Labour tears itself apart over trans rights as biological man 'breaks party rules' and stands to become women's officer

And you pass so well.

ETA hadn’t realised that had quoted a post from 5 days ago!

Thanks for your posts @fromorbit

Responding to the Trans Rights Alliance statement:

LabourLGB
Jul 11
The Labour TRAs are spitting feathers now and are going to contest the decision taken by LGBTLabour. Interesting that angelaeagle has said nothing yet, she is the patron of the first but cheerleader of the second, it’s always difficult when the children fall out.

Just a point about why this drama is significant. Right now Trans Activist MPs are trying to block Mary Ann Stephenson from becoming head of the EHRC because she has some pro-women views. Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary and minister for women and equalities is going to be the one deciding what to do. Developments like this where internal feuds make Labour look bad are good reasons for Phillipson to put Stephenson in charge because that will allow Labour to sideline the gender dramas and pretend everything is fine now because EHRC can take the blame.

It is pretty clear that significant figures in the Labour leadership want the gender wars over asp. They don't want to admit that anyone was hurt, or mistakes were made or anything like that. They just want to skip to the end because allowing Reform/Tories to use it as electoral issue in 2028/9 would be a disaster.

Sorry brain scramble moment wrote June for July.

From the link upthread, statement from the TRA:

edit: sorry the screenshot didn't post. here's the alt text:

"This afternoon, LGBT+ Labour's leadership informed the National Committee that they'll be delaying the AGM to an unspecified date, on the justification that it's unclear whether trans people will be allowed to run as their own gender.

Make no mistake: the National Committee are doing this because they’re running scared and knew we would win a democratic vote next weekend. If they planned to make these changes to the elections, they would have done so before our slate was announced, not when our campaign was picking up steam.

It’s beyond disgusting that an LGBT+ organisation is willing to betray its trans members in such a fundamental way just to cling on to committee positions. It is not, however, a surprise: it simply confirms what we already knew about the cliquey, careerist and top-down way in which the organisation has been operating. LGBT+ Labour has failed to speak up for trans members, and is now content to deny their existence. We fully intend to contest LGBT+ Labour AGM..."

I never fail to gasp and laugh out loud at how horribly teenage and sullen every announcement sounds. How on earth did this ideology ever gain traction when it seems to be editorialised by a group of arsey schoolkids?

I love threads like this where we revisit the bad old days. Who would have thought Madigangate was only 8 years ago! How the turns have tabled since then. What gains we have made!

Brilliant news.

This seems to be similar to the situation engineered by the Tories ... deliberately bang your head against a law in an attempt to gain a "moral" platform to ignore it.

It's a right wing wet dream to have a(n even more) discretionary legal system

Big Development

Labour LGBT+ AGM on June 19th postponed. The statement issued claims this is due to legal uncertainty following the Supreme Court ruling i.e the males standing for women's positions in the AGM. The possibility of potential legal action played a part. Full details:

LGBT+ Labour suspends AGM amid fears of legal action over trans candidates running for women’s roles
https://labourlist.org/2025/07/news-labour-lgbt-agm-suspends-trans-rights-women/

The TRA are having a huge meltdown and claiming this is a plot against them. They were the ones who deliberately engineered the crisis. What did they think would happen? Getting the press to publish a tonne of articles about Labour being confused about who women are must have sent the Labour leadership into panic mode as they are desperate to avoid the issue. It looks like the TA overplayed their hand and it backfired.

Statement from

LabourLGB
Well the LGBT+Labour AGM gets cancelled. We would like to think we helped them to stay within the law. While they are reflecting on their organisation it might be worth sorting out a number of applications to join where subs have been taken from bank accounts but nothing heard since.

LesbianLabour
Looks like someone in UKLabour has had a word. We asked how many LGBs were members of LGBT+Labour and were told it’s very few, some left because it went the way of Stonewall, others had applied but were not accepted. Maybe UKLabour needs to take a closer look?

Trans Activists inside Labour have clearly scored a massive own goal.

This could have wider implications inside Labour and further supports the reality based agenda.

As far as I can see the post that Steph is standing for is not within a CLP but a Labour campaign, which, as others have said, is a membership organisation that includes both Labour Party Members and people allied to the campaign aims.

The LGBT+ Campaign website doesn't seem to give details of its own rules for committee elections, so we don't have enough information to judge whether Steph is breaking the rules.

However, what Steph says about the Equality Act isn't quite right (and neither is the related information on the LGBT+ Campaign website). Given the sheer size of the committee we can guess that there are over 25 members, so the Equality Act provisions definitely apply, eg Steph cannot be discriminated against in relation to relevant protected characteristics.

If the rules of that Campaign group say that anyone, with male or female on their birth certificate, can stand as Women's officer, then Steph and any other member can stand. My guess is that many people within and without the Party and/or the Campaign will find that surprising and will have things to say about it.

