Sexist Unions boycott Labour women's conference

[fromorbit]

Unison, Aslef, Usdaw and the Musicians Union are planning to not attend Labour Women's Conference on 26 September 2026 in Liverpool because men are not allowed.

This is breaking Labour party rules against sex discrimination against women and that the Supreme Court judgement is correct:
https://labour.org.uk/resources/supreme-court-judgment-faqs/

This could be a huge issue for Burnham and Labour. Especially as Unison, & Unite are already facing court cases over their refusal to admit women exist.

Like the recent Amnesty trainwreck this could be a self inflicted car crash for TAs in the unions. It will force Labour to choose between reality and catering to a bunch of sexists who don't like it when women get have political meetings without male supervision.

Biased article on the sexist boycott.

https://archive.is/wJLMh

I imagine they’ll just cancel the whole thing. Again.

It would be one solution, but thing is that caused huge drama inside the party last year. This one is planned and booked. Very difficult to pull out now.

Just to further prove the unions are in the wrong the new supporter of the boycott is Mr Windy Willoughby

How depressing.

News now trending on X. One positive is the absence of Union TAs from the conference in September could mean pro-women motions will pass more easily.

Sonia Sodha

Unions continue to fail women, and to fail to defend women's rights when they come at the expense of male desires. Nothing new here. Absolutely shameful.

Background on the conference drama :

https://labourlist.org/2025/12/exclusive-labour-nec-womens-conference-and-local-elections/

The unions have always been bastions of misogyny and sexism. Good point about the motions Fro. I hope that every GC Labour woman is drafting like crazy. And how appalling at all those who pulled out because it was ‘only’ women. Shows how much we are valued.

SEEN in Journalism

15m
Four powerful unions boycotting Labour Women’s Conference is a strong story.

But metrouk seemed muddled about the top line.

Accurately reported, four unions are pulling out because males are excluded from a women's conference.

Trans women are, by definition, male.

The ideological framing goes beyond the inaccurate “trans ban” headline (trans women may still attend fringe events).

Metro also states that the Supreme Court defined women as “people assigned female at birth”. It did not. The Court held that “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act mean biological sex.

“Assigned female at birth” is ideologically contested language- not the wording or finding of the Court.

All four boycotting unions are quoted in the article - alongside two trans-advocacy groups.

Balance does not mean giving every viewpoint equal weight. But quoting six voices from one side, while failing to seek comment from the likes of Sex Matters, Labour Women’s Declaration or anyone able to explain the case for a women-only forum, is quite something.

Link below 👇

Powerful unions boycott Labour Women’s Conference over trans ban

A Labour Party spokesperson said: ‘Labour is committed to advancing women in politics and to providing opportunities for all members to network, debate and contribute.
‘Labour’s Women’s Conference reflects our commitment to addressing the underrepresentation of women in the Party, inclusion for all, and compliance with the law.’

https://metro.co.uk/2026/07/29/major-unions-boycott-labour-womens-conference-trans-ban-29242909/

The Labour party comment is interesting. Looks like the TA tantrum is not going to achieve much.

Labour Women’s Declaration on the boycott

A spokesperson for Labour Women’s Declaration criticised the boycott and said: “The decision by some unions not to attend is a disappointing and petulant act of performative politics, demonstrating how out of touch some union leaders are with the women members they are elected to represent.

“The Labour Party is following the law as set out in the Equality Act 2010 in relation to positive actions for women, including women’s conference. In keeping with the Labour Party’s longstanding commitment to democratic and comradely debate, we look forward to engaging in respectful discussion of all policies and issues that matter to women.

“Minister Bridget Phillipson’s recently stated priorities for action – VAWG, equal pay and child poverty – accurately demonstrate the seriousness of the challenges facing women today. We hope union leaders will reconsider their decision and engage in the constructive dialogue that their members have every right to expect from their representatives.”
https://labourlist.org/2026/07/union-boycott-labour-womens-conference-trans-women-exclusion/

Labour’s Women’s Conference reflects our commitment to addressing the underrepresentation of women in the Party, inclusion for all, and compliance with the law

I choose to see this wording as a cheeky nod to the fact that transwomen are very likely overrepresented in the Party, relative to prevalence in the population.

Metro also states that the Supreme Court defined women as “people assigned female at birth”. It did not. The Court held that “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act mean biological sex.

I am constantly, disproportionately, enraged by this. Biological sex has an established meaning in UK law – it's what's recorded in the main birth register, including any subsequent marginal corrections of error, which have retroactive effect.

