The Labour manifesto and trans

Labour is far better than the Tories on trans rights. The Conservative manifesto has several points where it alleges there is a threat from trans people, and Conservatives will protect the normal people from us. The Liberal Democrats and Greens would modernise gender recognition and protect trans people. Labour is in between.

To cover trans people in hospital wards and schools in a manifesto, as the Conservatives do, is micromanaging. Trans people are not that important to the cis. The Tories want to pretend we are, claiming we are a threat. Labour gives us an amount of space more fitting to our importance to cis people’s lives- that is, much less.

The mention on relationships and health education in schools comes under the section headed “take back our streets”, which is mainly on policing. It says to reduce violence against women and girls, schools should teach children about healthy relationships (p69). There is no mention on education about LGBT. Labour has better things to worry about.

In the section headed “Break down the barriers to opportunity”, mainly about schools but with one mention of universities, the subheading “Respect and opportunity for all” seems an afterthought. It deals with equality, including trans. It starts with women’s equality and equal pay. After covering race and disability it goes on to LGBT. It promises everyone should be treated with respect and dignity, so Labour will make hate crime against LGBT an aggravated offence. That’s meaningless. Hate is an aggravating factor in all crime, already. Very little hate against LGBT people which is not another kind of crime- assault, say- is now an offence.

They will deliver a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. They don’t, here, address the difficulties with religious people claiming that they have a human right to claim God hates LGBT.

It sounds so positive- they will modernise gender recognition, removing indignities. Trans people deserve acceptance. But, they will not give gender recognition without a diagnosis of gender dysphoria from a “specialist doctor”.

It’s the next words that chill me. It’s a diagnosis from a specialist doctor “enabling access to the healthcare pathway”. If they mean an NHS gender specialist, not recognising private gender specialists, someone going on the waiting list now could be waiting twenty years for that diagnosis, because people are going onto the waiting lists so much faster than those who have been waiting five years are getting appointments.

Gender recognition and trans inclusion under Labour will continue to tighten- not, perhaps, as enthusiastically as under the Tories, but it will be far harder to be trans than it was in 2011. The manifesto says, Labour is proud of the Equality Act and women’s rights in it; “We will continue to support the implementation of its single-sex exceptions”.

In 2011, it was perfectly clear that women’s single-sex exceptions did not apply to trans women. The EHRC confirmed that. The High Court has confirmed it since. Despite this, the anti-trans campaigners insist they apply to all trans women without a GRC, so the vast majority of trans women would not be allowed to use women’s services. They base this argument on the Scottish Public Boards cases, which will come before the Supreme Court within a year.

The Supreme Court could take away our rights. Labour seems fine with that. They will not give us the gender recognition system which would mean most trans women could get a GRC, because of the insistence on the involvement of a specialist doctor.

If we tried to use a rape crisis centre, we could face demands that we show our GRC, and be excluded. But, if we tried even to use a women’s toilet, we could face a challenge to prove we had a GRC. We might face a culture of suspicion. Few people can use courts- they are expensive and stressful- but even the most wealthy and resilient of us might be without legal recourse.

This is not as bad as the Conservatives, who would ban trans women with a GRC from women’s services. But life for trans people would continue to get worse, making our thriving less likely. And Labour seems fine with that. Trans ally Lloyd Russell-Moyle was banned from standing again. Anti-trans campaigner Rosie Duffield was not. Added: 17 June, they withdrew the whip from trans ally Michael Cashman.

Vote to expel the Conservatives. Any seat where Labour is the main challenger to a Tory, vote Labour- for the economy, for social cohesion, for public services, as well as for trans. The polls predicting a huge Labour majority could be wrong, because so many who say they are Undecided voted Conservative last time. If a Labour incumbent had a small majority over a Tory, vote Labour there to keep the Tory out. But elsewhere, we need LibDem and Green MPs to hold Labour to account.

