When will Keir Starmer finally show some leadership over the most fundamental distinction in human society: the difference between men and women? The Prime Minister’s silence after the Supreme Court judgement last week had been deafening. The ruling – which stated that sex is binary – brought clarity and restored sanity; it’s a pity the same could not be said about the PM’s thinking when it comes to defining what a woman is.
When put on the spot by ITV News in an interview yesterday, and asked: ‘Do you believe a transwoman is a woman?’, Starmer could not give a straight answer.
The correct response, of course, is ‘no’ and the explanation does not require any advanced knowledge of either biology or the law. Transwomen are male and women are female. Male is not female and therefore transwomen are not women. Not everyone will like that logic, but facts are facts.
But once again, Starmer attempted to avoid answering the question himself, ‘Look, I think the Supreme Court has answered that question’. When pressed, he added, ‘a woman is an adult female and the court has made that absolutely clear. Actually, I welcome the judgement because I think it gives real clarity’.
That is at least a step in the right direction, and we should also welcome the news that Starmer’s official spokesman has disclosed that the PM ‘does not believe transgender women are women’.
Tony Benn once divided politicians into signposts and weathervanes. Starmer has allowed himself to be blown about in the wind when it comes to the most basic of questions about human biology. Back in 2020 when Rosie Duffield – at the time his only MP in Kent – pointed out that only women have a cervix, Starmer invested zero political capital in her defence. The following year, he said it was ‘not right’ to utter what was a biological fact. By 2023, he had decided that ‘99.9 per cent of women … haven’t got a penis’.
We may never know whether Starmer actually believed that guff or whether he was merely running scared from the gender identity mob. But the country needs a leader who will speak the truth and stand up to bullying and intimidation. Starmer is not that leader.
Judging by last weekend’s appalling scenes in London and elsewhere, the gender identity mob is hardly likely to be appeased. Their ‘howl of male rage’ as Brendan O’Neill wrote in The Spectator needs to be faced down; those responsible for threats, intimidation and criminal damage must be identified and brought before the courts.
If Starmer hopes to restore the faith of women and indeed anyone who is not in thrall to gender identity ideology, then his words need to be followed by actions.
The proposed ban on conversion therapy has not gone away. The fear is that by including so-called gender identity along with sexual orientation, parents, teachers and church leaders might face criminal sanctions for trying to explain to someone that their sex is fixed and immutable, and that wishful thinking does not turn a man into a woman or vice-versa. In other words, the spirit of the Supreme Court judgment.
If the Labour government wants to devote parliamentary time and public resources into what could be described as an unnecessary law – abusive and coercive practices are already illegal – then gender identity must be removed from the scope of the legislation.
Young people, in particular, have been let down badly by politicians. Following last year’s Cass Review, children are no longer prescribed puberty blockers to halt their natural development. In January, the Commission on Human Medicines described the practice as an ‘unacceptable safety risk’. But shockingly, plans are still afoot for a clinical trial. It might be tempting for Starmer to duck responsibility and defer to medical ethics, but children’s futures are at stake. Starmer must see to it that this trial – reported to be costing £10.7 million of public money – will not happen.
As a transsexual, I have a personal interest in what Starmer has to say. In the ITV interview, the PM was asked: ‘What are your words for the trans community who are worried about what this could mean for them?’ He could have pointed out that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment was reaffirmed by Supreme Court and that it is unlawful for trans people to be treated less favourably than anyone else. Our rights are undiminished. Instead, he talked about clarity without being clear about what he meant. After six days’ thinking time, that really isn’t good enough.
It was the fictional prime minister Jim Hacker who once said, ‘It’s the people’s will. I am their leader. I must follow them.’ Yes Minister was comedy, but women’s rights and children’s lives are all too serious. Besides, beyond a very noisy and demanding lobby, the people do know the difference between men and women. It is common sense. If Starmer wants to regain their trust, then he must show rather more leadership and speak in actions as well as words.
Comments