Such an error correction can be needed for a child with a DSD in light of new insights, physiological developments, and/or treatment choices and outcomes, that arose since the original assignment was made. There therefore exist some people whose sex assigned at birth was different from their biological sex. These people have been semantically 'trans'd' by the ideologues, despite being pretty much the opposite of trans.

Rosie Duffield MP

1h
Yet another reminder why hardworking women need to boycott mainstream unions as they still deem men's rights to be more important than women's. They also clearly don't want to adhere to Labour's 2010 Equality Act.

Thank goodness for DarlingtonUnion

I didn't know she has said this about unions.

Interesting that she has, sad that it hasn't been more widely reported.

Metros seeming campaign to shame Labour over having a conference for women has stepped up. Next weapon Mr Steph Richards with a real sob story:

Triggering warning you will need a really small violin to read this -

Labour backed me as a woman – now I’m banned from their women’s conference’
Luke Alsford

https://metro.co.uk/2026/07/30/labour-backed-a-woman-now-im-banned-womens-conference-29253100/

Interestingly Richards was not so keen on having people in Labour conferences a few years ago when they were trying to scare Rosie Duffield from attending and Labour Women's Declaration from having a stall . I wonder why?

Labour Party Refuses LWD’s Application For Stand at National Conference 2022

https://labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/the-silencing-of-women/

I still think this is a real shark jumping moment. I think this is going to backfire within Labour in a big way.

Calling them sexist is misinformation, unions have members of both genders and they boycott it because feminist identified transphobes (which have captured our legal and political system) have pushed too far in their attempts of erasing trans people from public life. Long may the pendulum swing this way, good on them.

Unions have members of both sexes and they boycott this conference because they see the wants of men (however they identify) as significantly more important than the rights of women.

There, fixed it for you. HTH.

Gender is infinite. How reductive to suggest only two.

Every time you post something, you clearly demonstrate your end goal is to remove male and female sex classification as distinct legal groups and ensure there are no sex based rights. The majority of the population is against this so you are fighting a losing battle. Mixed toilets maybe, mixed changing rooms no, mixed sports hell no

Labour LGB on the boycott.

Labour LGB

14h
Disappointing to see 4 unions boycotting a women's conference - and Labour Women's Conference at that.
unison congratulates itself on being the largest women's org. usdawunion
most likely has a large female % (They won't publish numbers) but won't represent women. Why so desperate to shut women up?

Yeah Mash being rather "transphobic" here.

Let them huff - we need to stop pandering to their teenage dramas. Dont't want to attend? Don't come then <shrug>. They're not trains, they don't need to announce their departures.

No shit given to the women who have given decades to that party and unions . Naw just prioritise the "special ladies" . Sod that.

GB News interview over boycott

'This is absolute arrogance in the face of the highest court in this land.'

Gender critical activist Maeve Halligan reacts as four unions announce a boycott of Labour's women's conference over the exclusion of trans women.

https://nitter.net/GBNEWS/status/2082581156436824294

More bangers.

Leslie B

Replying to glosswitch
Back in the 80s I was at an STUC Women’s Conference & at least one big TU threw a wobbly & insisted on sending male delegates. Two cheeks of the same sexist arse. At least back then women objected - nowadays senior female trade unionists support it

Trans Widows’ Voices.

Imagine how I felt as a recent trans widow attending my first women’s conference for my trade union, only to find my regional representative was a middle aged AGP bloke in a bad wig.

Women’s Rights Network- Greater Manchester

1h
Labour says its Women’s Conference exists to advance women in politics and comply with the law.

So why are unisontheunion, ASLEFunion, UsdawUnion and the WeAreTheMU
boycotting it because the conference follows the legal definition of “woman” for its formal proceedings?

Are your women members happy that you’re boycotting a conference created to advance women?

I contacted Unison asking why they’re not representing women at a women’s conference. They said that as Labour is restricting the conference to ‘biological women’’ , it’s again Unison’s policy on trans equality.

So a union whose membership is largely made up of women, I believe, are not actually representing their own members! Mmmm.

But they will claim that they are representing their members as apparently they voted (via representatives) to hold this TWAW policy. Only thing is the ordinary members weren't consulted on it, only the activists (most of who will be AWL or SWP members sliding into union rep roles -- and that's true across many of the unions).

Yes, basically this.

Just shocking how entrenched this anti woman position is.

2026 and women as a sex class have no status in society.