The Conservative manifesto and trans

What does the Conservative party promise for trans people? Their manifesto has a few fair-sounding, hopeful words. They call attempts at conversion therapy “abhorrent”, though they say it is far too difficult to ban it. They say they value an inclusive society and equality of opportunity. On foreign policy- “leadership in the world”- they say they will work for those persecuted for their sexuality. But they promise to make it impossible to be trans in Britain.

They say, “It is right that we have in place provisions and protections for those whose sense of self does not match their biological sex”. They cannot use the simple words “trans people”. What protections they mean are unclear, as all other mentions in the document are about removing our protections. There is no mention of “trans” or “transgender” in their manifesto, and only one of LGBT: they are proud of having passed the Same Sex Marriage Act, even though they relied on Labour votes to do so.

The Conservative crackdown on trans has high priority. In their introductory list of promises, the “bold actions” on p4, they say they will protect female-only spaces by changing the Equality Act, so that sex means biological sex. The last few trans women with a GRC- around four thousand of us- will be driven out. Then, it will be certain that a trans woman entering women’s services, who might not have a GRC, is not legally allowed to be there.

At p59, they go into greater detail. This legislation is to protect women and girls’ “safety and privacy”. They call us a danger to women and girls. They will prevent trans women working in women’s services. They will amend the NHS Constitution to exclude trans women from women’s hospital wards.

They will legislate to reduce devolved powers, so that a Scottish government can never again legislate on gender recognition.

In schools, they do not refer to trans children but “children questioning their gender”, as if we are not trans, not really. They already have published guidance requiring trans children to wear the uniform of their assigned sex, and against teaching children can be trans, and now they will guarantee “the contested concept of gender identity” cannot be taught in schools. But, some people are trans. They will require schools to deny reality. When they talk of “supporting” those gender-questioning children, they mean, legally preventing social transition. Schools will have a legal obligation to out trans children to their parents- so the children will have no safe adult they can trust.

They say “Biological sex is a reality”, as if trans people aren’t, then say, “We are clear that no one in this country should be harmed or harassed for who they are.” They gaslight us.

The Cass review, recommendation 8, recommends that puberty blockers are prescribed, only requiring that all children receiving them are part of a research programme. To read the Conservative manifesto, you would think Cass had recommended PBs never be prescribed. They will legislate to permanently prevent private prescription. They call prescription “ideologically-driven care”. So they call black, white. Theirs is the ideology. Trans people exist.

On refugees, they say they will “always choose our security” if they must choose between that and a foreign court. That is, though not in so many words, they pledge to leave the European convention on human rights. That court would prevent them doing what they want to do, in restricting trans people. But nobody knows when they might need human rights.

There is more creepy authoritarian language. They want “every citizen [to] uphold British values”, and I don’t think they mean the British propensity relentlessly to mock such po-faced self-righteousness.

First, they came for the refugees, and we must speak up, because refugees are people like us. Then they come for the trans, and we rely on others to speak up for us. Do not let us down.

The LibDem manifesto and trans

The Liberal Democrats manifesto has excellent intentions on trans rights. They make a clear difference between themselves and Labour or Conservatives. See the manifesto online, or download pdf.

Rights and Equality are at the heart of Liberal principles. In a free society, everyone’s human rights are protected. They would take positive steps to advance equality for LGBT+ people and combat prejudice and discrimination. They believe diversity is strength.

On p94, they promise to respect and defend the rights of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities. They would ban all forms of conversion therapies and practices. There are many problems with this, including that religious people have human rights too, and might want to express the idea that trans is bad and transition is wrong, as a religious doctrine. The manifesto is a wish list, not a certainty, and does not address the difficulties in carrying out promises, even if they were to become the largest party in Parliament. They have a chance of being the second largest party, and even being part of a coalition, but not the Government.

They would commit to the European Court of Human Rights and resist Tory attempts to leave it, as the Tories have repeatedly promised, including with policies on refugees and trans which break European human rights.

The LibDems would expand the number of women’s refuges and rape crisis centres to meet demand, which is a better target than trying to exclude trans women.

On gender recognition, they would remove the requirement for medical reports and the spousal veto- as Theresa May proposed in 2017, and as is uncontroversial in international human rights law. They would recognise nonbinary identities.

