Trans rights under Labour
Created by AI, Curtesy of Wix
I previously wrote earlier this year concerning the Conservative party’s culture war on trans rights. The woeful final two leadership candidates mean they are unlikely to change their stance but luckily, they are no longer in government, which raises the question on how well Labour will handle trans issues.
Labour should, as a progressive party and that stands in opposition to conservative values, stand up for the rights of trans people. Unfortunately, there are a significant minority of people within Labour who have a problem with trans people unlike parties like the Democrats in the United States. Transphobia is a lot less partisan than in other countries and it infects all major parties to some degree, but in the Greens and Liberal Democrats it is nowhere near official party policy. When the Conservatives act transphobic, there's always a hope that Labour will get in, whereas it stings when Labour acts transphobic because there's no viable alternative to turn to for Trans people.
Should we worry about what Labour is planning to do, will transphobes be in charge of dictating trans-related policy, and what are the current plans of the Labour leadership regarding trans rights?
Some background, It was clear in the election campaign that being pro-trans wasn’t important to Labour’s overall strategy— their language towards the community was littered with reassurances to ‘gender critical’ people (those are people who are against certain rights for trans people, sometimes rejecting the entire idea that transgender people could exist, and are by and large transphobic, most accurately referred to as TERFS). It comes from a misunderstanding, by political advisers I assume, that any degree of progression on trans rights is mutually exclusive to women’s rights (of course, a large voting bloc), when that isn’t the case at all.
The Conservatives and the media have spent a considerable amount of time in the past couple of years trying to demonise trans people in a culture war— one of the many distractions they've launched from the abysmal governance we’ve endured for a decade. Labour has a history of being comparatively good on trans rights though, they passed both the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA) and the 2010 Equality Act which made great leaps for the trans community in law, therefore it is no surprise that Labour was targeted by gender critical people on social media for being too pro-trans in the run up to the election in July even despite their relative silence on the issue. For example, Starmer had said a somewhat pro-trans statement back when he became Labour leader in 2020, when he was still pretending to be a Socialist, and that would be used as fuel to slander the party. Labour’s top team clearly believe that if controversy and fury from gender critical people could erupt from almost-nothing, then they wouldn’t be able to be openly pro-trans without significant political capital behind them.
I perhaps naively believed that Labour was trying to be neutral on the issue, paying lip-service to gender critical people to prevent outrage, while silently being for the status quo. To be clear, this isn’t great. Labour, especially now in a time where anti-trans sentiment is growing because of false outrage, should be very open and very pro-trans in their approach. This is a time where the community needs a lot of protection and needs to be empowered rather than forgotten. Nevertheless, the change of government is a huge positive. The Conservatives had and were going to make things harder for trans people. If Labour do nothing, the bad status quo remains, with potential to make marginal improvements, but trans rights won't fall off a cliff.
Transitioning in the UK is tough. Legally, it is an abysmal and drawn-out process, helped though by the fact we live in a pseudo-'self ID' country. Self ID is a system where only the declaration of the person is necessary to change gender, we don't have this but a lot of steps to transitioning don't require a diagnosis and can be done with a self-declaration (e.g., name and title change). The process of achieving a ‘gender recognition certificate’ (GRC) is something that less than five percent of trans people obtain due to its complex and invasive nature. I’ve heard horror stories of people who’ve lived as their preferred gender for over a decade and still had issues with the necessary paperwork. In healthcare, things are much worse. Waitlists for NHS gender clinics are upwards of seven years and are rising quickly with clinics for adults and children shutting down and are rare and hard to reach for people; private clinics are expensive and still have long wait times; people who’ve been on prescription for years are being informed that their GPs can no longer medicate for them; and puberty blockers have been banned for all children since earlier this year.
Living as a transgender person has also gotten worse in recent times. The 2010s saw a rise in acceptance, but also constant media harassment and culture war flames have led to a rise in hate crime. The tragic murder of trans teenager Brianna Ghey in 2022 was a wake-up call that many have decided to ignore, despite the fact that the horrific words of her murderers echo common transphobic jibes— Rishi Sunak even did a jab on transgender people while Ghey’s mother was watching in the House of Commons gallery.
