logo
The trans war tearing Labour apart

The trans war tearing Labour apart

Telegraph23-05-2025

Earlier this week, Jan Baxter stood on stage at the Public and Commercial Services Union conference at the Brighton Centre and spoke about an encounter she'd had the previous day with 'a male-bodied person' in the female toilets at the venue.
'He laughed when I challenged him,' she told the auditorium. 'You know this is wrong. You know this is illegal. You know that women very rarely challenge big men in the toilets because women are socialised not to challenge men when they are in a vulnerable situation.
'I am here to tell you that there are many, many women within our union, within the Labour movement and within the trade union movement, who welcome the Cass Review, who welcome the Sullivan Report and who definitely welcome the Supreme Court ruling because it clarifies everything for all of us.'
Her defiant speech was punctuated with loud boos and jeers from several of the delegates in the room. Yet many others applauded and approached her afterwards to express their support.
It was a moment that might illustrate just how divided unions – and indeed the Labour Party itself – have become when it comes to the issue of gender identity and women's rights.
Last month, when the Supreme Court ruling clarified that sex in law meant 'biological sex', some naively assumed that it might finally put to rest this thorniest of issues in Labour's side. But it seems that if anything, tensions have been ramped up rather than tempered.
This week, the party's National Executive Committee (NEC) voted that women officer roles and all-women shortlists would be limited to biological women. It was a remarkable volte face from its 2018 decision that 'self-identifying' trans women (biological men who could simply declare themselves women without any surgery or medical treatment) were eligible for Labour's all-women shortlists and other roles.
In a further twist, the NEC also decided to postpone the women's conference planned for September – leading to criticism from both trans activists (who had been planning to protest at the event) and women's groups alike.
Labour Women's Declaration, which campaigns for women's rights, said that while it was pleased that the party 'had at long last decided to follow the advice we had been giving them since 2019 and comply with the Equality Act 2010', it added that the cancellation of the conference was 'ridiculous and unnecessary'.
'The absence of the democratic process for women this year, as a result of this postponement, is appalling and fails to recognise the importance of women's voices within the Labour Party,' they said in a statement. 'The party must now address this as a matter of urgency.'
Meanwhile, LGBT groups such as Pride in Labour condemned the new emphasis on biological sex as a 'blatant attack on trans rights' and 'an attempt to isolate trans people even further within the Labour Party and the labour movement more widely'.
Rosie Duffield, now the independent MP for Canterbury, who has been a fierce critic of her former party on the issue of women's rights, says that the decision to postpone the conference was 'shameful and potentially unlawful'.
'This is reminiscent of another century,' she says. 'There has been no clear reason given for the ban, so is it simply because the Labour Party refuses to exclude men, as the law states, or that they are afraid of potential male protests, or even violence and are refusing to deal with that?
'Either way, I no longer equate being a feminist with being involved with the Labour Party, who still so obviously have a serious problem with women, which comes from the very top. It shows the utter disregard they still have for women's place within the Labour movement, and women's political activism.
'For years, we had to fight for recognition within unions, to organise together, for greater representation in politics. And now that the law couldn't be clearer, they have effectively silenced women yet again.'
While Sir Keir Starmer and colleagues such as Wes Streeting and Bridget Phillipson have publicly welcomed the clarification of the law, opposition to the ruling within the party seems to run deep.
Last month, four Labour MPs – Charlotte Nichols, Kate Osborne, Olivia Blake and Nadia Whittome – signed a trans-rights pledge that appeared to criticise the ruling.
Front benchers Chris Bryant and Dame Angela Eagle also railed against remarks made by Baroness Falkner, who chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). She had said the ruling meant trans women would be banned from women's single-sex spaces. In a leaked WhatsApp message, Eagle warned that EHRC guidance on the issue might be 'catastrophic' and warned that there were 'signs that some public bodies are overreacting' to the Supreme Court decision.
Mandy Clare, a former Labour councillor from Cheshire, was elected onto Labour's National Women's Committee in 2020 but left the party after being deselected and taken through a disciplinary for alleged transphobia.
'I highly suspect the cancellation of the women's conference this year is yet another cynical, controlling and possibly vindictive move by the party, at the behest of activists, to again remind women of their place,' she says.
'Women within the Labour Party have to dance to the men's rights tune or expect to be abused and discarded.'
Clare, who is now a councillor for Reform, believes that some Labour MPs have 'emboldened' trans activism with their behaviour.
'Starmer owes all women an apology,' she says. 'Those Labour MPs who have called women names and decided we were witches, without even bothering to check basic crime statistics and evidence, not only lack common sense or any respect or understanding for what it means to be a woman in a world that is still male-dominated, they have – by their actions – emboldened the type of man who threatens to hang or punch women and allowed this go unpunished. It's hard to compute what we have been living through – and it's not over.'
Some insiders even claim that because of the magnitude of the impact of the Supreme Court ruling on Labour, party figures are working behind the scenes to undermine it.
'An interesting aspect of this is because Labour is one of the few political parties which has extensive positive actions policies for women in terms of lists and quotas and women's branches, women's officers etc, it is more heavily impacted by the Supreme Court ruling,' says one source.
Another claims: 'The Labour Party will push through the fully trans inclusive conversion therapy Bill as well as the data Bill, which is effectively self-identity. There are many LGBT+ Labour activists running the show who have very serious influence at Labour Party HQ and they're invested in achieving LGBT+ aims. Worse is yet to come.'
Labour's data Bill, which is in its final stages before becoming law, will allow people to prove their identity and facts about themselves by using a new voluntary Government app. Women's rights campaigners have been warning ministers that the legislation will play havoc with the ability of companies such as gym chains and public bodies like the NHS and police to ascertain someone's sex – just after the Supreme Court ruling intended to bring much-needed clarity.
Dee McCullogh, a member of Lesbian Labour, says that the division and tension within the party needs to be tackled from the top – putting the spotlight on Starmer.
'For 15 years the law has been incorrectly administered and finally we have some clarity – which is great – but then the Labour Party has a knee-jerk response [by cancelling the women's conference] and it feels like a kick in the stomach,' she says. 'It's like saying to women: 'Yes of course you can play football but you can't have any matches'. It's so insulting.
'This whole thing has been about capitulation to the bullying from a loud group of trans activists, not the tiny percentage of people with genuine gender dysphoria. Lesbians in particular were central to the Supreme Court ruling and no one has apologised to us for the distress and harms caused to lesbians, who, over the last 15 years have lost our community and single sex spaces.
'The Government really needs to clamp down on this bullying. You can't have MPs and people within the judiciary saying they are not going to follow the law. What sort of democracy can you run if people are simply going to say they know the speed limit is 30mph but they are going to drive at 60mph anyway? The Labour leadership needs to listen to its membership, not just the bullies because as You Gov polls show, the majority of people agree with the Supreme Court decision.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Rachel Reeves in stand-off over policing and council budgets days before spending review
Rachel Reeves in stand-off over policing and council budgets days before spending review

