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.

It's very difficult to understand your beliefs, you rarely share them as most of your posts are scolding other women.

If women want to share spaces with men with gender identities they are absolutely free to do so in mixed sex/gender neutral spaces to their hearts' content. If these spaces are services and resources they need to be clearly labelled - which will mean that most men who do not have gender identities will know it's not for them and stay out by choice. There won't be any way to legally manage actual boundaries, as there is nothing to define men with gender identities but a man stating he has that gender identity. And also no protected characteristic justifying legal discrimination that covers both biological women and some men. That's just how it is, but no one's stopping it from happening.

It just must be provided alongside clearly labelled single sex resources for women, which will be able to use legal discrimination to limit this group to women only on a biological basis.

So all women get to use the resource that works for them. Everyone has access. What's the problem with this exactly?

Be honest, at least. The ideological construction/make believe that you are trying to impose is that trans identified men are women. But male people who 'identify as' women are still men ( male). This is a fact. and to pretend otherwise is to disregard and disrepect the integrity and dignity of female people.

As I've said, if some women want to include trans identified men in their friendship group they can do so, but it is no longer a women's group - so why bother to claim it is? Just to virtue signal, that's why. When it comes to publicly advertised groups or public facilities it is not legitimate to permit male people into them, no matter how they identify.

Of course it isn't whataboutery. 🙄 It's absolutely linguistically and legally accurate. A women's group cannot include those born male - however those individuals identify and present - without losing its status as a single-sex group. The recent membership changes of the Women's Institute and Girlguiding UK make this absolutely clear. If you don't like this recently clarified legal fact, take it up with the Supreme Court or campaign for the Equality Act 2010 to be amended.

Are you really as hard of understanding as you appear to be or are you just enjoying playing devil's advocate? The plain fact of the matter is that since April 16th last year and the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, what we are telling you is the law of the land, however little you like it and go on whinging about it. Until that law is changed by Parliament, what we're saying is simply factual. Given the really major issues facing the government at present, the chances of them even considering amending the Equality Act 2010 are close to zero.

lol, Fonzie is really flying high over that shark

A single sex group/organisation for females includes those females who identity as trans and is therefore trans inclusive is it not?

Oh, I forgot a single sex group/organisation can only be deemed trans inclusive if it includes males who identify as trans, duh, silly me for not remembering that it is all about male inclusion into female groups and organisations.

Not a Men's Right's Movement at all, absolutely not.

Any women's group that wishes to be biological women and femme identified men with gender identities just needs to be labelled as such - mixed sex femme oriented possibly.

It just can't be called a women's resource.

It's almost as if we were discussing my beliefs and not the actual legal position. Utterly bizarre.

Trans men exist.

It’s very unclear what your beliefs are. Beyond an apparent belief that everyone else is beneath you and that mixed-sex groups are ‘women’s groups’.

Yes, amd as women who identify as men they are ok in female single sex spaces, as they are female. Transwomen are not.

Yes, transmen are female so any female single sex group or organisation is trans inclusive as it includes transmen.

What difficulty are you having with that concept?

It’s the old “sharing” argument being trotted out again, deary me.

Well yes, obviously, women with gender identities exist. I'm struggling to see your point?

You can't be serious. 🙄 You have constantly talked about what you think should happen and now you have the gall to claim you simply want to discuss the actual legal position. Read my post again, because this is exactly what I laid out in it. You are simply not debating in good faith.

Seriously? The actual legal position is EA2010 as clarified by the SC ruling on FWS. There isn't any case law because the biggest associations that have skin in the game (WI and GG) backed out following legal advice.

The EA2010 exceptions are very clear and it is unlawful to establish an association where membership is restricted to women and tw, unless the association has less than 25 members.

Oooh, I know this one!

You believe that people can change sex.

You believe that gender identity should override sex in situations where sex matters.

You believe that it should never be possible for female people to draw a line between themselves and those male people who believe they have a “feminine” gender identity.

You believe there is no material
difference between these groups.

Good point. One constantly ignored. Almost like women don’t matter?

Absolutely. And these are the same people say who say, what about transmen, they exist, you know? As if that is some kind of gotcha.

The union boycott doesn't appear to have affected or been aimed at the main conference. However I heard it did impact the women's conference, in the confidence of it.

But a clear focus was maintained on violence against women and girls so that's positive.
Only one day though. Bit poor.
And this proves? - assertive mature women will take this difficult complex problem on themselves and try and make good- but can be impacted by the idea they alone are supposed to solve it
Strong assertive women in unions can still be targeting a very selective audience- of women.

Useful article

Labour’s war over women
The row over Labour’s Women’s Conference has exposed a party increasingly divided over what women’s politics should mean
https://thecritic.co.uk/labours-war-over-women/

Ten out of the eleven affiliated trade unions and four hundred and seven out of 650 Constituency Labour Parties boycotting with attendance numbers around 200.

This is not something Burnham can ignore forever. TAs clearly have significant power within the party. I suspect this is not all members but organised cliques.

Yet as I posted earlier it seems Labour leadership is not interested in fighting over old ground. They don't want to challenge the existence of women legally.

So sooner or later there is going to be an escalation of the row over this. Burnham's huge popularity in the party means he can act to end this. If he lets it fester then the situation is going to get worse.

Had no idea about the CLPs. Just shows how a few entryists can take over, this is like the 70s all over again! It's hard to believe that these views are supported by union members generally.

I think you've misread what I've written. It is not I acting in bad faith here.

National polling says they're not. And I suspect that sad little 2 flag protest shows that while the unions might talk the talk, they're not going to walk the walk so to speak.

On another thread (linked) a poster who was listening to speeches pointed out that Yvette Cooper was womaning all over the place as she berated the NHS for their failures with maternity care. Apparently even the confused Lisa Nandy commented that "Women's rights are human rights" with Bridget Phillipson clearly rowing back on her previous TWAW claims and very clear about biology and women's rights to sss.

If you look at the MPs demanding men's rights to obliterate women, they're generally on the delusional side of the party attracting much hilarity online. I'm beginning to wonder whether the trans mob are losing their grip on the party? Certainly some labour women MPs are no longer to use the word woman accurately (being hopeful)

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583988-womens-rights-and-gender-issues-at-the-labour-party-conference-2026?reply=155063365

I love the fact that the whole “protest” was about 8 saddos including one TIM handing out leaflets about how sad he was no one saw him as a woman. Even though the unions had put out requests for “solidarity” and were encouraging all members to go. Shows how many support women, even if quietly. Suppose we should be grateful there was no piss or moobs out on this one.