They would confront demagoguery and hate-speech. But anti-trans campaigners insist they are not transphobic, and are just stating reasonable concerns. As the Scottish hate-crime law shows, stopping hate speech is difficult. But it would be better than the Tory government’s enthusiastic encouragement of hate.

p91: they would end the culture of disbelief for LGBT+ asylum seekers, and never refuse an applicant on the grounds that they could be “discreet” about their gender identity.

Some of their health promises are relevant. They would extend young people’s mental health services to age 25, as currently there is a break between services aged 18. They would have community suicide prevention services, and improve services for autistic people. On education, they would deliver high quality sex education. They don’t specify, but it would be better than Tory guidance.

Their foreign policy would support human rights, including decriminalisation of gay and trans people.

They would work for their own interests too. They would support the Single Transferrable Vote, which does not reach a proportionate result: they hope that Labour and Conservative voters would put LibDems in second place, and they would get a disproportionate number of seats. That failed, in a referendum in 2011.

Wouldn’t it be great, if they could enact all that? I would certainly vote LibDem in any constituency where they were the main challenger to a Tory, and where they were a main challenger to an anti-trans Labour candidate. I hope they overtake the Conservatives, in number of MPs.

Conservatives against trans people

The Conservatives would ban all trans women from women’s services, if they won the next election, announced Kemi Badenoch and Rishi Sunak. Currently, trans women can use women’s services from the moment we decide to transition. Any exceptions are tightly regulated.

Kemi Badenoch, Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and for Business and Trade has her own interpretation of the Equality Act. Her interpretation is highly questionable. It’s more appropriate for a barrister trying to get a judge to change the interpretation of statute, than a Minister upholding the law. But she claims that trans women are not allowed to use women’s services unless we have a Gender Recognition Certificate, GRC.

On 1 May she published her Call for Input. She wanted members of the public to report any organisation that tolerates trans women in women’s services, so the Government could bully them into demanding proof of our gender recognition. But fewer than 10,000 GRCs have been issued over the last twenty years, and some of those people recognised have died. When others disagree with Badenoch’s interpretation, she says they are “confused”, or that they fear being accused of transphobia.

Badenoch said it would provide reassurance for domestic abuse charities, or rape crisis. In fact, rape crisis welcomes trans people.

Her language is designed to trigger anger against trans people and trans allies. She mentions “rapists housed in women’s prisons”. Well, Karen White was housed in a women’s prison, but policies were changed after her conviction to clarify that dangerous prisoners would be excluded. Now, all trans women without a GRC or genital surgery would be excluded. Badenoch promises every last trans woman would be excluded.

Rishi Sunak said this would “respect the privacy and dignity of everyone in society”. Well, not mine. Mine would be trashed. But that’s the whole point- my privacy and dignity, my protection, does not count. Tolerating me is a threat, as bad as inviting rapists in. It’s a matter of “safety of women and girls” says Sunak. He promises a “secure future for everyone”, with me on the outside, and the decent, normal people protected from me. My gay friend saw through that immediately. If I’m outside the pale, he’s next. The Niemöller moments just keep getting clearer.

A new Tory government would also ban the Scottish parliament from legislating on gender recognition, which should worry Scots who don’t want their parliament disempowered. Any power could be taken away, by a Tory government disapproving of Scottish views.

I don’t think Labour would put this into practice, in government. It is clearly against European Court of Human Rights precedents, and while that’s a positive for the Tories, they want to pick fights with Europe in general, it would not be for Labour. But it shifts the discussion, so that inclusion of trans people with GRCs becomes a relatively left-wing position.

The old scare-story- what if someone pretended to be trans- has been jettisoned. Nobody would pretend to be trans enough to get a psychiatric diagnosis. The old story was that the anti-trans campaigners did not object to “genuine” trans people, just fakes. Now, they object to all of us, clearly and explicitly.

The policy would result in a great deal of gender-policing, with cis women judged on how feminine they looked, and possibly challenged on entering women’s loos.

Added, 12.30pm: The story is election froth. It died, almost immediately.

