Rumbles suggest elements within Labour want to change the Equality Act

[ArabellaScott]

On the recent WEC hostile interrogation of the EHRC.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/12/politicians-regulators-supreme-court-gender-ruling

'Though Falkner suggested it would be “wise for space to be given to the regulator” to handle this – in other words, that parliament should back off – some Labour MPs are rapidly reaching the opposite view.
A law that doesn’t work in real-life scenarios is a law that doesn’t work, full stop. On this evidence, parliament should prepare to roll up its sleeves.'

Is Labour about to agitate to change the EA? How will that work, will someone propose a Bill?

I have no idea what Starmer thinks or believes, but I strongly suspect that part of his thinking is likely to be "I hate it here - I have ordinary men and women campaigning against trans rights and mass immigration and islamification on one side of me, and Critical Social Justice Types - and their opposite, muslims - are two groups on the opposite side who labour have relied on for decades now. How the hell do I keep everyone happy?"

What the fuck is wrong with these people.

He moves with the wind, but he’ll ignore this I think.

Oth if Rayner took over at any point then I would be concerned.

This would make the Equalities Act simply The Trans Act, about 95% of which will be about men.

It would necessarily destroy all sex based protections for women.

It would necessarily destroy all sex based protections for lesbians and gay men.

It would necessarily destroy all sex based protections for disabled people.

It would have a very significant effect on the protections for right to belief for all people.

The judgment was clear: legal identity is incompatible with other people's rights and protections. But if Labour want to try for this lunacy - well what I've seen of them thus far makes me think they're more than capable. Farage must be thrilled.

Absolutely. I imagine Keir Starmer wants to keep his Labour party in power longer than 1 term so why on earth would he bow to a few loony backbenchers?

Totally.

And Trump has already written their adverts for them. Sorry, they/them.

In fact thinking about the madness of Trump's victory, the labour party will have to come out as a lot more terfy than they are capable of, if they don't want Farage to go for their woke jugular.

Grateful?

He would have been jumping for joy

Why would Starmer support changes when the research indicates that the majority of the UK supported the Supreme Court judgement?

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/SexMatters_Results_250509_w.pdf

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/poll-shows-public-support-for-the-supreme-court-decision/

"The Supreme Court confirmed that when the Equality Act refers to men and women it means biological sex. 63% of respondents thought that was the right decision, 18% thought it was wrong, and 19% did not know."

I would think that Labour would surely consider that making changes would be a support loser.

I am pretty sure that Farage will be going for their "woke jugular" however much they back-track.

I am getting the impression that last summer was all about getting rid of the Tories, and labour benefitted and got a huge majority despite plenty of people voting for other parties.

Very rapidly post-last-summer the agenda shifted from "get the tories out" to "start listening to us and address our issues". At the same time Reform begain to be perceived as a genuine political force, as opposed to a wasted vote.

I can genuinely see the next election being all about Reform arguing for a populist (but also popular) anti-mass immigration, anti-islamification, anti-woke/CSJ/TQ+, "common sense Brits" agenda. Given how lost the Tories are and how labour are perceived they could win big.

Because if the 37% all voted labour at the last election he risks losing his entire voter base if he doesn't support the TQ+.

Obviously that is laying it all on incredibly thick and the reality is much more nuanced, but I do think Labour absolutely screwed. It can see that the public opinion is increasingly anti-mass immigration, anti-woke, anti-islamification, and this public opinion is particualr common in the red wall, or amongst white van man. The best way for them to win lots of new voters is to turn 100% against a big chunk of their exiting voter base.

Well good luck to them then.

It would seem unwise of TRAs to kick this particular hornet’s nest. The SC hearings showed how broad and nebulous the gender reassignment category has become, as well as the real world impacts. TRAs might find it is separated out into other characteristics - disability for gender dysphoria and religion & belief for the sexed souls/GI aspect, with adoption of opposite sex attire and body modification demonstrating manifestation of that belief. The belief aspect would, of course, then be subject to the Grainger test to determine whether it is WORIADS and covered by the EA protections. I am not a lawyer, more a long time observer of this debate. I think there’s more than one way this could play out if the Equality Act is revisited.