I said "If"

I don't have access to the regulatory documents of the committee in question. Maybe men and women are equally allowed to stand.

If there is no restrictions on who can be the women's officer and men are equally welcome to stand, then, as I also said, a man without a fetish fantasy that coopts women for his own pleasure would be a better rep than one with such a disregard for women's personal autonomy and freedom.

@fromorbit "Also note the Trans Rights Alliance slate of 14 is made up of 12 biological males including two males standing for each co-chair position, and only two actual women and only one ethnic minority. The current committee in contrast has about 7 real women on it and two minority people."

😬

LGBT+ Labour has been critical of Labour on: puberty blockers, the Cass report and self-id; their stance toward the SC ruling is defiance, and they've been hectoring on a conversion therapy ban which it seems is not going to happen. NEC could disaffiliate them if they go too far. I wonder if they've made the calculus of at what point they prefer LGBT+ Labour pissing in rather than pissing out of the tent.

I can’t actually see where it says the women’s officer has to be a woman. However, the Labour Women’s Network and the Jo Cox Leadership fund have to exclude men, however they identify, otherwise they would be in breach of the Equality Act.

There are two Labour parties now, it seems......the cabinet and front benchers and the more radical left backbenchers who seem to think they can bring the government down by voting against bills, or bring about a socialist revolution by aligning themselves with trans ideology and other forms of identity politics.
It is the latter who might be tempted to join the new party that Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana are reportedly attempting to set up.

But if you did, on what ground would you be rejected ?

"The Women’s Officer is the key representative of women members on the executive of the CLP, and works to ensure that women are fully involved in the work of the local party, as well as, taking a leading role in making sure that the campaigning work of the constituency reaches out and engages with women voters."

It's like - I'm white. I wouldn't even consider putting myself up as BAME representative.

The Labour party rule book says women's officers have to be women, but don't define women. However Labour have clearly ruled now that when the rules say women they mean actual women.

Back in May the Labour National Executive Committee [the key body in the party for rules interpretation] passed motions postponing "its national women’s conference and limit women’s officer roles and all-women shortlists to biological women while it awaits watchdog guidance and reviews its policies in the wake of the Supreme Court judgement, sparking attacks from trans and gender-critical activists alike." The motion saying women’s officer roles and all-women shortlists to had to be biological women was passed by 18 votes to 0 with a strong emphasis that the party had to obey the law. Local parties and all bodies inside Labour were informed of this decision so this was not merely a gesture. This ruling would apply to local LGBT branches inside the party.

https://labourlist.org/2025/05/labour-women-policy-conference-shortlists-all-trans-rights-sex/

However LGBT+ Labour are an affiliate group connected to Labour rather than being controlled directly by the party unlike local parties and their LGBT Branches. So it seems that the NEC motion probably doesn't apply to them. However the wider implication in law that women are actually women according to the Supreme Court may have an impact. However as the AGM when the vote happens takes places on July 19th there is little time for this all to become clear.

So this move by the Trans Rights Alliance directly challenges The NEC and the Labour leadership, but more importantly attacks the current LGBT Labour leadership. We shall see what happens, but it is clearly going to cause a crisis inside Labour LGBT. Chances are it will play out to the benefit of the pro women side as Labour are under siege right now from Reform, and others and stuff like this increases the power of the side backing truth inside Labour. Trying to take over LGBT Labour by standing an entire slate for most positions is a solid move strategically by the TRA, but they have gone about it in a clumsy way which is likely to backfire. By trying to take over the committee and standing Richards in defiance of the NEC they are potentially going to alienate moderates and push people to our side. Also note the Trans Rights Alliance slate of 14 is made up of 12 biological males including two males standing for each co-chair position, and only two actual women and only one ethnic minority. The current committee in contrast has about 7 real women on it and two minority people. This is literarily an example of male power in action. So we shall see how that plays out for them. I think the AGM is going to see sparks fly.

At the same time any trans people including the TRA still inside Labour face relentless attack from other Trans activists outside Labour who describe them effectively as traitors. See Bee's description earlier in this thread "Steph Richards can go do whatever she wants, but she's completely lost in terms of where most trans people are at."

Historically Steph Richards was a major asset to the trans side, and still has some clever political instincts though this is not one one of them, Richards being marginalised from all directions is a positive development.

https://labour.org.uk/resources/role-description-clp-womens-officer/

Can you point out here where it says the women's officer must be a woman?

If the regulations say that the Women's Officer must be a woman, that is only a legal restriction because of the Equality Act, therefore the Equality Act definition of who is a woman does apply.

If there is no such regulation and any man can stand, then it is legal for a male with a trans identity to stand and be elected. However I think that a man who actually knows what a woman is would be a better women’s officer than someone who thinks "woman" is an idea in a man's head (though obviously would prefer they elect a woman)