Labour MPs resist ‘backsliding' Supreme Court trans judgment

Times

2 days ago

Labour MPs have deemed the Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of a woman as 'completely unnecessary' and a 'backslide' on rights, months after the judgment.
Analysis by The Times of responses to constituents from Labour MPs found politicians claimed the ruling was being weaponised by the far right and that 'bigots [would] feel empowered by a false belief that the law is now on their side'.
The Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that the definition of a woman, in terms of the Equality Act, must be based on biology. It meant that for a service, such as a domestic abuse refuge, to claim to be single-sex, it would have to exclude transgender women.
Although many letters sent by MPs, and seen by The Times, featured generic stock responses, an analysis of more than 50 pieces of correspondence revealed how some MPs continued to push back against the ruling and cast doubt over forthcoming guidance being produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the equality regulator.
Andrew Western, a work and pensions minister and the MP for Stretford & Urmston, told one constituent that he believed the case was 'completely unnecessary' and he appreciated 'the fear and distress that has resulted' from it.
Josh Newbury, the MP for Cannock Chase, said in a letter it was 'clear in my view that trans women are women and that trans men are men'. He said the Supreme Court ruling did not contradict that but that 'the misinterpretation of, and fallout from, the ruling has wrongly brought this into question'.
He said: 'I do not believe it is morally right for trans people to be excluded from single-sex spaces designated for their gender.'
In another letter Noah Law, the MP for St Austell and Newquay, said the ruling could 'be used as an excuse to discriminate against transgender people'. He said he feared the ruling would 'serve as a backslide' and added: 'It is, ultimately, not down to any court to decide how people feel living in their own skin, and it seems like obvious common courtesy to let people live in a way that makes them feel happy and safe.'
• The trans rights age gap: 'It's infuriating when Mum argues about loos'
Emily Darlington, the MP for Milton Keynes Central, suggested the 'far right' was exploiting the issue to sow division. She said: 'The UK is increasingly at odds with European peer countries on trans rights, and anti-trans rhetoric is gaining influence in public and policy spheres.'
Louise Haigh, the former transport secretary, said the Equality Act had previously 'rightly been interpreted as inclusive of trans people, including trans women, except in specific and proportionate circumstances'. She said there were some settings where it was right to have space reserved for biological women.
Calvin Bailey, the MP for Leyton and Wanstead,wrote: 'In addition to trans people, those who are non-binary or who don't match the gender expectations of others could equally face greater risks of abuse or humiliation. These impacts will be all the worse if the public debate becomes even more toxic and bigots feel empowered by a false belief that the law is now on their side.'
Others attempted to take a more balanced approach.
In one letter Antonia Bance, the Labour MP for Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley, told a constituent that she backed the Supreme Court and that in some cases single-sex spaces based on biological sex were 'necessary'. However, she said the guidance being drawn up by the EHRC was unlikely to settle matters.
She said: 'I doubt anyone will be entirely satisfied with the outcome — which more than likely will be a messy British compromise.'
Bance, who describes herself in her letter as 'a lesbian woman out and proud for the last 26 years', told her constituent that 'civil rights for trans people are non-negotiable'. She said transgender people must be treated with dignity and respect, and added: 'We still have some way to go to make sure no trans person is victimised or discriminated against.'
However Bance also said that previous jobs in women's prisons and the domestic abuse sector had shaped her view. She said: 'We need clear rules to ensure that women are safe, and that they can expect privacy and dignity when they are vulnerable — for example because they have directly experienced male violence, or because they are sleeping, receiving intimate care, changing their clothes or showering.'
She said these cases were few but 'therefore I support the court's judgment that woman means biological female — it is a clear and commonsense position'.
She rejected suggestions that ministers were following an 'overtly transphobic agenda or attacking trans or women's rights'.
Alistair Strathern, the MP for Hitchin, told one constituent: 'While I respect the independence of the judiciary, the UK Supreme Court and its decision, I share the concerns of many, including colleagues, of some of the risks and uncertainties opened up by the ruling. These risks have seemed exacerbated by the interim guidance from the EHRC that opens more questions than it answers.'
All MPs were contacted for comment.
Labour Women's Declaration, a group which backs sex-based rights, said the responses were 'both disappointing and deeply concerning' and risked leaving the public confused over the party's position.
A spokeswoman said: 'Of particular concern are the number of MPs and peers who are openly saying that the rights of trans people are under threat. This not only calls into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court judgment which explicitly states the ruling 'does not remove protection from trans people', it actively fuels fear within the very community they claim to support.'
She said: 'We now call upon the government to maintain their resolve and remind outlier Labour MPs, who seek to push their own agenda, of their duty to uphold the law.'
Maya Forstater, chief executive of the charity Sex Matters, said that leadership was needed so that MPs understood the law.
She said: 'Every government has backbench rebels. But when they make dismissive and factually incorrect statements that run directly counter to the government's stated position, it's a failure of leadership to let them stand.'