All presidential and vice presidential candidates were offered an additional piece given the importance of and interest in the announcement on diversity quotas.
So many of us in LGBT+ community – and countless allies, too – feared that the Supreme Court ruling earlier this year would challenge the dignity and identity of trans and non-binary people across our country.
Shortly after the ruling, I insisted on meeting the Supreme Court Justices following the judgement and made it clear to them just how much trauma, pain and uncertainty has been created by it among our trans and non-binary community.
It is gut-wrenching to see this reverberate through our party, particularly in the last 24 hours, and to have spent yesterday speaking with some of our trans and non-binary members who feel disillusionment and despair.
As a liberal party, with equity and inclusion fundamental to our values, we all have a duty to challenge affronts to the dignity of trans and non-binary people, and to defend their rightful place in our movement.
As soon as I saw the decision that was published a matter of hours ago (which, for clarity, I had seen no draft of before, or anything of the sort), I’ve asked why it was made, full stop (as opposed to a suspension of the quota altogether) and why this decision was published on the day before voting in our internal elections.
And in order to escalate some immediate concerns folks have expressed to me, I’ve been on the phone with the Returning Officer team to ensure that, at the very least:
a) this decision is communicated to all nominated candidates in the upcoming federal elections – all have a right to know as not everyone is on social media etc; and
b) the party explicitly informs every candidate that they can withdraw consent for personal data to be used in the upcoming elections. Candidates gave consent on the basis of the rules at the time of being nominated, not necessarily on the current basis, and must know they can protect their data – and dignity – accordingly. It would be unforgivable if anyone was ‘outed’ without their consent as a result of what has happened here; and
c) a forum is created for this decision to be fully explained so that the decision can be scrutinised.
In light of these representations, the RO team agreed to send out an email to all candidates informing them of the decision (this went out last night), explained how they can withdraw their data consents (also went out last night), and have confirmed that they will further meet with LGBT+ Lib Dems to navigate a path forward.
All very small steps in the face of an enormous storm, but important steps nonetheless to practically support trans and non-binary members, especially those standing in the federal elections.
We’ve got so much further to go, though.
What has happened in the last 24 hours represents the mere tip of the iceberg of the kind of thing trans and non-binary people face when going about life day-to-day, never mind when putting their heads above the parapet to stand in elections to represent us.
We’ve got to do more to support our trans and non-binary candidates, and ensure they feel safe and valued making contributions to public life. I’ve already had discussions with trans and non binary members about what this practically needs to look like, and I’m fired up to continue these discussions and drive action accordingly, irrespective of the Presidential election.
As well as further to go within the party, there’s a lot further to go outside the party, too.
We must keep up the pressure on the Equality and Human Rights Commission to publish its well-overdue practical guidance on the meaning of the Supreme Court judgement, without any further delay.
We must fight to ensure that that guidance honours the Supreme Court’s very clear affirmation that the rights of trans and non-binary people are to be respected under the law.
And we must fight against the relentless attempts by culture warriors in some corners of British politics to demonise trans and non-binary people, and to unacceptably use them as a political football.
I say to trans and non-binary Liberal Democrats: you are not alone in this fight. Swathes of members and I are so proud to stand right beside you and your right to live in a free, fair and open society, with liberty, equality and community at its heart.
* Josh Babarinde OBE is the Liberal Democrat MP for Eastbourne and Party President from January 2026. He was the Founder and CEO of Cracked It, London's award-winning social enterprise smartphone repair service, staffed by young ex-offenders.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
The DVLA's problem with number plates
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
Roland
David Raw
Chloe
Tom Bailey
13 Comments
Very well put Josh. The party needs to rise to this occasion.
Thank you, Josh.
Sorry, Josh, you know I love you, but Prue did this better.
This article feels like a lot of handwringing about how awful this is without a firm commitment to fighting it. Asking questions is all well and good, but this needs to be OPPOSED
Thank you, Josh. I live just outside your constituency, unfortunately, but Eastbourne is my nearest large town, which I visit frequently, so your support for Trans people means a lot to me. I’m now 78 yo and, although in relatively good health, am well aware that, as things currently stand, should I need to be hospitalised, the EDGH would probably have to place me in a men’s ward, as there are the few side rooms and those are usually occupied, quite rightly, by patients needing to be quarantined or given privacy for compassionate reasons (eg terminally ill and close to death). This, despite the fact that I underwent gender reassignment, including full surgery, many years ago, and later went through the tortuous, time-consuming and expensive process of obtaining full legal recognition as ‘female’, when the Gender Recognition Act 2004 came into effect.
