When Compassion Is Political: The Human Cost of Starmer’s U-turn on Trans Rights
In July 2016, The Guardian published a poignant piece titled ‘People think we wake up and decide to be trans,’ amplifying real trans voices and experiences and challenging simplistic or hostile narratives (The Guardian, 2016.) Its purpose was clear: to cut through political noise and societal prejudice, reminding everyone of an undeniable truth: trans people are human beings, with complex lives, emotions, and identities, not mere political pawns or cultural provocations to be debated and legislated upon without regard for their well-being.
Nearly a decade later, it is deeply disheartening and alarming to witness what appears to be a significant regression in political discourse surrounding transgender identity in the United Kingdom. A climate of increasing hostility, often amplified by certain media outlets and political factions, has intensified debates around trans rights, particularly concerning legal recognition and access to single-sex spaces. Following a pivotal UK Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of “woman,” there is a palpable sense that both the governing party and the official opposition seem more preoccupied with placating vocal reactionary elements and navigating perceived political risks than with upholding the rights and safeguarding the lives of vulnerable citizens (Sky News, 2025.)
The specific Supreme Court ruling in question, delivered on April 16, 2025, stemmed from a case originating in Scotland regarding the definition of "woman" in relation to gender representation on public boards. The court clarified that the term “woman” within certain pieces of legislation, specifically the Equality Act 2010, refers to biological sex as assigned at birth for the purposes of preventing discrimination (ITV News, 2025; Supreme Court UK, 2025.) While the court's judgment itself had a specific legal scope, its political interpretation and amplification were immediate and far broader. This decision was almost immediately and enthusiastically co-opted by right-wing commentators, media outlets, and political figures. They seized upon it to intensify ongoing culture war narratives, portraying the ruling as a definitive, sweeping victory against ‘gender ideology’ and demanding that political leaders align their language and policies accordingly.
Rather than unequivocally challenging this opportunistic framing and reaffirming support for the transgender community's rights and dignity, Labour leader Keir Starmer responded on April 22, 2025, by shifting his previously stated position. He publicly stated that “a woman is an adult female,” a noticeable distancing from his earlier, more inclusive assertion made in March 2022 that “trans women are women” and that this was legally sound (Independent, 2025; Sky News, 2025.) This linguistic shift, interpreted by many as a calculated "U-turn," is seen as an attempt to align Labour with a more conservative interpretation of sex and gender. The ramifications of this calculated linguistic and political shift are not confined to the realm of abstract political debate; they are deeply personal, profoundly harmful, and have tangible consequences for the lives and safety of transgender individuals in the UK.
The Human Cost of Political Cowardice
Let's ground this discussion where our politics should fundamentally begin: with the lived experiences of people. The abstract language of legislation, political statements, and media headlines has a direct and often severe impact on the safety, well-being, and sense of belonging of individuals. Transgender individuals in the UK are recognised by numerous studies and organisations as one of the most marginalised communities, facing systemic discrimination, prejudice, and a hostile public environment that contributes significantly to disproportionately high rates of mental health challenges (TransActual, n.d.; Mental Health Foundation, n.d.) Robust research consistently underscores this vulnerability. A large-scale study, reported by The Guardian and other sources, revealed that approximately 16% of transgender men and women in England report having a long-term mental health condition, a rate considerably higher than that reported by cisgender men (8.8%) and cisgender women (12%) (Pulse Today, 2024; BPS, 2024.) Broader data from organisations like the Mental Health Foundation and Stonewall further illustrate this crisis within the wider LGBTIQ+ community, indicating that around 50% of LGBTIQ+ individuals have experienced depression, and 60% have experienced anxiety (Mental Health Foundation, n.d.; Stonewall, 2018.) For trans individuals specifically, studies show even higher rates of suicidal ideation and self-harm compared to other LGBTIQ+ groups and the general population (TransActual, n.d.; Stonewall, 2018.)
