Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Labour party rules updated after Supreme Court win - Women Exist !

36 replies

fromorbit · 15/07/2025 18:23

The Labour party has suddenly posted a FAQ on the party's official response to the ruling

Supreme Court Judgment FAQs

On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court clarified that references to “women” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex (meaning the sex of a person at birth), not gender. This means that certain sex-based rights and protections in the Equality Act 2010, including provisions allowing for positive action, apply only to individuals who are biologically female.

https://labour.org.uk/resources/supreme-court-judgment-faqs/

This FAQ almost certainly a response to the recent crisis inside LGBT Labour [a Labour affiliate group that should obey party rules] caused by the Trans Rights Alliance trying to stand a man as a woman's officer getting loads of press attention. LGBT Labour postponed its AGM as a response. Seems the TAs have managed to force Labour to act to stop this after probably after complaints from LGB Labour .

Thread on that:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5370660-labour-tears-itself-apart-over-trans-rights-as-biological-man-breaks-party-rules-and-stands-to-become-womens-officer

The full implications of this remain to be seen. One point in the FAQ is interesting:

I am concerned about the behaviour or conduct of a member towards another member. What should I do?
The Party expects its members to abide by the spirit and letter of its rules and to exhibit our shared values of solidarity, tolerance and respect at all times. We encourage people to report behaviour by our members that may constitute a breach of our rules or does not reflect our shared values.

While this may be aimed to mollify TAs, but in fact it is usually TAs who are rude to people who know biology. It may mean in correspondence with Labour party members whether MPs, councillors or others you might be able to complain about them if they are bigoted towards the idea that men or women are real as they will now be in defiance of Labour party policy.

Also this decision could be a big problem for Welsh Labour as they still don't believe in biology it seems from latest info. Also for various members of the Women and Equalities committee.

Responses coming in to the FAQ:

LabourWomen’sDeclaration 🦖

We welcome our Party's sensible approach & commitment to comply with
UKLabour's Equality Act, as set out here.

Revising its data collection as per the Sullivan_Review recommendations must now be a priority in order to deliver this obligation.

However, along with women throughout UKLabour party, we deplore the cancellation of Annual Women's Conference.

We call on our party to honour its constitutional commitment to strengthening women's voices via National Women's Committee, women's conference & women's branches

We note that our UKLabour party requires affiliate organisations, including socialist societies such as LGBT Labour, to conform to the party's procedures as set out here.

Despite cancelling women's conference, the NEC plans to host a women's reception on the Sat evening of the party conference. As a women's officer commented today: "What's the point of that? Those of us elected as women’s conference delegates won’t now be in Liverpool at all"

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

^Labour has become embroiled in a fresh row over trans rights after activists put forward a biological man to be the women's officer for an LGBT+ grou...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5370660-labour-tears-itself-apart-over-trans-rights-as-biological-man-breaks-party-rules-and-stands-to-become-womens-officer

OP posts:
IwantToRetire · 15/07/2025 20:33

“In what is a long and historied fight between the leadership and membership, this is, unfortunately, hardly surprising.

“BLPs and CLPs should have every right to pass whatever motion they like, particularly now that the party is in Government and can change the law from the confused and paradoxical situation the Supreme Court has placed us in. The idea that members should be restricted in asking for that, especially considering how thoroughly this likely undermines international law, is utterly reprehensible.

“This guidance’s claim that ‘The Supreme Court judgment does not reduce or remove the legal protections against discrimination for those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment’ is simply untrue if the rest of the guidance is to be presumed to be legally accurate.

“It completely undermines the purpose of the Gender Recognition Act, which was to ensure that trans men could live as men and trans women could live as women in all aspects of their lives. The guidance is entirely trans-exclusionary in that regard. It utterly undermines not only trans people’s identities but also precedents set under the European Convention on Human Rights in recent years and since its Inception.”

https://labourlist.org/2025/07/news-labour-supreme-court-trans-clps/

Supreme Court trans ruling: Ban on CLPs and branches backing ‘unlawful position’ – LabourList

Labour has issued new guidance that Constituency Labour Parties and branches should not submit motions that advocate that the party take an “unlawful position” with…

https://labourlist.org/2025/07/news-labour-supreme-court-trans-clps/

lcakethereforeIam · 15/07/2025 20:33

Who else is expecting an ostentatious breaking of the rule? I hope they deal with it quickly and decisively when it happens.

PersonIrresponsible · 15/07/2025 20:21

The Labour party's National Executive Committee are now classed as 'Bigots'...if their previous attitude is to be perceived as the barometer of reasonableness.

inkognitha · 15/07/2025 20:16

It's great news, truly

RedToothBrush · 15/07/2025 19:56

The Party expects its members to abide by the spirit and letter of its rules

Interesting phrasing. No mucking about there with dodgy definitions.

orangegato · 15/07/2025 19:55

Cue the tantrums, get me my popcorn.

CassOle · 15/07/2025 19:41

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/07/2025 19:15

Awesome headline!

The last few years have felt like an anti-reality fever dream conjured up by fetishistic men. How anyone took TWAW seriously, I will never know.

Labour party rules updated after Supreme Court win - Women Exist !
Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/07/2025 19:15

Awesome headline!

KnottyAuty · 15/07/2025 19:12

Telegraph gift link:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/585a9f1a0b95b46f

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/07/2025 18:49

Yes, as I said on the other thread, it’s only taken 8 years to achieve!

IwantToRetire · 15/07/2025 18:39

Thanks for posting this.

This does seem a step forward.

But I suppose we will have to wait for what will no doubt be a lot of loud voices saying it isn't fair and they dont have to comply.

Although for Labour to have published this is some sort of step forward? I mean we can quote this back to an bit of the Labour Party who starts going on about gender identity:

... On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court clarified that references to “women” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex (meaning the sex of a person at birth), not gender. This means that certain sex-based rights and protections in the Equality Act 2010, including provisions allowing for positive action, apply only to individuals who are biologically female. ...