LGBT+ charity Stonewall Report stated that 92% of young trans people have thought about taking their own lives, while 45% have attempted at least once. The Good Law project claims that following the court case ‘Bell v Tavistock’ in 2020, which restricted the ability for under 16s to transition, suicide among trans kids on the waitlist of the Gender Identity Development Services exploded from 1 case from 2013–2020, to 16 cases from 2020–2023. Hate crimes against trans people have increased nine-fold from under 500 in 2011/2012 to nearly 4,500 in 2021/2022. The number of hostile articles from right-wing media has skyrocketed approximately 2000% since 2013.
It should be important to understand the Cass Review. It was an 'independent' review looking at gender-questioning children published in May 2024 by Dr Hilary Cass, who has some interesting friends in the anti-trans movement. It was commissioned by the late Tory government, and its recommendations have been praised by former anti-trans Minister of Women and Equalities (and leadership hopeful) Kemi Badenoch, who said that the report would never have gone ahead under Labour. (criticisms of the Cass review: (one) (two) (three)
There is a lot of misinformation on both sides about what the actual recommendations of the report are, but the gist is that it found that puberty blockers had insufficient studies to prove their safety. This allowed then Health Secretary Victoria Atkins to put in place, a day before the dissolution of parliament, an emergency unilateral ban on the prescription of puberty blockers, in both NHS and private clinics.
The UK is the only country in the world where puberty blockers have been banned, outside of some Republican-dominated US states. The opinion falls outside of worldwide organisations, such as WPATH, and the Endocrine Society; the laws in countries like Italy, the Netherlands, Mexico, Chile, and New Zealand. Some countries, such as Norway and Sweden, do urge caution on the usage because of their lack of sufficient evidence, but allow them to still be used. The government of New South Wales, Australia, released a study last month which claimed that puberty blockers were 'safe, effective, and reversible'. The British Medical Association (BMA) trade union, which just won its members a 22% pay rise after 2 years of strike action, are currently undertaking an evaluation to see if they will support the Cass Review after concerns of cherry-picking evidence and odd recommendations.
The Labour manifesto
The Labour manifesto for the 2024 general election included various statements and commitments regarding transgender people. Manifestos are documents released to the public to give them the idea of Labour’s plan for governing, but they do not have to follow it once in office— so take what they say with some grain of salt— although the language they use can help gauge how Labour want to frame the debate going forward.
Labour puts forward several commitments to ensuring safety for trans people, where it says:
“Labour will protect LGBT+ and disabled people by making all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence.” and “So-called conversion therapy is abuse – there is no other word for it – so Labour will finally deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, while protecting the freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Ignoring the fact that most of this manifesto is fairly vague, the ban on conversion therapy is welcomed. Conservative governments have previously attempted to ban trans conversion therapy, as part of laws banning gay conversion therapy, but have consistently flip-flopped on whether or not to include it— and eventually the clock ran out and they didn’t pass one in the end. The fact that the manifesto is so clear on a specific trans-inclusive ban is objectively good news that should end awful practices like that.
The main commitment to help those transitioning in the manifesto is the following promise:
“We will also modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law to a new process. We will remove indignities for trans people who deserve recognition and acceptance; whilst retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist”
Reforming the GRR is something that is certainly needed and this is a welcome change, with some drawbacks. The current process is definitely outdated, a position that the new Minister of Women and Equalities Anneliese Dodds agrees with, because of its invasiveness and complexity: the application process takes around 22 weeks from start to finish and requires bountiful amounts of personal and medical information from a period of 2 years, such as bank statements; and proof you have a gender diagnosis (itself difficult to get, that aforementioned seven year waitlist or costly private option), with adequate reasoning for the diagnosis signed by two different doctors. The process also doesn’t allow for non-binary identities, or children, no wonder the rate of application is so low.
To be clear, you don’t need a GRC to change gender markers on a passport or at the NHS, but some places do kick up a fuss unnecessarily. Furthermore, a GRC would allow you to amend your birth certificate, allow you to die in your preferred identity, and would label you correctly under your children’s birth certificates.