With regards WORIADS and Grainger I am fascinated by the possibility of complex / nuanced court judgements with regards TQ+ and other beliefs, not least Islam.

As I understand WORIADS / Grainger beliefs cannot be protected if they are a direct assault on the rights of others. Nazi ideology is a direct attack on Jews and is categorically not WORIADS, being the obvious example.

IMO it is possible that "I support TQ+ rights" becomes confirmed as a WORIADS belief, just as being a Muslim is a protected belief.

But IMO it is also possible that "I support TQ+ rights - trans women are literally women and should be treated as women in all circumstances, including in lesbian spaces" and "as a Muslim I support the criminalization of homosexuality" are not WORIADS. In other words TRAs and muslims would be protected at work, safe to share that they support TQ+ rights and worship Allah. But that protection would fall away the moment they start sharing beliefs which if enacted are a full-on assault on the rights of other protected groups. No Jew (or any civilized person for that matter) should be forced to sit opposite a colleague who is known to be a literal nazi. Likewise no gay man should be forced to sit opposite a collecgue who has expressed that he is a muslim AND that as a muslim he believes every single gay man should be in prison or executed. Or a colleague who calls gay men bigoted if they would date TIFs

They do advance this way and then borrow / tax it’s causing them issues. From island of strangers to the opposite. They’re floundering atm.

Thanks, sensible women, for your thoughtful views. Good context and points.

• Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist
• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

But changing the EA won't alter other legislation like the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act or the 1992 regulations for employees. Parliament would have to change the lot because they all assume sex is biological and do not work if any other definition is given. It would clog up Parliament for years.

Yes, but as we've seen on here there will be those who think if they can get rid of the sex based protections in the Equality Act it might allow them to challenge the definition of 'Sex' in other acts. There will be some who will push for this; and after all it was always Stonewall's original aim to have 'Sex' removed as a protected characteristic to be replaced by 'Gender Identity'. But as you say it would be an interminable process involving an unpalateable and almighty fight that would distract from every other issue.

I thought the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was repealed as its content was merged into the EA. But yes to workplace regs.

Yes I also thought a lot of anti discrimination law had been repealed when they passed the EA.

Anyway while I'm quite sure there will be further attacks, I don't think this is the direction they will come from, if only because it would of necessity involve open debate.

The SC quoted it. It wasn't repealed and subsumed means that in essence it still exists, I guess?

It wasn’t in the manifesto and there isn’t any data suggesting that this is a priority of the public at large. The government have more than enough issues to deal with relating to basic needs, I just can’t see government wanting to look at the EA in the next decade.

I think the TRA puppet masters are panicking because they realise that the window for them maintaining stollen ground is closing. As organisations re-organise to be compliant in the law, the man on the street will see that there are decent options available, so everyone can access loos, changing areas, privacy in hospital wards etc. They will see that it isn’t outing or denying privacy to provide a third option. This will put nails in the coffin of the TRA claims.

I think we can expect ongoing noise from MPs and celebrities who view everything through a lens of oppressors and the oppressed. It’s like catnip to those who want to feel like they are frontline soldiers, saving lives, whilst enjoying their chai lattes and yoga in the park sessions.

Yes, I reckon that by this time next year a lot of the noise will have died down and people will have accepted that the new reality doesn't mean the world has ended or that people with trans identities are being violently oppressed.

And as you say only the most committed activists will continue to make a fuss...unfortunately I suspect that will also includes the trade/professional unions and omnicause left identified people, some academics, C of E vicars and so on.

I suspect that schools are going to be on the front line, as well as the health service. The NEU and the BMA are thoroughly radicalised and politicised unions now. I heard yesterday that the NEU is planning a campaign to instruct teachers on how to radicalise their pupils into being an "advocate for Gaza" - which goes against all principles of teaching. And, of course, the NEU threatened to organise strikes over the requirement for single sex toilets in schools.