DELEGATES ATTENDING THE annual conference of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) in Blackpool this week will be asked to vote on an emergency resolution claiming that a legal campaign launched by women’s rights activists – and which resulted in the supreme court ruling that women and men are defined by biological sex for the purposes of equality law – was driven by ‘far-right ideologies’.
The debate on the controversial resolution comes just days after the union’s general secretary, Steve Wright, and assistant general secretary, Ben Selby, released a contentious statement arguing that the ruling placed the court on the wrong side of history. That statement – which showed no sign of having been signed off by the ruling executive council – resulted in a significant backlash on social media, with many accusing the union of adopting an extreme position that did not reflect the views of mainstream members and was rooted in emotion rather than reality.
The emergency resolution, which has been submitted by the union’s LGBT committee, is quite plainly a disgrace, and stands as a slur against all those – including many female firefighters past and present – who have made a principled defence of their sex-based rights. Many of these campaigners have spent their lives fighting against discrimination and the far-right. It is therefore appalling to suggest that they are motivated by ‘far-right ideologies’.
After years of fraught debate, the supreme court confirmed that, for the purposes of equality law, trans-identifying individuals have no right to be treated as though they were members of the opposite sex. This means that duty-bearers (such as employers and service providers) can, for example, legitimately prevent trans-identifying males accessing services and spaces – such as toilets, changing rooms, prisons, hostels and refuges – intended for women. In that respect, the law has not changed; the court merely reaffirmed what has always been the case.
Any policy relying on a definition of ‘man’ or ‘woman’ which runs contrary to the court’s ruling will almost certainly result in unlawful conduct. That’s why duty-bearers (including fire and rescue services and trade unions) need to be very careful about their actions going forward.
The emergency resolution argues that the supreme court ruling is neither sensible nor workable. But given that the law has not changed, that claim is nonsensical. The court’s ruling simply means that the law will continue to work as it was always intended to work.
The resolution also claims that ‘trans rights and women’s rights are not in opposition’. But, again, this claim is simply unsustainable. The whole reason that the issue ended up in the supreme court was because women campaigners had to fight to defend their hard-won rights after those rights were threatened by pro-trans activists demanding that trans-identifying men – including, in some cases, violent criminals – be granted access to women’s services and spaces.
Some women have, quite disgracefully, been subjected to disciplinary action, social ostracism, threats of violence and harassment simply for standing their ground on this issue. They are understandably relieved that the supreme court has reaffirmed their rights in law.
The emergency resolution goes on to state that ‘Women’s sex-based rights can and must be respected while advocating for trans liberation.’ But this is obviously a non-sequitur. After all, if there is ‘trans liberation’ to the point that trans-identifying men are given access to women’s services and spaces, then women’s sex-based rights would not be protected.
The resolution then urges employers to ensure that trans-identifying individuals be afforded the ‘right to safe and inclusive spaces, free from discrimination’. It is hard to see this as anything less than a thinly-veiled call for employers to ignore the ruling.
Conference delegates should vote down the resolution. If they don’t, they will be declaring that decent and principled female campaigners are the equivalent of fascists and Nazis. Even if the movers of the resolution withdraw that particular comment from the rostrum, it wouldn’t matter. It is the actual text of the resolution that forms the policy of the union, not what is said during the debate.
In passing the resolution, delegates would also be demonstrating that the union believes the law should be flouted. Such a position would show the union to be seriously out of step with thousands of mainstream members.
A key question that the union will be forced to address if the resolution passes is what would be its stance in relation to a female member who sought to challenge a trans-identifying male attempting to use women-only facilities in the workplace. The member would simply be exercising her lawful right to object. Would the union support her if she were to seek assistance in submitting a grievance to her employer, or in lodging a legal claim? That question deserves a clear answer.
Firefighter turned barrister Lucy Masoud, a former FBU official, told this blog: ‘It is heartbreaking to see decades of work by female firefighters who successfully fought for female-only facilities on fire stations thrown away by a tiny minority of the membership who do not represent female voices. For the LGBT committee’s resolution to label supporters of female-only spaces as “far right” is obscene, and shows that they are attempting to shut women up with their baseless and untrue name calling.’
If the resolution is passed, it would mean that a conference comprised overwhelmingly of men had decided that the rights of trans-identifying fellow males were more important than those of women. What a terrible picture that would paint.