Twenty countries around the world use Self-ID including European countries like Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Switzerland, and even Ireland. The drawback here is that the Labour manifesto commits to still requiring a gender dysphoria diagnosis— self-ID has been constantly fear-mongered in the media as causing a danger to women, never mind that these twenty countries have no cases of people exploiting self-ID to endanger anybody. Self-ID is an important goal for the trans community to achieve, but removing an openly hostile government like the Conservatives to embrace any kind of progressive change is a move in the right direction.
Removing the judging panel and two-year requirement is great for privacy reasons and makes the process a lot less unmanageable, and more easily accessed for low income or unhoused people. It also removes the panel of people and moves the decision to between a patient and a doctor alone— even if, since 2014, the World Health Organisation no longer treats being transgender as a mental illness, and thus the idea of doctors being involved in ‘diagnosing’ an identity is somewhat unjustifiable. If the medical diagnosis will remain a requirement, progress needs to be made on improving healthcare in this aspect: we cannot have a seven year wait list, and it is very disappointing that nothing was said on ways to improve this.
There is the possibility that Labour will use the opportunity of amending the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 to slide in regressive reforms in the backdoor, such as any limitations on what the GRC can do in terms of accessing gender-specific spaces, however protections should be included as part of the Equality Act, it isn’t mentioned at all in the manifesto and so regressive reforms may be held up in the House of Lords, and amendments could be made against them by both progressive Labour MPs and the Liberal Democrats who have 72 seats and are very trans-friendly.
The manifesto also mentions the Equality Act:
“Labour is proud of our Equality Act and the rights and protections it affords women; we will continue to support the implementation of its single-sex exceptions.”
As mentioned in the introduction, this part of the manifesto does use language from gender critics and transphobes where it wishes to implement single-sex exceptions. One method they wish to use of regressing trans rights is a plan to redefine the protections trans people have in the Equality Act. Currently, transgender people are to be treated as the way they identify with gender reassignment as a protected group, and a transphobic amendment would try to allow people to legally discriminate and exclude trans women from women’s spaces, and trans men from men’s spaces, without repercussions.
In a sense, it is a reassurance that they won’t pursue a transphobic option— they don’t commit to amending the Equality Act in any way, only ‘continuing to support the implementation’, implying the current exceptions already present in the act, which it does have. The current exceptions already in the Equality Act allow for single-sex exceptions. This means that there are some cases where separating trans women from women for example can be legal, provided there is a reason to do so that is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (e.g to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety). This is how sports companies are able to still exclude trans women from women’s sporting events without repercussions, because they can argue there is a valid reason to exclude them. A stance on continuing to support the implementation of these exceptions is not progressing trans rights, by removing any exceptions, but also they are not committing to adding more exceptions to the Equality Act, like some transphobes would like.
It is scary and disappointing though that Labour would try to use this kind of language—to pre-empt the support of keeping single-sex exceptions with an appraisal of the Equality Act for the protections it affords women, implies that women are in danger sometimes to some trans women, which isn’t the case. Transphobia hurts all women, cis or trans, by reinforcing archaic beauty standards (where women are accused of being men because they might have a wacky dress sense, atypical heights or face structures). Remember, the majority of anti-abortionists and misogynists, people like Vladimir Putin, Ron DeSantis, Andrew Tate, are transphobic too.
From what I can tell, the commitment here is to maintain the status quo, neither progressing nor regressing on the Equality Act. The current Equality Act is actually pretty good, and the Conservatives were close to ripping it up completely as some leadership candidates have wanted to do. As long as Labour stick to this and don’t suddenly change their minds or interpretation, this is a fine commitment despite the disgusting appearance.
Labour rhetoric and actions
For context, there are bountiful ways the gender critics have tried to frame trans rights as openly hostile but one of the most potent ones that would appeal to some progressives, which would be more prevalent in Labour, is the bizarre idea that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people don’t like trans people being in their community— this is not true. Polling from YouGov in 2023 found that where 39% of Britons have a positive view of transgender people, 75% of cis LGBT Britons have a positive view. Lesbian women were the most supportive group with 84% of them viewing transgender people positively, and bisexual women were the least negative, with only 4% of them describing their view negatively. It is very clear there is a concentrated effort by right-wingers to infiltrate queer spaces and turn the community against each other, which isn’t working, thank goodness.
