23-04-2025

It took the UK's highest court to say what many have always known: that 'sex' in the law (under the Equality Act 2010) means biological sex. In its ruling on 16 April, the court set out why – from pregnancy to sport, access to refuges to women-only changing rooms – the Equality Act would be 'unworkable, inconsistent and incoherent' if sex were not confined to biological sex but also included trans people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC).
That this was left to the courts at all is an indictment of politicians. The response from Labour has been woeful. It took the Prime Minister six days to say he was 'really pleased' with the 'clarity' brought by the judgement. His spokesperson confirmed that Starmer no longer believed trans women were women. But the PM hasn't condemned the threats made to women during the trans rights activist protests that followed the judgement, at which some carried placards bearing abusive messages, including 'The only good Terf is a [dead] one' and 'Bring back witch burning'. A bust of the women's rights campaigner Millicent Fawcett was daubed with the homophobic slur 'fag rights'. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper (who previously refused to go down the 'rabbit hole' of defining what a woman is), condemned the damage, but had nothing to say of the misogyny on display. The Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson was the first in cabinet to criticise the rhetoric.
More embarrassing has been Labour's attempts to rewrite history. A Labour source told the Telegraph the judgement showed why it was 'so important that Keir hauled the Labour Party back to the common-sense position the public take on these sorts of issues'. This was, the source said, 'one of the reasons the country felt Labour was safe to elect'. Really? Wasn't it Starmer who, in 2021, called the then Labour MP Rosie Duffield's statement 'only women have a cervix' 'something that shouldn't be said'. And wasn't it John Healey, now the Defence Secretary, who said during the 2024 election campaign that clarification of the law around sex and gender was a 'distraction' and 'not needed'? On 16 April, Phillipson claimed Labour had 'always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex'. But she said in a June 2024 interview that trans women with a GRC should use female toilets. Why can't politicians admit they got it wrong?
Next came responses from the largely left-wing, male commentariat, who have absented themselves from speaking up for women. Some said they hadn't got involved because 'as a man' they weren't directly impacted. Several found the debate so 'toxic' they shied away. Others claimed the judgement is complex or nuanced. It isn't. It's unambiguous and has huge implications for the NHS, sport, schools, prisons and more.
The judgement makes clear that trans people, rightly, remain protected from harassment and discrimination under the Equality Act. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 also provides rights and freedoms 'in the context of marriage, pensions, retirement and social security'. Despite claims to the contrary, no one wishes to see trans people erased, or denies they exist. The court simply established that the law does not allow trans women to be treated as if they are biological women.
One group, however, would have faced erasure had the court ruled the other way: lesbians. 'For lesbians, this was not merely about safe spaces and same-sex services: it was absolutely foundational to our very existence,' I was told by Sally Wainwright, who helped put together the case for three lesbian organisations granted permission to intervene at the Supreme Court. The judges agreed. Sexual orientation 'is rendered meaningless' if sex is not confined to biological sex, they said. Yet press coverage has largely ignored this, Wainwright said. This was a judgement 'all – and only – about women's rights'. That it has been reported as if it's an attack on trans people signifies the extent to which parts of the press were 'captured', she argued.
The 88-page Supreme Court judgement is calm and compassionate, fact-based and devoid of activist language. To get this far required brave women to say what those with power and authority refused to. For Women Scotland (FWS), which brought the case that led to the ruling, is run by three women. Their efforts were not 'bankrolled by billionaires and the far right', as the Labour MP Zarah Sultana claims. Yes, JK Rowling contributed £70,000 to the battle, but the donations of more than 5,000 others raised the bulk of the £232,000 costs.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
British women are rebuilding sanity brick by brick. Maya Forstater secured the right to say that sex is real and immutable and not be punished. Keira Bell took on the care provided to gender-distressed children at the Tavistock. And FWS has now reinforced the long-fought-for rights of women.
But attempts have already begun to undermine the judgement, with some questioning its legitimacy and indicating they will refuse to comply. The Supreme Court ruling will require businesses, public bodies and other institutions to change their policies in accordance with the law. How will a government that has thus far been weak on women's rights respond? Despite reports of unease in Labour's ranks, Phillipson spoke definitively on BBC Radio 4's Today on 22 April: 'I can be crystal clear with you that we welcome the ruling.'
There is now an opportunity to be rid of the lies and toxicity of the past; to ensure that the rights of both trans people and women are respected. But one thing is certain: if that chance is not taken, women will not stay silent. History shows they can, and will, say 'No'. And they will win.
[See more: Medicine's profit motive]
Related