Badenoch was on radio 4, scaremongering about trans: “The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of problems right now we have rapists being put in women’s prisons on the basis that they are self-identifying.” That’s a lie. If she meant Isla Bryson spending one night in a segregated cell away from the general population, for processing after sentence, before being transferred to a men’s prison the following day, the Scottish Government changed its policy quickly after. Of course, Michal Hussein, the interviewer, did not challenge her on that lie. Nor this one- “We are not trying to stop trans people from being able to live their lives as they wish.” She contradicted herself- trans women who have had GRS would get “extra privacy” in a men’s prison or hospital ward. But Labour simply dismissed the gambit. So did the LibDems.

The Reform Party and Trans

The Reform party “draft” manifesto has already been published. [Added: they have released a final version, with colour photos of their politicians- see below.]

It starts with a drama. Greatness! Difficulty. Solutions! Among the threats to Britain Reform claims to solve are trans people and foreigners. It goes like this: Brexit is a great opportunity! But Brexit has been betrayed. Woke ideology. Net zero is making us poorer and colder. “Urgent existential threat”.

The British people have a rescuer: Reform UK! Reform will slash taxes, yet repair broken public services. It is a ridiculous fantasy. Because Brexit has been betrayed, it has not worked, so it has not given the great benefits it should have. Reform will solve that, and “take back control”.

There is no space in the new, common-sense, Reform Britain for trans people. Public toilets and changing areas must be Single Sex. They will end Diversity Equality and Inclusion schemes, and replace the Equality Act. Their Free Speech Bill would end cancel culture, which has done so much to cancel JK Rowling.

In the Contract with Britain, trans is sometimes a distraction, something government should stop worrying about. “Whilst people worry about how to define a woman,” bad stuff happens. But trans is also a Threat: they would ban “transgender ideology” and social transition in schools. Confusing children is a safeguarding issue. Trans boys would be told they were girls, and sent to change with the girls.

Also on schools, they would give tax relief on private school fees, and cut university places.

They don’t like the Online Safety Act. It forces social media companies to restrict certain kinds of posts. But the social media companies “push baseless transgender ideology”, so should not regulate free speech.

Much of the document is just fantasy. They would slash wasteful government spending, and save £50bn a year. They would cut “unnecessary” regulations, which currently protect consumers, workers and the environment. A great deal of their pitch is,

You wouldn’t govern like these namby-pamby Oxbridge graduates, would you? Neither would we! We would reduce taxes and improve services with British Common Sense! Everything would be Better! Reducing taxes means more revenue! Tories and Labour are not just wrong, they’re stupid! Reform would do things Right, with their “Fresh, bold, can-do approach”!

There are many threats, in the Britain not properly governed by Reform. Small Boats! The EU! Immigration! Human Rights! Immigrant criminals! Multiculturalism- Christian values are under Threat! And, the Chinese.

I learned something from the Reform manifesto. It says every week hundreds die because of A&E delays. I don’t trust it, of course, so looked it up. More than 250 patients a week could be dying, according to analysis by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine. Reform would stop taxing doctors and nurses. Yes, that’s right, impose 0% income tax. Then they would use private care, and give tax relief on all private care bills.

They will abolish the BBC licence fee, and make the BBC sell subscriptions like Netflix does.

Because the climate has always changed, it will always change, so net zero is expensive and damaging. In Roman Britain 2000 years ago it was two degrees warmer than now. (This is untrue).

Reform party fantasy gets Farage and Tice at the top of news feeds, and they have 10% in opinion polls. They have nine local councillors and have never had an MP elected, but they get more coverage than the Greens with 812 councillors and one MP, despite the electoral system. This far right lunatic fantasy is what many at the top of the Tory party want to peddle too.

17 June: The final draft claims trans people, and trans inclusion, are a threat. No child could say they were trans but for “indoctrination”, they claim. They want to ban gender questioning, social transition and pronouns. Schools must have single sex loos and changing rooms. So must all public services. The police must cease to practise DEI. They will replace the Equality Act.