These figures are not inherent to being transgender or LGBTIQ+; they are direct consequences of what is known as ‘minority stress.’ This is the chronic stress faced by members of stigmatised minority groups due to the prejudice and discrimination they experience (Mind, n.d.) This stress is exacerbated by a hostile public and political climate. Specific forms of discrimination faced by trans people are wide-ranging and have profound impacts. These include significant barriers to accessing appropriate and timely healthcare, particularly gender-affirming care, with notoriously long waiting lists for NHS Gender Identity Clinics (Pulse Today, 2024.) Discrimination is also prevalent in employment, housing, education, and access to public spaces, including essential facilities like bathrooms (Mental Health Foundation, n.d.; Mind, n.d.) Furthermore, trans individuals are disproportionately targets of hate crimes, facing verbal harassment, threats, and physical violence (Stonewall, 2018.)
So, when political leaders - those in positions of power and influence who should represent and protect all citizens - fail to stand firm and consistent in their support for the fundamental rights and dignity of trans people, they do more than merely neglect this group. They actively contribute to and legitimise an environment that fosters discrimination and endangers trans lives. Political vacillation and ambiguous messaging on issues of identity and dignity send a dangerous signal, effectively emboldening those who seek to erase, exclude, and incite hostility and violence against trans individuals. This has a chilling effect, forcing many trans people to conceal their identities for safety, further impacting their mental health and well-being.
Appeasement Politics: Labour Chasing the Reform Vote
The recent actions and rhetoric from the Starmer-led Labour Party suggest a political strategy heavily influenced by apprehension and a perceived need to neutralise attacks from the right. This fear appears multifaceted: a fear of alienating a segment of socially conservative voters who may be receptive to anti-trans narratives, a fear of negative coverage and relentless campaigns in right-wing tabloids that hold significant sway over public opinion, and a fear of the growing electoral threat posed by Reform UK (UKandEU, 2025.) The narrative that Labour is "out of touch" or beholden to "woke" ideas is one the party leadership seems desperate to shed.
In attempting to placate these perceived reactionary forces and counter this narrative, the Labour Party risks making a historic and deeply damaging error. By adjusting their language and seemingly softening their stance on trans rights, particularly by emphasising a biological definition of "woman" immediately after the Supreme Court ruling, they are effectively allowing the right wing to seize control of and define the terms of the debate around gender and identity. Instead of confidently asserting a progressive vision of inclusivity and human rights, a core principle historically associated with the Labour movement and essential for a modern, diverse society, the party appears to be echoing the language and concerns often articulated by figures like Nigel Farage and Reform UK.
Farage, known for his populist approach and well-documented ties to figures and movements on the US far-right, including Donald Trump, thrives on political division and cultural friction. Culture wars are not a side effect but arguably the central oxygen of his political project, providing fertile ground to mobilise support based on resentment towards social change and perceived threats to traditional values. Every instance where Labour mirrors the language or adopts the framing used by Farage and his allies concerning contentious social issues, such as emphasising biological sex over gender identity or expressing caution about "transgender ideology," risks lending legitimacy to their agenda and amplifying their divisive message. Reform UK's platform explicitly includes opposition to what it terms "transgender ideology," particularly advocating for its ban in primary and secondary schools (NUS, n.d.), aligning with a broader socially conservative stance that views trans rights with suspicion or outright opposition.
The historical record of appeasement in politics is not encouraging. It rarely satisfies those being appeased and often demoralises those whose principles are compromised. It did not yield positive outcomes in the context of Brexit negotiations or in mitigating the most severe effects of austerity measures. There is little evidence to suggest that compromising on the fundamental rights of a minority group to appeal to a different demographic will be a successful strategy now, either electorally or morally. It risks alienating younger voters, urban populations, and the significant portion of the existing Labour base that supports trans rights, potentially creating new electoral vulnerabilities while failing to secure the support of those whose primary concerns lie elsewhere or who will remain loyal to right-wing parties regardless.
Who Benefits from this Culture War?
We must ask: who truly benefits from this escalating culture war and the accompanying political hysteria surrounding transgender people?
Certainly not transgender individuals themselves, who are directly bearing the brunt of the increased hostility, discrimination, and political footballing of their identities. The documented data on their mental health crisis is a tragic testament to this human cost (TransActual, n.d.; Mental Health Foundation, n.d.; Stonewall, 2018.) Nor does it benefit the general public, whose attention and energy are deliberately diverted by an obsessive fixation on identity politics, serving as a convenient distraction from pressing economic issues, the crisis in public services like the NHS, the cost of living, and other critical societal challenges that affect the vast majority of the population.
