WHAT a week it’s been for Labour. The “unimportant” and “not electorally significant” sex and gender issue has hit headlines almost every day — not due to a manufactured “culture war,” but because Labour’s manifesto proposals are confusing and contradictory — much like the comments from Keir Starmer and several shadow frontbenchers. 

The muddle of Labour’s policy-making on sex and gender (and the obvious vein of sexism towards women) has been exposed during this election like never before. Labour Women’s Declaration (LWD) has for years warned the party about the risks, including our unheeded calls to ensure policies reflect the evidence.

JK Rowling’s recent intervention — stating Labour had “abandoned” women and she (a former significant donor) would “struggle” to support the party — reflects the anger and disappointment many Labour women feel towards a party that continues to ignore, dismiss and undermine them. (Labour offered to meet Rowling to address her concerns — she said they should meet grassroots women’s groups first).

During the final leader’s debate, Starmer committed to spaces for “biological” women, yet, shockingly, appeared oblivious to the pressing need to define what sex means in law, arguing that it is “fabrication” to claim clarification is required.

Labour’s manifesto contains some strong commitments which will undoubtedly improve women’s lives, including tackling male violence and stronger workers’ rights. However, Labour in government will be forced to confront the manifesto’s contradictions between sex-based rights and gender that jeopardise women’s rights, lesbian and gay men’s rights and basic safeguarding.

The Equality Act 2010 (EA) and single-sex exceptions 

All of Labour’s commitments to women’s rights and safety are seriously undermined by the lack of clarity on the definition of “sex” in the law.

Labour promises to “continue to support the implementation of [EA] single-sex exceptions,” which allow for women-only hospital wards, refuges, rape crisis centres and same-sex intimate care.

However, without “sex” legally meaning “biological sex,” the EA cannot protect women’s rights in practice. Labour believes that guidance for service providers is enough. This is both insufficient and legally incorrect as noted by commentators, policy and law experts.

An ongoing For Women Scotland legal case concerning the definition of “sex” will be heard at the Supreme Court later this year: perhaps Labour hopes legal uncertainties are resolved without them having to explicitly support women’s rights and protections.

Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA)

Reform of the GRA is arguably the most concerning, unfeasible and — following continued challenge in the media and on the doorstep — probably irritating issue for Labour.

The manifesto promises to “modernise, simplify and reform the intrusive and outdated” law to a “new process” of obtaining a gender recognition certificate (GRC), removing “indignities for trans people” and “retaining the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a specialist doctor, enabling access to the healthcare pathway.”

A GRC is a legal document that allows a person to change their sex on their birth certificate. We welcome the continued requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, but are concerned by the reduction to one specialist gender doctor. This could lead to de facto gender self-identification (self-ID).

The manifesto wording confuses the GRC application with the process to access medication and surgery. No medical treatment is required to obtain a GRC — although a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is. Nor is a GRC application required for medical treatment for gender dysphoria.

Since the manifesto was published, reports from an unnamed Labour source reiterated an intention to scrap a judge-led panel for GRC sign-off and, in a direct attack on women’s protections, the removal of the spousal exit clause, despite no mention of this in the manifesto.

This led to a muddle of messages from Labour on whether a GRC can give males the right to enter female-only spaces. Any reform must first consider the conflicts between the GRA and the EA, and must wait for the outcome of the upcoming Supreme Court case.

The Cass Review

The manifesto commits to implementing the recommendations of the independent review into gender identity services for children and young people. Starmer — when asked if he would implement Cass “in full” — said: “Yes, and that’s what our manifesto says.” 

This is essential for new NHS gender services for young people (and wherever safeguarding matters, eg, in education and social services) to resist ongoing pressures to adopt an “affirmative” approach to gender identity rather than a holistic view of a young person’s needs.

Conversion practices ban

The manifesto promises to “deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices.” Real conversion practices are harmful, yet there is no robust evidence that they are happening in Britain, making a legal ban unnecessary and creating unintended consequences. 

The likely targets of such a law, including prayer and psychotherapy/counselling, led Sarah Vine KC to conclude it would breach human rights. It would be unprosecutable, because “gender identity” is a contested concept, undefinable in law.

The risks for parents, teachers and clinicians have been highlighted by professionals in the field and legislators. Labour’s proposed exclusions to protect the “freedom for people to explore their sexual orientation and gender identity” do not resolve these issues.

Dr Cass noted that a ban could worsen the existing chilling effect on clinicians and therapeutic services and risks undermining many of her review’s recommendations.

The most alarming comment from “a Labour insider,” and repeated by Nick Thomas-Symonds, suggests Labour might introduce a ban in the first 100 days in government, contradicting Sarah Jones’s assurances of proper consultation. It seems Labour have learnt nothing from the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform debacle.

Hate crime

We are concerned about the manifesto’s promise to “make all existing strands of hate crime an aggravated offence,” including “LGBT+” people. Labour’s use of the LGBT+ acronym — combining the protected characteristics of sexual orientation and gender reassignment — fails to address the needs of two different groups and risks poor policy-making.

Transgender identity is an undefinable term and we have significant concerns about legislating on the basis of subjective perceptions, and the potential diversion of police resources.

The absurdities in hate crime legislation in Scotland should be a warning about the difficulties and contradictions when failing to include sex and non-religious belief as part of any “equalising” process. 

Looking to the future

Women-led organisations across the country — such as Mumsnet and our sisters in Woman’s Place UK — are making it clear that sex and gender issues matter and will have an impact on women’s votes. LWD welcomes the acknowledgement of these concerns by several frontbenchers, in particular Wes Streeting.

As socialist feminists, LWD understands the real, biological differences between men and women and the need for language to talk about this without threats and abuse.

Many men in the labour movement use this complex conflict of rights as an opportunity to enact their misogyny, from intimidation of our supporters to voting down the Scottish Women’s conference motion, to dismissing female Labour MPs like Rosie Duffield who publicly critique Labour policies.

It is no real comfort to say “we told you so.” We have all (especially Scottish sisters) had to waste years, in the face of relentless abuse and silencing, just to point out the simple truths which are only now being heard. Yes, we’re furious. Yes, we’re exhausted. Are we giving up? Never. The work starts on July 5. Join us.

Visit www.labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk to find our manifesto response, policy briefings on sex and gender and sign our Declaration. Please donate, follow us @LabWomenDec and visit our stall at Labour Party conference.