In April the supreme court ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 referred only to “a biological woman” and to “biological sex”. Keir Starmer, the prime minister, said he welcomed the ruling and that it finally brought “clarity” to the issue of what constitutes a woman.
Yet in the weeks since, this “clarity” has been hard to find. Instead, Libby says that she has heard from employers that they are unsure about how they should implementing the judgment, and people in the trans community who are fearful of what their future holds.
Why has Labour cancelled its women’s conference?
Yesterday Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) postponed its 2025 women’s conference, which brings together hundreds of women from Labour’s activist base and was supposed to take place just before the party’s annual conference in September.
The decision was reportedly taken after the NEC received advice that if the conference went ahead in line with Labour’s “positive action” policies, which operate on self-identification principles (thus allowing those identifying as a woman to be included), it could expose the party to legal action. It also warned that if it was not postponed, political embarrassment in the form of protests and direct action could also follow.
At the same time, the NEC was told that including trans women on all-women political shortlists would be “unlawful”.
Its justification was that it needed to wait for full guidance from the EHRC on how to apply the supreme court ruling.
The postponement of the conference drew ire from both gender critical and trans rights activists. Labour Women’s Declaration said it showed the Labour government lacked the courage to immediately scrap its self-identification policies and run the conference as planned “in accordance with law which was introduced under a Labour government”.
LGBT+ Labour’s trans officer, Georgia Meadows, and two Labour trans rights campaign groups also condemned the cancellation of the conference, saying it could further harm trans people’s ability to engage with the democratic process at a time when the community felt increasingly under attack.
What guidance is the government waiting for?
Just over a week after the supreme court issued its judgment, the EHRC issued an interim update on what the supreme court judgment meant for businesses and individuals.
By stating that transgender people “should not be permitted” to use facilities of the gender they identify with, Libby says the interim update amounted to a blanket ban, which left many in the trans community frightened.
The EHRC always said that it would open a two-week public consultation before it issued its final, updated code of practice. The backlash that it received after its interim update, from inside the commission, from MPs and from the trans community, has seen it extend this to six weeks.
Libby says the extension suggests a greater willingness from the EHRC to take on board those concerns, and could mean the eventual code of practice allows for more latitude beyond the blanket ban proposed.
“But extending the consultation also means that it’s unlikely the final guidance will be agreed by the Commons summer recess,” says Libby, “which drags out the uncertainty over the summer and leaves businesses and individuals relying on that much stricter initial interpretation in the interim.”
How has the government handled the aftermath of the supreme court decision?
Regardless of where you are on this issue – whether you welcome the supreme court judgment or are disturbed by it – “it’s safe to say nobody has been happy with the way that Labour have dealt with it since,” Libby says. “They have seem to be opting for the path of least resistance, avoiding any potentially vote-losing or unpopular decisions and leaving it up to the commission to steward this”.
Equalities minister Bridget Phillipson moved to reassure trans people after the supreme court ruling, saying in the Commons that she would not want any trans person “anywhere across the country to be fearful”.
Yet earlier this month, a group of 14 national LGBTQ+ charities wrote to Starmer seeking an urgent meeting to discuss what they described as “a genuine crisis for the rights, dignity and inclusion of trans people in the UK”. So far they have received no response.
The frustration has also percolated into the ranks of the Labour party. Labour’s only transgender councillor, Dylan Tippetts, resigned from Plymouth council, accusing his party of “throwing trans people under the bus”. Several MPs including Charlotte Nichols, Kate Osborne, Olivia Blake and Nadia Whittome have also openly voiced their opposition to Labour’s handling of the fallout.
“The judgment has been hailed, not least by Labour itself, as bringing clarity to what has been a hugely vexed and toxic discourse but has ended up raising as many questions as it answered, with ordinary people trying to run cafes, gyms or decide where to try on a new shirt in a shop confused about what the expectations now are and how they are going to be policed,” says Libby.
“We know that trans advocacy groups have written to Keir Starmer asking to meet him to discuss what they think is a genuine crisis for inclusion, but I’d imagine too that the women who were celebrating on the steps of the supreme court would have preferred some more leadership from the Labour government.”
How is this already playing out across the country?