There are numerous organisations, sometimes funded by American Christian evangelical groups with ties to the Republican party (and their famously anti-trans Project 2025), that fund groups that report to be gay rights groups, but mainly operate to oppose trans rights. The LGB Alliance, which has been deemed an anti-trans group by both pressure groups within Labour and ITV News (a pleasant surprise), is an example of this. They had their headquarters at Tufton Street, infamous for being the host of numerous unknown conservative think tanks; barely ever talk about issues that gay people actually face; are supported by Baroness Nicholson, who denounced lesbian families as 'neither normal nor unnatural' and voted for the ban of homosexuality in schools; and have a litiny of other homophobic supporters . Not to veer too off topic from Labour, but if you want to know more, there are fantastic videos by YouTuber Shaun which goes over the ties between gender critical organisations and the right-wing of American politics, and how they have infiltrated the British media, which I would heavily recommend to learn more: (video one) (video two)
It isn’t a coincidence that opposition to trans people rose as fast as it did here as in America. It is clear that we ‘import’ these dangerous ideas from the US because of the ‘drag queen panic’. There was an irrational panic around drag queens performing in front of children, which spread like a wildfire, and prompted several states to propose anti-drag laws. We, similarly, had some outrage but in the UK it is impossible to separate them from the centuries-long pantomime dames which have entertained children since Shakespeare’s time with no issue.
Labour Health Secretary, Wes Streeting
Although focusing on children's health, the Cass Review being an independent review allowed Labour's Health Secretary Wes Streeting to act in a way harmful to the trans community without it receiving much flack. Streeting continued the Tory's unilateral ban on puberty blocker prescriptions under the guise of defending trans people, "I am determined to improve the quality of, and access to, care for trans people", while taking away the option for many trans children to receive the care they need and which goes against the consensus worldwide. His mask can be revealed elsewhere though, Streeting is one of the most openly transphobic Labour MPs and also unfortunately is in charge of the abysmal state of trans healthcare. I don't buy that he made this decision to improve the quality of care.
Streeting, despite correctly stating in an interview that trans people were being used as a political football, decided in the same interview to declare that trans people should be placed into their own wards in hospitals. The decision is baffling, the NHS barely has enough wards as is, with people even having to lay in the corridors, and suddenly having trans people in the ward of their preferred gender is too much for him! It should be clear, that no NHS hospital has actually received a complaint about any trans woman in a women's ward. To be clear, trans women are as safe in men's wards as any woman would be— trans women are four times more likely to be victims of violent crime. Does this come from a totally misguided belief that they are dangerous? does he have little bugs speaking nonsense to him?
This goes beyond 'safeguarding' attempts— he has faced significant criticism for openly admitting, live on air, that he regrets believing that trans women are women, and trans men are men. He is almost proud of the fact that he doesn’t believe this, claiming he had to undergo ‘self criticism and reflection’. There is clearly bias in his decisions, whether from his own belief, or anti-trans people hounding him with their ideology. Hopefully, the BMA can come to a decision where they disapprove of the recommendations made by the Cass Review, to remove any legitimacy of his actions. He also has said it’s wrong to call gender critics bigoted, despite being bigoted against an entire group of people, and defended and apologised to former Labour MP Rosie Duffield.
Former Labour MP, Rosie Duffield
Speaking of Rosie Duffield, she recently won the record for the fastest resignation of a party whip after re-election. She, by her own admission, had become isolated within the Labour party due to her regressive views on trans people— which makes me view Labour MPs slightly better to be honest. However, the cowardly Labour party never kicked her out, I suspect because doing so would cause a row, and Labour would have to spend time defending trans people with that valuable pre-election political capital. Officially, she resigned because of her disagreements of the Winter Fuel Allowance cuts and general cronyism surfacing lately, but Canterbury elected a Labour MP three months ago and now no longer have one.
