Labour's transphobic motion deferred

On Wednesday last week, I was sitting in a meeting when an email arrived with the agenda for Gateshead's full council meeting on 24th January. I decided to scroll through to the motions. There were two from Labour and one in particular caught my attention. This was about gender self-identification. You can read the motion at the end of this post.

The proposer was Cllr Leigh Kirton, a Labour member of Gateshead Council I cannot recall speaking at a meeting before. As I read further into this (for Labour) typically essay length motion, it became obvious that this was not a motion supportive of the trans community. Indeed, though dressed up with attempts at supportive language, it was quite hostile. It contained an open attack on the concept of self-identification and demanded no change to the current law without a mountain of hurdles to cross.

Self-identification is the next major reform of the law as it affects the LGBT community (and especially trans people). It has been proposed by the Conservative government. Labour nationally support it. But Labour in Gateshead seem to want to put themselves to the right on the Conservatives on this matter.

Occasionally I expect Labour in the North East to be resistant to change. They are the establishment party here and too many people in Labour's ranks in the region join to keep things as they are, not improve matters through reform and change. Nevertheless, I was still taken aback by the tone of the anti-trans motion. At Lib Dem group meeting that evening, all our members shared my views.

The group agreed that we contact LGBT groups in the region and bring their attention to the motion. I was asked to speak to Gateshead Council Labour leader Martin Gannon to ask him to consider withdrawing the motion. If not, we would vote against at full council. When I got through to Martin the next day, he was quite adamant that the motion would not be withdrawn.

And then the proverbials started to hit the fan. Labour in Gateshead were under attack in the local media. The national LGBT media were knocking at Labour's door demanding an explanation. LGBT organisations were rightly angry. Labour LGBT were demanding answers.

On Tuesday this week we picked up on social media that Labour had decided to "defer" the motion. This was confirmed to me by Martin Gannon when I phoned him. Quite what is meant by "deferred" is unclear, but I suspect Martin will bury this motion and never let it see light of day again.

To some extent, I was surprised Martin ever allowed this motion to get as far as it did. He is on most issues (but not all), relatively progressive. But I suspect he has a council group that has elements that at times are out of control. Part of that comes down to the fact that Labour in Gateshead has a large council group - 54 out of 66. We are of course doing our best to solve that problem for them.

But Labour in Gateshead are now damaged by this issue, and deservedly so. And they have only their own ineptitude and narrow-mindedness to blame. Shame on them.

The motion, now "deferred":

Councillor Leigh Kirton will move the following motion:

This Council believes that, in line with current law, all marginalised groups in our society should be fully protected in ways which ensure freedom of self-expression and protection from harassment, and accords them respect, privacy, safety and dignity.

Current Government proposals to amend the Gender Recognition Act would allow anyone to self-identify as their chosen gender. Under the present Act a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria is required to change gender, as well as living as your chosen gender for a two year period.

Amending the GRA could impact upon current provisions of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to the rights of women and those who have already reassigned their gender.

Council believes that the general public, especially those affected by the proposals, has the right to discuss them and confirms that any request for use of public buildings for such purposes will be allowed.

Council calls upon the Government to:

• Conduct a full public consultation accessible to all, not just through an online document, on how self-identification would impact upon women only services, facilities, sports and spaces.
• Defer any change to the Gender Recognition Act until a review is carried out into the application in practice of the exemptions named in the Equality Act (2010), which allow for discrimination on the grounds of sex in certain situations, such as positive action to improve the representation of women in public life, or when recruiting for jobs which require a man or woman for reasons of privacy and decency.
• Research the impact of self-identification upon data gathering – such as crime, employment, pay and health statistics – and monitoring of sex-based discrimination such as the ‘gender’ pay gap.
• Oppose the principle of simple self-identification unless checks and balances are in place to mitigate possible detrimental implications for women in terms of safety, dignity, privacy, participation in public life, and political representation.