Labour shelves plans to make gender change easier

For Labour, there's a convoluted set of rules, but in practice it seems to have been based on dividing up potential candidates into three categories:

1. Keir's mates from Camden
2. We've never seen this bloke before but Lord Alli vouches for him
3. Misc.

You'd have thought they learned from the experience of the 2017 Corbyn intake, when there were a few care in the community MPs elected, but seemingly not.

Where do they find them? And how do they get through the selection process? WTF is wrong with people?

Well, if they are anything like the LibDems they deselect a woman who dares to wear a t shirt saying - woman, adult human female, or words to the same effect, for the ones with the most outlandish beliefs and then expect everyone to go along with it.

It's not reassuring that after only a few months in government and with over 400 MPs, they picked the llama woman.

Sounds like the ideal candidate for a Health Minister. 🙄

Where do they find them? And how do they get through the selection process? WTF is wrong with people?

The fact that sources inside Labour are briefing this way is significant. However real change comes from people hammering them from outside as well as inside. Resistance has pushed the tories and even the SNP to change, Trump was once moderate on the issue, the same is true of Labour. More work is needed though however over time we can win this.

Prick News got a quote from Labour on the story on the usual lines:

In regards to the allegations, a Government spokesperson told PinkNews: “We remain committed to modernising the gender recognition process while upholding the Equality Act and its provisions on single-sex exceptions.
“The government is committed to ensuring respect and dignity for trans people.”

https://archive.is/y83gv

Meanwhile the new health minister was once a rampant TA.

New health minister Ashley Dalton said there should be NO women-only toilets and people should be able to identify as LLAMAS

The Prime Minister has appointed a replacement following the sacking of Andrew Gwynne at the weekend, but the new minister could cause headaches
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14380901/Health-minister-Ashley-Dalton-women-toilets-LLAMAS-gender.html

Also the male in the tribunal does not have a GRC or any treatment

It is predicated on him saying he is biologically female and that's it

SP faces action for saying no

Can anyone say why that's not Self ID?

The Guardian have covered it too. Here is a taster - make of it what you will:

'A Labour source confirmed to the Guardian that the changes were not a priority for the government and may not be brought forward before the next general election.
'The Labour party has not formally scrapped its manifesto pledge to reform the gender recognition process, but the fact that legislation to implement it did not appear in the king’s speech reflects that it is not a priority for ministers.'
The prime minister’s spokesperson told reporters: “The king’s speech sets out our legislative programme. But we stand by our commitment to modernise gender recognition rules as set out in the manifesto, and we’ll set out our next steps on this work in due course.''
'Labour strategists are concerned about the rise of Reform UK, which is neck-and-neck with Labour and the Conservatives in opinion polls.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/feb/10/labour-shelves-plans-easier-people-legally-change-gender

In reality, unless we all go through some serious brain washing, we all know men cannot be women. Say, for arguments sake, the male doctor convinces the judge to agree he's a woman, he still doesn't become one.
If Labour don't step in to fix it I'll vote Conservatives or Reform when I can (whichever is pro women) as will many who do not want men in women's spaces which (see America)it will revert and the sooner the better.

How is it brilliant?

I'm watching a male talk about being biologically female in a tribunal

Where is the gov on this?

We were led to believe it wouldn't happen

I dunno about 'brilliant'. This is Labour being dragged back from the edge, but only because of realpolitik. I don't think it can be assumed that the Labour Party as a whole has turned its back on gender. And I think repeal of the GRA is a million miles away.

Thank goodness. This is brilliant. Honestly a decade ago something even contemplating this could never have been voiced other than in hushed tones with close friends. Now being mainstream government policy. Congratulations to everyone

This is cause for celebration and sighs of relief. Finally the tide has really turned. This was a Tory policy plan and then Labour echoed it mindlessly but now enough time and campaigning has passed for the sexists in all major parties to realise this is a terrible idea and back away a bit.

Now the next thing is we need to repeal the GRA and to revise the Equality Act to make clear that sex and gender are different, to be actually anti-sexist and woman friendly in legislation.

Please please let’s not make the mistake of not pushing on forward. Let’s not fail to secure the position for women and girls in the future. A big threat has been averted (but maybe only for a while) so it’s very important to push on with campaigning on other aspects while we can.

Don’t settle let’s be too grateful. Don’t assume this being done because women are a priority. Women may be a convenient priority at the moment. Priorities can change. So we need legal change in support of women as soon as possible.

There isn't a great deal of pressure from TRA to change much about the GRA. The advantages of a GRC are a new birth certificate, to be recognised by HMRC, be married in the aquired gender, not actual sex, and maybe prisons now, but who knows.

If none of that is priority, why bother committing to a GRC and having an official record of your transition?