There has been a failure in the Labour party to respond adequately to transphobic members or MPs, who should have faced suspension, de-selection, or punishment on par with those they would have received had they been racist, sexist, or homophobic instead. On two separate occasions, the Labour party undertook investigations into Duffield's alleged transphobia, and both times the complaints were dismissed with no further actions. Two of her staffers resigned over her transphobia, she said that trans women should be excluded from domestic violence shelters, and she has previously liked tweets describing trans people as 'mostly heterosexuals cosplaying as the opposite sex'.
She even liked tweets from a disgraced writer denying that trans people were targeted in the holocaust, implying Nazis wouldn't be bigoted towards 'straight white men with blonde hair', despite the fact that trans people were one of the first and easiest targets for the Nazi regime to target. The first Nazi book burning in 1933 was of trans research books, and they burned down the largest sexology centre in the world.
As said though, she has implied that she had a tumultuous relationship with the Labour leader, and her isolation speaks volumes at how the majority of her Labour peers view her politics. She has even accused Keir Starmer of having a 'woman problem', which is ridiculous as he is surrounded by a female Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, the first female Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves, a gender-balanced cabinet, and having elected the most female Labour MPs in history.
Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer
Keir Starmer himself has also been mixed in his rhetoric, especially in the pre-election debates. During a latter debate, he said,
"I do recognise that there are a small number of people who are born into a gender that they don't identify with and I will treat them as I treat all human beings, with dignity and respect... because if you don't, you end up as [Rishi Sunak] making an anti-trans joke in the front of the mother of a murdered trans teenager. I will never ever allow myself to be put into that position"
This leads me to believe that Starmer was genuinely upset when he reprimanded Sunak at the time, and while I wish he would stick up for trans people more when there isn't a direct manifestation of the harm against them in front of him, this was a good response. I do like that he clearly labels the jab that Sunak used as 'anti-trans' because a lot of people get away with asking the question 'what is a woman' as a dog-whistle, seeming innocent to outsiders, but as a way to mock trans people, and Starmer acknowledges that it is a bad phrase.
Alongside a lot of other progressive ideals, Starmer has shifted to the right on this issue. After the Duffield row began, Starmer said that Duffield was right to say that only women have a cervix, when in 2021 he said the opposite. In this debate he does reaffirm the need to exclude trans people from some spaces which is disappointing but not surprising, this is allowed as of the current status quo of the Equality Act, but Rishi Sunak fails to get Starmer to commit to amending the Equality Act to make it mean 'biological sex', like the Conservatives would've done, which is positive to see.
Perhaps a look at how bleak the state of trans rights are, that I am happy with Starmer just giving a somewhat sympathetic statement regarding trans people.
Labour's response to the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Bill
Now, Labour haven't been in government long, but one thing they did do in opposition was their reaction and vote on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill passed in the Scottish parliament. The GRR as its known would massively help transitioning people in Scotland, in the same way the Labour manifesto proposes, just a lot more liberal. The bill moved the age people can change their legal gender down from 18 to 16, removed the requirement of gender dysphoria diagnosis, and reduced the waiting period from two years to six months. This would've made significant strides, and would essentially make the process a form of self-ID. This is the kind of law that should be the goal for trans rights reform in the whole of the UK.
Critics of the bill claimed that the Scottish National Party, at the time led by Nicola Sturgeon and to the left of Labour progressively, was attempted to get unpopular reforms through. However, the bill received cross-party support from all parties, receiving two-thirds approval from the chamber, with Scottish Labour voting near unanimously for the bill, and even some three Scottish Conservatives. It should also be clear that the bill went through many years of independent consulting.
Scottish laws, after being passed, must be approved of by the government at Westminster before being given royal approval. Scottish Secretary at the time Alister Jack enacted Section 35 of the Scotland Act to allow them to bring a vote to Westminster to veto the law. His concerns were that the act could adversely impact the Equality Act, despite the fact that the UK accepts changes of legal gender from countries, such as Belgium, who have self-ID.
