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

[IwantToRetire]

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+ group.

The Trans Rights Alliance, a newly formed organisation seeking to change Labour's approach to gender issues, has put forward a number of candidates for election on July 19.

One of them includes Steph Richards - a transgender woman in possession of a gender recognition certificate - who is standing for women's officer.

However, a gender critical group within the party, Labour LGB, said the move breaks party rules by 'putting a man forward to be a women's officer'.

Sharing the list of candidates, the group posted on X: 'Many people say that trans ideology is a men's rights movement.

'The "Trans Alliance" (seeking to take over the once-great LGBT+ Labour) has set out to prove this.

'Also breaking party rules by putting a man forward to be Women's Officer.'

Continues at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14887747/Labour-trans-rights-biological-man-women.html

"I am legally female, other than in regards to the Equality Act"

...said no WOMAN ever

Will get the popcorn to watch to Labour Party implode

I had a friend who applied for a job with a local authority as a disability specialist. The couldn't get the job as there was no ramp into the building.

(But as they were told, it was probably for the best as there was no disabled toilet and no lift).

Apologies, I'm on a train with bad wifi signal so can't access the links. Do the LP rules state that only a woman can be the women's officer? If so, then this is not in keeping with the Supreme Court judgement. If the LP rules don't specify that it has to be a woman then this man, along with any other man, is allowed to put himself forward.

So would it be legal for the Labour Party to rush out some rules at this point in an election stipulating that candidates do have to have the relevant protected characteristics to contest for the elected role?

Don't forget that, pretty quickly after the SC ruling, the LP 'postponed ' the Women's Conference.
Labour is all about the men.

All moves away from the centre are ambivalent about women.

Vibe.

There is a colourful Irish expression I've heard which goes along the lines of

"...an' if me Da' had breasts* he'd be me Ma ..."

*possibly not this exact word

Once you've heard it, you may not see some people the same way.

Yes, that's such a good idea and good point. Of course, we women don't actually do these things because we tend to respect other people's boundaries. Isn't it strange that these men act all the least womanly ways

"These Twitter groups which, like the 'LGB Alliance' are mostly straight people and mostly men will be used to attack gay rights."

BeeSouriante, are you quoting this from somewhere, or is this what you are saying yourself? It's so obviously not true that I'm wondering about anyone's motivation for saying it.

Though maybe it's just engagement farming.

I am reminded of celebrities who buy up their Twitter handle not to post, but to prevent someone masquerading as them ....

Why is anyone up in arms that a trans woman wants to stand for a role in Labour's LGBT+ group? Do you not know what the T stands for? It's entirely appropriate that they stand and it's up to the members how they vote. Isn't the real issue that people posting here, most of whom I suspect are not Labour Party members, object with the T part of the group?

Well then he can stand as trans officer. I'd expect the women's officer for that group to be a lesbian or bisexual woman. Of the original kind.

He wants to stand as women's officer, no? A role that should be reserved for a woman.

What do you think he will be bringing to the role of Women's Officer?

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)

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

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

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.

"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.

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

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.

I think this is another reminder (and not just the Labour Party) that the TRAs are well embedded and anyone who thinks a Supreme Court Judge will be listened to by them, needs to check out the anti woman world we live in.

After all wasn't Labour Women's Declaration partly started because of this, quite a few years ago.

And I think via FWR Jean Hatchet was going to start a legal challenge. (Or have I muddled that up with something else?)

The Ruling's Scope:
The Supreme Court's decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers focused on interpreting the Equality Act 2010, specifically the terms "man," "woman," and "sex," within the context of the Act itself. It clarified that these terms refer to biological sex, not gender identity.

Implications for Political Parties:
While the ruling doesn't explicitly dictate how political parties must define "woman" for their internal structures, it does suggest that if a party uses the term "woman" in policies related to single-sex spaces, services, or activities, they should align with the biological definition established by the court.

Women's Officers and Policies:
If a political party has a "Women's Officer" role or policies specifically for women, they may need to consider the implications of the ruling, especially if those roles or policies are linked to single-sex spaces or activities.

Clarity and Consistency:
The court emphasized the need for clear and consistent definitions within the Equality Act to avoid confusion. This principle could be applied to political parties, encouraging them to be clear about the criteria for any "woman-only" positions or initiatives they have.

No Impact on Transgender Rights:
The Supreme Court also emphasized that the ruling does not negate the existing protections for transgender people under the Equality Act, including those related to gender reassignment and discrimination.

Further Considerations:
Political parties may need to review their internal policies and guidance to ensure they are aligned with the Supreme Court's ruling and the broader legal framework for equality and inclusion. This may involve clarifying whether "woman" is used in a biological sense or if transgender women are included in certain contexts.

Potential for Further Legal Challenges:
While the Supreme Court ruling provides clarity on the interpretation of the Equality Act, there may be further legal challenges or interpretations related to specific applications within political parties.

From this you can see why Labour pushed this down the line as they know there will be strong opposition to accepting that women should be taken to mean biological females. And of course have the backing of the WEC.

As ever with the TRAs it is never about just letting trans people live the live the want, but insisting that everyone must bow down and acknowledge that their belief set if the one that should take precedent.