Sir Keir Starmer has appointed his cabinet following a landslide Labour victory last week, with the post of Secretary of State for Education going to Bridget Phillipson MP.
The MP for Houghton and Sunderland South has also been named as Minister for Women and Equalities, where she will have responsibility for equality policy involving not just women, but transgender people as well.
Confusingly, Anneliese Dodds MP has also been appointed as Minister for Women and Equalities. According to the Prime Minister’s spokesperson, this doubling up is necessary because although “for all intents and purposes” Dodds will be the lead minister, “for constitutional purposes you need someone who’s a full Cabinet member [i.e., Phillipson] having the brief as part of their role”.
To get a sense of what they’re likely to do with this shared portfolio, and in particular where they both stand on the question of whether single-sex spaces should be preserved, it’s worth considering some of the opinions they’ve expressed previously.
But first, some context. Last year, the Conservative government said it would rewrite the Equality Act 2010, making it clear that the word ‘sex’ when it occurs in the Act refers to biological sex.
This piece of legislation has for some time been causing problems in areas of everyday life including (but certainly not limited to) feminist student societies, women’s sport and single-sex spaces like domestic violence refuges and rape crisis centres. Why? Because the Act protects both women and people undergoing “gender reassignment” in ways which are seen by gender critical campaigners as creating room for biological men to invade women’s single sex spaces. For example, the legislation uses the words “sex” and “gender” interchangeably, even though campaigners now argue they have different meanings.
The pledge to clarify the Act came after Kemi Badenoch asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission for advice last year on whether the Act needed to be changed to make the law clearer. In a letter, she raised concerns about the “increasing contestation of how the term sex is understood in law and practice” as well as “the consideration about whether the definition of ‘sex’ is sufficiently clear and strikes the appropriate balance of interests between different protected characteristics”.
In response, the chair of the EHRC’s board, Baroness Falkner, advised Badenoch that “on balance… redefining ‘sex’ in the Equality Act to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk [in certain areas].”
“There is no straightforward balance,” she said, outlining the board’s conclusions that “if ‘sex’ is defined as biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act, this would bring greater legal clarity in eight areas. These include pregnancy and maternity, freedom of association for lesbians and gay men, freedom of association for women and men, positive action, occupational requirements, single-sex and separate-sex services, sport and data collection.”
However, the Labour Party has repeatedly refused to match this pledge, leading to concerns that a Labour administration would do nothing about the words “sex” and “gender” being used interchangeably in the Act.
Absent this clarity, Labour’s proposal to make it easier for a person to legally change their sex by obtaining a gender recognition certificate will inevitably mean more biological men gaining access to single sex women’s spaces.
In a speech to the Labour Party Conference in 2021, for instance, Anneliese Dodds claimed that a Labour government would acknowledge “that trans rights are human rights” and “reform the Gender Recognition Act to enable a process for self-identification, while continuing to support the 2010 Equalities Act [sic]”.
Bridget Phillipson has adopted a similar stance.
During an appearance on BBC One’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg back in June, the then Shadow Education Secretary was asked for her response to JK Rowling saying that Labour had “abandoned women”, and she replied: “I want to make sure that women get the support and the justice that they deserve and that we do make sure that we’ve got services that are available for women, around rape and sexual violence.”
Yet how can she guarantee those services will be available to just biological women, with no risk of traumatised victims of rape and sexual violence encountering biological males when seeking help and support, if Labour refuses to stipulate that the protection for single sex spaces in the Equality Act doesn’t refer to biological sex?
Despite conceding that “[t]here are important provisions already there within the Equality Act 2010 that allow for single sex provision and it’s important those are maintained,” Phillipson quickly caveated that by adding: “But let’s, alongside that, make sure that trans people too get the support that they need. I don’t believe it’s an either/or but I would say really, do judge us on what we’ve done in the past to support women.”
So what might a both/and, as opposed to an either/or approach to this issue look like?
Phillipson was interviewed for LBC on 27th June about her stance on single-sex spaces, and repeatedly refused to answer when asked which lavatory she thinks a trans woman with a penis should use.
The then Shadow Education Secretary had previously suggested they should be able to use the women’s lavatory, but speaking on Nick Ferrari’s show she refused to affirm that position.
Asked the question for the first time by Ferrari, Phillipson said: “I believe that single sex spaces are important… My background before I became a politician was managing a women’s refuge. So I understand how important it is that women have access to single sex spaces, have that safety, that dignity, that opportunity to speak openly about traumatic events in their lives.”
Ferrari then presented a specific scenario about a trans woman with a penis needing to use a public lavatory in a restaurant, asking: “The trans woman with a penis would use which lavatory?” The transcript of the exchange that followed is below:
Phillipson: Well, look – I think it’s important that all people feel safe and have dignity.
Ferrari: She needs to go to the lavatory – which one does she use?
Phillipson: I think there are a range of options.
Ferrari: She hasn’t got a range of options. Respectfully, she’s got a door with a woman on it and a door with a bloke on it. Which one does she go in, Bridget Phillipson?
Phillipson: Well, many businesses and many public buildings also provide the option.
Ferrari: Sadly, this restaurant only has one with a picture of a woman and a picture of a man. So which door does she go through?
Phillipson: Well I would expect they would have a range of different options.
Ferrari: No this restaurant doesn’t. It’s just got the two. So which does she use?
Phillipson: I would want people to treat one another with respect.
Ferrari: She needs to use the lavatory, Shadow Secretary of State. Which one is she to use?
Phillipson: I would hope that that person, whoever they would happen to be – trans person – it’s not really clear.
Ferrari: Well it is – it’s a trans woman with a penis, and she’s desperate to go to the loo. She’s really getting desperate now.
Phillipson: I wouldn’t want that person to feel at risk. Equally I wouldn’t want biological women to feel intimidated.
Ferrari: But where does she go?
Phillipson: It’s about seeking commonsense solutions and being practical. I would hope that they might be able to, for example, try and find a compromise…
Asked if she was concerned about losing trust over her “muddled stance”, Phillipson replied: “I have a huge amount of respect for JK Rowling, not least in the work that she’s done around campaigning for women, you know, around domestic violence, around rape crisis services and making sure that all women in our communities feel safe.”
All of which sounds terribly nice and second-wave feminist-y… until you remember that JK Rowling’s “work” campaigning for women is, “you know”, premised on the belief that single-sex spaces only make sense for victims of sexual violence when “sex” means biological sex.