Badenoch argued at the time that it could lead to an increase in fraudulent applications, which considering self-ID countries haven't noted that and that the GRR still had some barriers, is an odd correlation. Some speculated that there could be a rise in 'trans tourism' of people moving to Scotland for a few months to gain a GRC more easily before moving out— what a nonsense, especially considering the Republic of Ireland has a similar law to the one passed by the Scottish parliament. For Scottish history it's interesting because this is the first time since the reign of Queen Anne in the 1700s that a Scottish parliamentary bill has been vetoed.
Now, this was all propelled by the Conservative government back in 2022–2023, however Labour whipped his MPs to abstain from the vote. Seven MPs didn't, and voted against (who we love), but Labour seemingly didn't want to go on the record in support of the bill— likely because their interpretation of reform was less progressive. However, even if Labour had supported the bill, it wouldn't of passed due to the Conservative's massive majority.
Labour members of parliament
Plenty of Labour MPs are trans supportive though. Sarah Owen is a backbench Labour MP who was elected the new Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, and is a trans ally, which is good news for the scrutiny of any bill coming through. The former chair, Conservative Caroline Nokes, was also broadly supportive. Lesbian MP Kate Osborne spoke to the Council of Europe in support of trans people during a debate.
Those on the left of Labour, such as Nadia Whittome and Dawn Butler, are very openly supportive too— Whittome’s first question to the prime minister in the new parliament was directly about puberty blockers. Major figures, such as Shadow Chancellor under Corbyn, John McDonnell, Charlotte Nichols, and Cat Smith are allies. Following the discussions on transgender people in same-sex wards, Labour councillor Sophie Robinson spoke to PinkNews, saying "It's really sad. It's the dog whistles, it's the tropes that are creeping in."
The Minister of Women and Equalities role is filled by both Anneliese Dodds and the Education Secretary Bridget Philipson due to a cabinet quirk. They have also been supportive of trans people in the past, although both have started to use dubious language.
Anneliese Dodds is the primary force in the Womens and Equality office now. She wrote an article for The Guardian back in 2023 outlining her plans for the Labour government, as the Labour manifesto did outline, but she especially criticised the former Tory deputy Chairman, now ReformUK MP, Lee Anderson, accusing him of 'demonising vulnerable LGBT+ people'. She recognised the hardships that trans people face, calling transitioning 'not a decision anyone makes lightly'.
Unfortunately, Dodds met with the aforementioned LGB Alliance earlier in the year, to much backlash from Labour members. A spokesperson for the party said that as a minister she had to meet with a whole range of organisations, although did point out that there was a 'clear distinction between meeting with an organisation and that not being the same thing as endorsing an organisation' which potentially implies that Dodds did not want people to think they endorsed the ideas of LGB Alliance although the spokesperson failed to accurately label them trans-exclusionary.
Philipson had recently clarified her position on trans rights. Asked where trans women should go to the toilet, she stated that they shouldn't be policing who uses what toilets, and that trans women should use female toilets as when you are transgender, you go through 'quite an extensive process'. This was before the election, so we'll see where she goes, but unlike Starmer and Streeting whose very pro-trans comments were years old, this quote comes from this June. Tories accused her of trying to introduce self-ID through the back door.
Regarding Philipson, the Conservative government had published guidelines last year to clarify how teachers should deal with gender questioning children in schools. Pro-trans people compared it to Section 28, which banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools during the 1980s, because it stated that schools would be told to "teach the facts about biological sex and not use any materials that present contested views as fact, including the view that gender is a spectrum", which is worded in a biased and vague way, as seen by teachers who said that the guidance did not help clarify much at all. Biological sex is a loaded term which can mean a variety of different things from assigned gender at birth, to chromosomes, to sex characteristics, never mind the variations with intersex people, and the fact that science is ever evolving and we don't necessarily know the facts. Would the view that gender is a spectrum prevent the teaching of gender roles and gender non conformity like anti-trans laws in America have proposed?
The guidance also stated that schools should have no 'general duty' to allow a child to socially transition (that is, a change of pronouns, uniforms, or toilet changes, which usually happen on a case-by-case basis) which is a gross negligence for safeguarding a trans child's mental wellbeing, and the idea some raise that parents should know when their child adopts a new name or set of pronouns is misguided, because many parents can be abusive and transphobic, leading to potentially physical or mental harm. 63% of teachers said the guidance was more divisive than helpful, and only 4% of respondents in a poll appreciated the clarity on relationships and sex.