The primary beneficiaries, intentionally or otherwise, appear to be those political forces and actors who seek to sow discord, undermine social cohesion, and ultimately weaken the foundations of liberal democracy itself. There are well-funded and organised efforts which are actively engaged in promoting divisive social narratives as a strategic tool. For example, the Heritage Foundation, a powerful US-based ultra-conservative think tank, has a long and documented history of opposing LGBTQ+ rights (MSI Reproductive Choices, 2024.) Their ambitious and far-reaching initiatives, such as Project 2025, a comprehensive blueprint for a the Republican/MAGA administration in the US, include detailed policy recommendations aimed at rolling back legal protections, eliminating LGBTQ+ inclusive language from federal regulations, restricting access to gender-affirming healthcare, and promoting legal definitions of sex based solely on biology (ACLU, 2025; GLAAD, n.d.; The 19th, 2024; Interfaith Alliance, 2025.) These efforts are part of a broader agenda seeking to dismantle aspects of modern liberal society and redefine fundamental rights.
Furthermore, state actors like Russia have a clear vested geopolitical interest in destabilising and weakening pluralistic Western democracies. Disinformation campaigns targeting transgender rights and other divisive social issues (such as immigration, racial tensions, and vaccine scepticism) have been extensively documented across Europe and North America (EEAS, 2023; Jamestown Foundation, 2024.) These campaigns are designed to sow confusion, inflame existing social tensions, deepen polarisation within electorates, and erode public trust in democratic institutions, governments, and shared values. A common narrative promoted in this disinformation is portraying LGBTQ+ rights, particularly trans rights, as signs of Western decadence or a threat to traditional values, aiming to appeal to conservative segments of the population and create internal division. It is a tried-and-tested tactic of hybrid warfare: identify and exploit existing social fissures to fracture unity and weaken adversarial nations from within. By adopting the language and framing pushed by these forces, even if unintentionally, a political party risks inadvertently playing into their strategic objectives, contributing to the erosion of social trust and the normalisation of divisive narratives.
Consistency and Integrity in Leadership
The concern raised by Starmer's shift is not solely about the specific words used, but perhaps more significantly, about the perceived inconsistency and lack of clear principle demonstrated in his leadership on this issue over time. Backtracking from a clear statement like “trans women are women,” a position aligned with many trans advocates, legal interpretations prior to the recent ruling, and the position of the Labour Party under previous leadership (Sky News, 2025,) to the more biologically focused “a woman is an adult female” following the Supreme Court ruling might be interpreted by political strategists as a pragmatic attempt to appeal to a different demographic or mitigate political attacks from opponents. However, for many, particularly within the trans community, among progressive voters, and even some moderate observers, it signals something far more damaging about the core of the Labour Party's current approach: a perceived prioritisation of short-term political calculation and responsiveness to polling data and media pressure over deeply held principles of equality, inclusion, and human rights. His previous shift in 2023, when Labour moved away from supporting a model of gender recognition based on self-declaration, despite earlier commitments, is seen by critics as part of a pattern of backtracking on trans rights (Sky News, 2025.)
For individuals whose identities and fundamental rights are constantly debated, scrutinised, and often challenged in the public sphere and political arena, knowing where their leaders unequivocally stand is not a minor issue; it is crucial for their sense of safety, legitimacy, and belonging. When leaders appear to backpedal, equivocate, or change their positions on matters of fundamental human rights and identity based on shifting political winds, they don't just change policy or wording: they risk breaking trust with entire communities and with voters who value principled leadership. They risk reducing politics to a cynical performance where positions are adopted and discarded based solely on perceived electoral advantage or the loudest voices in the media. Worse, by adopting language and framing previously associated with anti-trans activism and right-wing populism, they risk becoming indistinguishable from the very forces they once stood in opposition to, blurring the lines between progressive values and reactionary agendas in the public consciousness. This erosion of trust and clarity has consequences far beyond the specific issue of trans rights, potentially undermining faith in political institutions and the democratic process itself.