The reason why activists pushed for GRA reform is to advertise the process and normalise the idea that men have to have female id and be in womens spaces to facilitate getting a GRC. And the idea that businesses, workplaces and the public cannot stand in the way of the legal process.

The process has always been self id because the diagnosis and the paper work are very easy to get. The only issue is time, and labours proposal didnt really address that.

Don't forget folks your actions changes the debate inside Labour. Keep hitting them hard. Demand more!

People are now complaining to Labour about Nadia Whithome leading an anti-women rally in Nottingham. Good grounds for suspension I think.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5267833-lws-in-nottingham-sat-8th-feb?page=2&reply=142058763

I'm following the SP Fife tribunal and it's clear than a man can self identify as female and access a female CR

So we have Self Id already

Not only that women can be stopped from working if they say no

Why is our current position a good one, and didn't Labour say they'd stop this? When?

It's really interesting to revisit the GRA debates on Hansard, to see what the discussion looked like before genderwoo took hold. In some ways it's similar and in others very different.

Apart from David Lammy not appearing to have read or understood the bill he was leading on (there's a shocker), it seems to have been common ground that, yes, we're creating a legal fiction here - but it's a carveout for a tiny number of people and there will be rigorous gatekeeping.

Women's spaces and protections were raised, but unfortunately mostly from backwoodsmen like Norman Tebbit, so concerns about some big beardy bloke self-IDing into a women's space were just handwaved away as scaremongering about far fetched scenarios that would never happen.

It ought not to be possible to change official documents - otherwise what is the purpose of them? I can only see a case for a change when someone is born with a DSD and their sex is registered wrongly.

My understanding was that the GRA was passed, effectively, to permit men to marry other men before the same sex marriage equality laws were passed. It meant a man who had a 'sex change' could marry another man. Consideration of women's rights and protections were not considered, or even an issue, at that time.

It is still highly debatable that simply wanting to be considered a woman means it should be acceptable for anyone to chage their legal documents such as birth certificate and passport - so I think there is still much to work towards.

I suppose there is always someone but I don't remember anyone saying this issue would lose Labour the election. But that it would make their vote less secure. Which I think was a fair assessment, they didn't increase their votes at a time when they ought to have been able to.

I feel very strongly about this, not least because of the blatant lies you sometimes find on Irish birth certificates. That's one thing that needs to be completely factual.

I've long suspected that, if we ever got the GRA repealed - which I don't think is a realistic goal now, but we can imagine it - there would have to be some kind of grandfather rule for the few thousand people who already have GRCs. Which is fine, as long as the law recognises that woman = adult human female for the purpose of single sex provisions.

I was explaining recently to a devout LibDem why people vote Reform.

She was willing to accept that the LDs were out of touch (though not in so many words), but seemed quite surprised that many people feel that the two main parties are barking up the wrong tree too.

She was convinced that the root of the issue is the migrant boats, but I said no, it's not, it's a whole complex of things.

Wish I'd had your quote to hand to say, wankery like this REALLY pisses people off, especially after they've sat in a corridor off A&E for 48 hours with their 80 year old DM who has a broken hip and a UTI, is becoming delirious, and is waiting for a bed.

Fiddling while Rome burns springs to mind.

Thanks for that link @Shortshriftandlethal I've not read it yet but I will.

My reaction is still very similar to my reaction to those Trump EOs: regardless of motive, I'm pleased for women and girls and I'm not prepared to wait around for someone with the right intentions to come along and sort it out.

I'm not stupid, I know that, if it's true, it'll be opportunistic, and that the small print will need close scrutiny. (Where will it leave the Spousal Exit Clause?) It'll still be a result and I'll take it, have a small chortle at the thought of Labour watching the Democrats drive off a cliff and going into a panic, and then move on. There's still a lot to do.

Of course.....when it comes to party politics and governance......reading the public mood is the most critical factor..and how you shape your policy to appeal to that mood.

Personally, don't think there is going to be a big clamour, in the future, for Self ID, anyway. Far from it. So, it will ineviatbly die a death......but that doesn't mean we don't have to help it on its way.

I don't even think it is Starmer who has worked out that this is not a popular policy. It is those behind the scenes ( his PR team - in the manner of Allistair Campbell for Blair) - and for them it really is about stategy and how to see off the competition - rather than concern about rights and protections more generally.

Quite. The wording of some of the quotes suggests they're just waiting for a more amenable political climate for round 2 of forcing everyone to accept the unacceptable.

It's not exactly a full throated defence of women and girls nor an apology for what they've been put through and are still being put through on a local level (e.g Fife and Darlington).

I'll take the wins but if the reasoning is only that they're not doing this because of Trump or Reform then vigilance is still required.

The insiders are most lkely to be people like Morgan McSweeney - those who are steering the ship from behind the scenes, in the absence of political acumen from Starmer.

https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/book-of-the-day/2025/02/there-is-no-such-thing-as-starmerism