The Guardian

time17 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Rachel Reeves in stand-off over policing and council budgets days before spending review

Rachel Reeves has been locked in a standoff over the policing and council budgets just days before this week's spending review, which is set to give billions to the NHS, defence and technology. Yvette Cooper's Home Office and Angela Rayner's housing and local government ministry were the two departments still at the negotiating table on Sunday fighting for more cash, after weeks of trying to reach a settlement. Whitehall sources said the policing budget would not face a real terms cut, but there was still disagreement over the level of investment needed for the Home Office to meet its commitments. Rayner's department is understood to have reached an agreement with the Treasury late on Sunday night after last-minute wrangling over housing, local councils and growth funds. However, any failure to strike a deal would raise the prospect of a budget being imposed on an unwilling department. The spending review, taking place on Wednesday, is a chance for Reeves to hold up billions of pounds of capital spending as a sign she is working to repair public services after years of Tory austerity. After tweaking her fiscal rules last autumn, she has an additional £113bn funded by borrowing for capital spending. Her plans will include £86bn for science and technology across four years and an extra £4.5bn for schools – taking funding per pupil to its highest level ever. However, day-to-day spending is more constrained in some areas, while the NHS and defence swallow up higher allocations. As well as policing, the Home Office budget covers the border force and spending on asylum costs, while the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been battling for funds for the affordable homes programme, councils, homelessness and regional growth. Labour has manifesto pledges to build 1.5m homes and deliver 13,000 new police officers. Pressed on the policing budget, the technology secretary, Peter Kyle, said Home Office and others would have to 'do their bit'. Funding for the police has the potential to become a politically difficult issue for Keir Starmer. Tory former shadow cabinet minister Robert Jenrick has been campaigning against transport fare dodging and Nigel Farage's Reform are also highlighting the issue. Asked about which public services will be prioritised, Kyle said 'every part of our society is struggling' and numerous sectors had asked Reeves for more money. 'On the fact that the police have been writing to the chancellor, they have,' he told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme. 'We also have letters from the universities, we have letters from doctors about the health service, we have letters from campaigners for child poverty writing to us, and other aspects of challenges in Britain at the moment. 'Every part of our society is struggling because of the inheritance that we had as a country and as a government.' He pointed to the £1.1bn extra funding already earmarked for police this year, as he defended Reeves's handling of the spending review process. 'We expect the police to start embracing the change they need to do, to do their bit for change as well. We are doing our bit,' Kyle said. 'You see a chancellor that is striving to get investment to the key parts of our country that needs it the most … You will see the priorities of this government reflected in the spending review, which sets the departmental spending into the long term. 'But this is a partnership. Yes, the Treasury needs to find more money for those key priorities, but the people delivering them need to do their bit as well.' While some areas of spending may be cut or receive only low increases, the NHS is set to receive a boost of up to £30bn by 2028, while defence spending is expected to rise to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. Kyle defended the chancellor's approach to public spending, saying she was like Apple founder Steve Jobs who turned the company around when it was 90 days from insolvency. He told Sky News's Trevor Phllips: 'Now Steve Jobs turned it around by inventing the iMac, moving to a series of products like the iPod. 'Now we're starting to invest in the vaccine processes of the future. Some of the hi-tech solutions that are going to be high growth. We're investing in our space sector. All these really high, highly innovative sectors. 'We are investing into those key innovations of the future. We know that we cannot break this vicious cycle of high tax and low growth by doing the same as we always have done. We have to innovate our way out of this and we are doing so by investing in those high-growth sectors.'