Rebuilding a Progressive Majority Means Standing Up, Not Backing Down
There is a persistent political myth, often propagated by opponents of trans rights and amplified in certain media, that supporting transgender equality is an inherent electoral liability; an issue guaranteed to alienate large swathes of the electorate and undermine a party's chances of forming a government. The reality is significantly more nuanced and complex than this simplistic narrative suggests. Electoral success is determined by a wide range of interconnected issues that voters consider when making their decisions, from the state of the economy, the funding and performance of the National Health Service, and the availability and affordability of housing, to education, climate change, and public safety. While social issues can be contentious and exploited for political gain, public opinion is rarely monolithic. There is also broad public support for principles of fairness, non-discrimination, and protecting vulnerable minorities, even among those who may be navigating their own understanding of evolving social issues (Mental Health Foundation, n.d.)
When a political party appears willing to compromise or sacrifice the rights, safety, or dignity of a marginalised group in a calculated attempt to win votes from another segment of the electorate, it rarely gains genuine strength or broad respect in the long run. Instead, it risks losing the moral clarity and principled stance that can inspire trust, motivate volunteers, and mobilise a broad, values-driven coalition for change. Such compromises can alienate dedicated party activists, younger voters who often hold more progressive views on social issues, and the significant portion of the existing Labour base that believes in social justice and equality for all, regardless of gender identity. This approach risks creating new electoral vulnerabilities among core supporters while failing to secure the lasting support of those whose primary concerns lie elsewhere or who will remain loyal to right-wing parties regardless of Labour's stance on social issues.
If the Labour Party genuinely aims to build a sustainable and courageous coalition for change, capable of addressing the serious challenges facing the UK, it must demonstrate that courage by unequivocally resisting the siren call of culture war baiting and the pressure to compromise on fundamental human rights. It must refuse to treat the lives, identities, and rights of transgender people as political liabilities to be managed, downplayed, or traded for perceived short-term electoral gain.
This requires a confident and clear articulation of a simple, fundamental truth, rooted in compassion and human dignity: trans people are people. They are not abstract threats to existing social structures or women's rights. They are not ideological experiments to be debated and legislated upon by those unaffected by the outcomes. They are not the cause of the systemic failures in public services or the economic challenges facing the country. They are valued members of our communities - our neighbours, our friends, our family members, our children, our colleagues, contributing to society in countless ways.
They deserve better than to have their existence debated and their rights potentially compromised for political advantage. They deserve unequivocal support, protection, and the assurance that their political representatives stand in solidarity with them. Building a truly progressive majority means standing up for all marginalised groups, not backing down in the face of prejudice or political pressure.
It's Time to Speak Up, Not Step Aside
The treatment of transgender rights in the current political climate is not a marginal or niche issue that can be safely ignored or navigated through careful, ambiguous language. It is, in fact, a fundamental test of the character of our society and a reflection of who we are and who we aspire to be as a nation. Do we wish to live in a society where political discourse and policy are shaped by fear-mongering, prejudice, and division, or do we aspire to one that consistently stands up for fairness, equality, dignity, and the rights of all its members?
Labour's recent reversal in language on trans rights following the Supreme Court ruling is more than just a tactical political manoeuvre with potential electoral consequences. For many, particularly within the trans community and among those who believe in fundamental human rights, it represents a profound betrayal of the foundational values the party once championed: solidarity with the marginalised, the pursuit of justice and equality, and an unwavering commitment to human dignity for everyone, without exception.
We cannot afford to allow the far right and other divisive forces, both domestic and international, to dictate the moral centre of British politics or to frame the terms of debate on fundamental human rights issues. Crucially, we cannot allow a major political party, seemingly paralysed by fear of political attack or motivated by perceived electoral advantage, to do the work of these divisive forces for them by adopting their language, validating their narratives, and compromising on the rights of a vulnerable minority. Civil society organisations, advocacy groups, and individuals who believe in an inclusive society must actively speak up and push back against these trends.
Because when history eventually looks back on this period, it will not remember the nuanced political calculations, the focus group results, or the carefully worded statements designed to offend the fewest people or win a handful of votes. It will remember the human cost of political decisions and whether those in positions of power chose courage or capitulation in the face of prejudice and political pressure. It will remember whether they stood up unequivocally for the human rights of all citizens or allowed a vulnerable minority to be debated and potentially sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and the culture war. The time to speak up and stand in solidarity is now.