Both anti-trans and pro-trans people are upset at the silence by Education Secretary Bridget Philipson. Pro-trans people claim that her silence on the issue means that she intends to make the guidance permanent, while anti-trans people claim that Labour are staying silent to not have to publicly end the guidance.
Regarding ministerial appointments then, Anneliese Dodds and Bridget Philipson are much better choices as Minister of Women and Equalities than potential transphobes, even if they have some downsides. The idea that somebody like Duffield could've been dictating policy is scarier, and there is no doubt that either Dodds or Philipson is a much safer pick than a ghoul like the previous officeholder. That is kind of my thesis here. The Conservatives were openly opposed to trans rights and tried to repeal them wherever they could, even trying to go against Council of Europe legislation in the European Court of Human Rights. Labour seems misguided, entranced by rhetoric used by transphobes, but aren't persuaded to use political capital on trans issues in the same way and do believe in some progress even if it's not the bare minimum we expect.
Unfortunately, gender critics and transphobes often are amplified in the debate by the media and have a vast political machine funding and backing them. They also try a lot harder to lobby their way through, as they need to subvert public opinion and make themselves seem like the common opinion. Some MPs have said that they get pressured by gender critics more often, who have the political will to email their local MPs, where regular trans people are just trying to live their lives and aren’t politically inclined. To some degree it's a one sided battle.
Conclusion
I urge people first and foremost to remain calm. It is very distressing everything that is happening, especially even supportive comments are wrapped around in a caveat that appeals to the very people who dislike us. I don't blame anyone for being scared, and you should absolutely continue to put pressure on the Labour government to change their minds and be better on this issue. However, I think its better for our collective mental health to remain optimistic.
If there is one thing you do after reading this, it is make your voice heard. Gender critical people are bombarding MPs to make it seem like the majority of the public believes them. Contact your local member of parliament through email, on social media, in person surgeries, and make it clear to them that you want to see trans rights improved, that it is a key issue for you, and that the majority of people agree with you.
Labour are nowhere close to wanting to setup a utopia for trans people like certain groups are choosing to believe— we wish they were. However, think of the amount of damage five more years of a Conservative government would have done. Five years ago, Theresa May had just left office wanting to improve trans rights to a certain degree, and the party took no time at all in transforming and beginning to rip up as many rights as they could. With transphobes in key roles back then, I would be genuinely distressed and thinking of emigration if we'd had them in power until the end of the 2020s. Look at what Republicans can achieve in the United States.
Of course, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats are far better on trans issues, and lets hope they can pressure Labour from the left, especially now that the Liberal Democrats have over 70 seats in parliament, and should be represented in many select committees. Here's hoping the House of Lords scrutinise this in a proper way that helps rather than hinders trans people. The GRR in Scotland was not reached by one party but rather the entire parliament over years of scrutiny coming to a cross-party consensus that was very progressive, and the liberal-leaning of the parliament in Westminster now should help shine a light.
That being said, I am not too worried on the legal aspect of things. I am primarily concerned about the trans healthcare situation, of which Labour seems to be woeful. Seven year wait lists is totally unacceptable. Charging hundreds and hundreds over months for private clinics is not only creating an unnecessary barrier that many trans people might find hard to overcome, it also excludes a lot of people struggling in the cost of living crisis. It shouldn't cost to live as yourself. Wes Streeting is not only hostile but actively anti-trans, and while he uses the Cass Review to justify medical bans, I worry he won't implement good parts of the Cass Review such as recommendations to build a lot more gender clinics.
But we should see the outcomes of the BMA evaluation and whether the natural unravelling of the Cass Review comes over the next few years. The NHS is in dire need of repair though and hopefully Streeting can spend his time attempting to fix that rather than focus on niche culture war politics— maybe a decrease of other wait lists will help decrease pressure on gender services too. It baffles me that despite Streeting coming within a hundred votes of losing his seat to an independent left-wing candidate, he seems unaware of his rightward shift. Stay safe out there, and pressure Labour to make help make hormones more accessible! No more seven years.
Comments