Farage's proposal is just the latest undermining of the Barnett system
Farage's proposal is just the latest undermining of the Barnett system

The National

time32 minutes ago

  • The National

Farage's proposal is just the latest undermining of the Barnett system

This, according to senior criminologists and ex-police officers, is not just a failure of admin, it's the result of austerity-era cuts that stripped police forces of capacity, dismantled the state-run Forensic Science Service in 2012, and left fragmented, underfunded systems to cope with ballooning evidence demands. Austerity didn't just weaken institutions; it disassembled infrastructure. READ MORE: Nigel Farage could cut the Barnett Formula. Here's what devolution experts think of that While these failings may seem like an English and Welsh concern, they tell a broader UK-wide story. Because when public services are cut in England, the Barnett formula translates those cuts into reduced budget allocations for Holyrood, too. Scotland has long borne the dual burden of being denied full fiscal autonomy while also seeing its devolved budget squeezed by decisions made for entirely different priorities south of the Border. Cuts to police, criminal courts, housing, public health, and local government in England have systematically eroded the spending floor on which Scottish services rest. So when justice collapses in England, it affects Scotland financially – even if the governance is separate. And now, against this backdrop of UK-wide budgetary degradation, Nigel Farage has called for the scrapping of the Barnett formula entirely. It's a move that's politically convenient, historically illiterate, and economically reckless. But more than anything, it's a distillation of what's already happening by stealth. Successive UK governments have undermined the foundations of the Barnett system – and devolution itself – for more than a decade. READ MORE: Furious Anas Sarwar clashes with BBC journalist over Labour policies It's obvious to every Scot that Farage's view relies on a mischaracterisation of Barnett as a subsidy, when in fact it simply ensures Scotland receives a proportional share of changes to spending in England for devolved services. It doesn't calculate entitlement or need, it mirrors policy shifts at Westminster. If England increases education or health spending, Scotland sees a relative uplift. If England cuts deeply, Scotland's budget falls, even if demand remains or rises. This has led to an absurd and punitive dynamic where Scotland loses funding not by its own decisions, but because England spends less. And when Scotland chooses to maintain higher standards in public services, it must do so from a proportionately smaller pot. Perversely, it doesn't stop there, though. Since the 2016 Brexit vote, Westminster has begun bypassing devolved governments directly. Funds like the Levelling Up Fund and Shared Prosperity Fund are allocated by UK ministers to local authorities, often bypassing Holyrood entirely. Promises made in The Vow on the eve of the 2014 independence referendum to deliver near-federal powers and respect Scottish decision-making have unravelled. READ MORE: SNP must turn support for independence into 'real political action' The Internal Market Act has overridden devolved laws under the banner of market 'consistency'. Powers that returned from Brussels in areas like food standards, procurement, and agriculture were supposed to go to Holyrood, but in many cases they were retained by Westminster. The Sewel Convention, once a safeguard of devolved consent, has been treated as optional. Farage's proposal to scrap Barnett isn't an outlier, it's the natural conclusion of a decade-long pattern: cut services in England, shrink the Barnett allocation, bypass devolved institutions, and then blame the devolved nations for 'taking more than their share'. There's no consideration of fairness, or implementation of a needs-based analysis, it's a strategy of erosion; one that gouges out the Union from the centre while draping itself in the flag. The failures of justice in England, catastrophic as they are, expose a deeper injustice: the systematic unravelling of the constitutional promises made to Scotland. Ron Lumiere via email

Can we still be Britain without the British? We'd rather you didn't ask
Can we still be Britain without the British? We'd rather you didn't ask

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Can we still be Britain without the British? We'd rather you didn't ask