Notes From Plague Island is quickly becoming a full-time venture. We want to grow our output and dedicate more time to writing, but it takes support! If you enjoy our work and can help, please support us on ‘Buy Me a Coffee.’ Every coffee helps, in many ways. Thank-you - we appreciate you!
https://buymeacoffee.com/notesfromplagueisland
References
ACLU (2025) ‘Project 2025, Explained.’ Available at: https://www.aclu.org/project-2025-explained [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
BPS (British Psychological Society) (2024) ‘Tackling health inequalities in the trans community | BPS - British Psychological Society.’ Available at: https://www.bps.org.uk/blog/tackling-health-inequalities-trans-community[Accessed: 22 April 2025]
EEAS (European External Action Service) (2023) ‘FIMI targeting LGBTIQ+ people: Well-informed analysis to protect human rights and diversity.’ Available at: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2023/EEAS-LGBTQ-Report.pdf [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
The Guardian (2016) ‘People think we wake up and decide to be trans’. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/01/people-think-we-wake-up-and-decide-to-be-trans [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
Independent (2025) ‘Starmer backtracks on 'trans women are women' comment following court ruling.’ Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/keir-starmer-bridget-phillipson-supreme-court-angela-eagle-chris-bryant-b2737410.html [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
Interfaith Alliance (2025) ‘Project 2025 In Trump's First Month: The Threat to LGBTQ+ Rights and Freedoms.’ Available at: https://www.interfaithalliance.org/post/project-2025-in-trumps-first-month-the-threat-to-lgbtq-rights-and-freedoms[Accessed: 22 April 2025]
ITV News (2025) ‘Legal definition of 'woman' refers to biological sex, Supreme Court rules | ITV News.’ Available at: https://www.itv.com/news/2025-04-16/supreme-court-to-issue-ruling-in-dispute-over-definition-of-a-woman [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
Jamestown Foundation (2024) ‘Russian Disinformation Targets the European Union.’ Available at: https://jamestown.org/program/russian-disinformation-targets-the-european-union/ [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
LGBT Foundation (2023) ‘Hidden Figures: LGBT Health Inequalities in the UK.’ Available at: https://lgbt.foundation/help/hidden-figures-lgbt-health-inequalities-in-the-uk/ [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
Mental Health Foundation (n.d.) ‘LGBTIQ+ people: statistics.’ Available at: https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/explore-mental-health/statistics/lgbtiq-people-statistics [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
Mind (n.d.) ‘LGBTQIA+ mental health.’ Available at: https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/tips-for-everyday-living/lgbtqia-mental-health/ [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
MSI Reproductive Choices (2024) ‘The Impact of Project 2025 on Abortion Rights and Women.’ Available at: https://www.msichoices.org/latest/what-is-project-2025/ [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
NUS (National Union of Students) (n.d.) ‘What Reform UK's Manifesto says about the things students and young people care about.’ Available at: https://www.nus.org.uk/reform-manifesto-ge24 [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
Pulse Today (2024) ‘Transgender people more likely to report mental health condition - Pulse Today.’ Available at: https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/mental-health-and-addiction/transgender-people-more-likely-to-report-mental-health-condition/ [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
Reform UK (n.d.) ‘Reform UK.’ Available at: https://www.reformparty.uk/ [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
Sky News (2025) ‘Sir Keir Starmer says Supreme Court ruling 'gives clarity' that 'a woman is an adult female'.’ Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-says-supreme-court-ruling-gives-clarity-that-a-woman-is-an-adult-female-13353592 [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
Stonewall (2018) ‘LGBT in Britain – Health’ (2018). Available at: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/resources/lgbt-britain-health-2018 [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
Supreme Court UK (2025) ‘Press Summary - For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent)’ [2025] UKSC 16. Available at: https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_press_summary_8a42145662.pdf [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
The 19th (2024) ‘The 19th Explains: What you need to know about Project 2025.’ Available at: https://19thnews.org/2024/07/project-2025-women-education-lgbtq-workforce/ [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
TransActual, (n.d.) ‘Trans People's Mental Health - TransActual.’ Available at: https://transactual.org.uk/trans-peoples-mental-health/ [Accessed: 22 April 2025]
UKandEU (2025) ‘Bad news for Labour and its attacks on Reform's policies - they're unlikely to work.’ Available at: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/bad-news-for-labour-and-its-attacks-on-reforms-policies-theyre-unlikely-to-work/ [Accessed: 22 April 2025]