I couldn't care less about the burka debate. Not a tinker's. Why? Because it's a concession of defeat, a belated response by panicked politicians to a change that's already happened and that they largely encouraged. Last week, a meteor hit Britain with the publication of a demographic study by the queerly named Centre of Heterodox Social Science. By 2063, say the sociable hets, white Britons will be a minority; come the new century, almost one in five citizens will be Muslim. This forces us to consider a very politically incorrect question: will Britain still be Britain if it's no longer majority white British? The official answer is 'absolutely, yes'. Elite liberals believe nations are defined by values, and thus anyone, from anywhere in the world, can become British if they conform to them. It helps that these values are universal. Fairness, tolerance, kindness... this is a portable identity that is uncontroversial, because it demands nothing except to pay one's taxes and avoid murder. Keir Starmer warns that we are becoming an 'island of strangers', while promoting a vision of citizenship that is entirely passive. It's also based on a misreading of human nature. Liberals assume that values shape culture, such that we could pass a law – ban the burka, ban Islamophobia – and we'd become good neighbours overnight. But it's the other way around. Culture shapes values, and culture is the product of non-abstract, substantial qualities, such as climate, geography, religion, language and ethnicity. We can shorthand it as 'history'. Thus: we are democratic in Britain not because a committee decided it over one wild weekend, but following nearly a thousand years of revolution and reaction, baked into memory and expressed as temperament. Such a society is light-touch and self-governing, at least in theory, because we've been marinating in its ethics and customs since birth. The English, Welsh, Scots etc do exist as cultures – not superior to others, nor unaffected by migration, but really real – and if they undergo a profound change in composition, this is bound to change the nature of Britishness, too. Isn't that obvious? It's regarded as axiomatic elsewhere. We rush to recognise and cultivate the historical identity of First Nations people, just as we step back nervously from a Holy Land conflict shaped by competing ethnic claims over biblical territory. And even if you regard ethnic conflict as sinful, as I do, or based upon a category error, as academics insist, we have to accept that identity matters to a lot of people. In which case, I struggle to think of a society in history that has faced the scale of change happening to us without descending into violence or authoritarianism. Today, the liberal understanding of nationhood is already in retreat. Remigration is being trialled in the United States. Donald Trump is reducing inflows by banning travel from named countries, cutting asylum and militarising his border. He's also increasing outflows by expelling as many people as he can on any pretext he can find. For instance, when an Egyptian asylum-seeker assaulted protesters in Colorado, the administration not only arrested the attacker but detained and is seeking to deport his entire family – a 'sins of the father' policy that judges are resisting. Elsewhere, the BBC's Simon Reeve has caused a stir by highlighting the integrationist policies of Denmark, a country that offers people cash to go home and dismantles ghettos. That this is done by social democrats comes as no surprise. Scandinavia is historically conformist; a welfare state requires high levels of solidarity to function. Evidence of my 'history-shapes-identity' theory is offered by how countries respond to the immigration challenge in light of their own traditions. Here, when a Reform UK MP asked the PM for his views on the burka, the PM had no answer and his MPs sounded as shocked as a maiden aunt offered cocaine. Why doesn't Labour want to have this debate? A cynic will say: it offends their core constituency. A Tory will claim: they don't really care about immigration. And yet Labour's immigration White Paper looks tough, and it has already increased deportations compared with the last government. Historically, it was Labour that restricted Commonwealth immigration in the 1960s, and Boris Johnson, of Brexit fame, who threw the borders open. Boris, who liked to play both sides of the immigration game, infamously compared the burka to a letter box – yet did not wish to ban it. Do we not say 'an Englishman's home is his castle'? By extension, they are free to wear whatever they want in the street. The problem, reply nationalists, is that by clinging to a liberal vision, we open the door to illiberal attitudes that might, by strength of conviction, overwhelm us. If the culture goes, our old values will follow. We are not, however, as tolerant as many assume. It has been reported that Prevent now regards 'cultural nationalism' – the fear that society 'is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration' – as a 'sub-category of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideologies', and thus worthy of referral to the authorities. GB News is up in arms – admittedly a permanent condition – but I've yet to hear a guest point out that white Christians are merely experiencing what the security services have done to Muslim Britons since 9/11: slander and harassment. Between 2016 and 2019, over 2,000 children under the age of nine were referred to Prevent, including a four-year-old Muslim boy who talked about a violent computer game at an after-school club. Right and Left are chasing a mirage of British liberalism that, in an age when you can get 31 months for a social-media post, no longer reflects reality. Immigration is ultimately a numbers game. A democratic society can get along fine with any minority, so long as it remains small in number. But when a government fails to police its borders, and thus loses control over numbers, it will feel obliged to police society to maintain harmony: monitoring, deporting, rewriting history, and indoctrinating us in a strange new variant on national character, a parody of kindness best described as 'sinister twee'. If you want a vision of the future, it is a Dawn French-shaped woman, with a midlife-crisis fringe, talking to you about diversity and inclusion as if you were a baby. Then, when you raise an objection, ending the discussion with a disturbingly final 'NO'.

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