We have been placed in an impossible position. If the Party had not made the changes, it could have faced legal action by any ‘biological woman’ (to quote the Supreme Court) who may have been unsuccessful in getting elected and could have pointed to a transgender women whose election deprived her of getting elected as part of the quota. If instead the Party had chosen to suspend quotas for women, there is every chance that women would lose out on being elected due to the decision to suspend quotas.
So, either way, it appears that women are the losers.
Josh, I don’t disagree with anything you say, but this response entirely misses the constitutional outrage of this decision and the fact that other routes were possible.
I had supported you for President, but in light of your respective responses I have no choice but to now support Prue instead, as the only candidate that will stand up for our constitution and internal democracy.
The statement continues to support the SC judgement. The SC was clear that it was only about EqA10. If taken outside of the co text if European and other UK law it is potentually illegal. It is also as the residential doctors conference labeled it ‘medically illiterate’. The real problem now is that GRA04 has been effectively repealed in practice. Trans sexual and intersex people, and especially women who have greater vulnerability, are physiologically not men and legally not women. This means that, in practice, they have very few remaining rights in a binary legal system. If you agree with the SC ruling you agree that these women have no legal rights to exist and indeed that it is fair to put their everyday safety and well being at risk because of these eraser. One would expect a pro European Party to respect European Law or in other words the European Declaration on Human Rights. Clearly this is not the case.
Additionally it must be starred that because the ‘interim update’ was withdrawn demonstrating that ministers chose to miss interpret it as having immediate judicial meaning all that remains in law is the 2011 guidance. This is inclusive and adopts the position taken by GRA04 and the then reading of EqA10 and compliance with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention. The law remains inclusive but the Lib Dems are no longer an inclusive Party. This could well lead to legal challenges that would be to no ones benefit in the party. I would suggest that this requires not just a high level statement but withdrawal of the offending document and it’s replacement by that which candidates stood by in September.
Hi Josh – you say you asked why this decision was made, and why it was announced so late, but did you get an answer?
Because we absolutely shouldn’t be in this position. The Supreme Court ruling is no longer news, neither are the imminent elections where quotas apply, and a very recent Conference made it clear that members did not want this change.
Somebody is responsible for this appalling mismanagement of the situation, the lack of consultation, and the distress and anger caused.
The tone here is one which ultimately accepts the Supreme Court ruling in FWS, and regards the concerns of trans and non binary people as due to a lack of “clarity”. You cannot win our trust starting from the premise that the judgment was fair or reasonable. Unless you commit to overturning it with legislation you’re just arguing about exactly how big a smile to wear while oppressing us.
Dear Josh
Your empathetic response to the plight of trans and non- binary members of our party is welcome.
However, you have not tackled the governance issues that the the manner and timing of the Party’s announcement bring into focus.
How will you ensure that the decision and background to it is fully scrutinised and accounted for with full transparency?
Are you content that the Party organisation has disregarded the clear wishes of members at the Spring and Autumn Conferences?
Will you insist that that the legal advice relied upon for this change by the Party is publicised?
How will you ensure that the Party does not do this on sick a back handed way on other issues in the future?
Do you think you will be able to go against the Party when necessary given that you are under the Party Whip?
I would be grateful for your responses to these questions. Best wishes Barbara
Can I ask that we more careful with the language we use about each other & the assumptions we make about each others motives ? I can’t help feeling that many Transphobes will be happy to see us taking chunks out of each other.
Can I also ask that we all consider the likely result of defying The Law, namely that we end up having to give a big bag of money to whichever Transphobic group takes us to Court first, money they would use for more Transphobic Campaigns. How would that help ?
Can I ask why the Lib Dems changed their minds after making it clear that they would not be prepared to exclude trans women from the quota, following the heckling at the Spring Conference? I think it is very sad that some of the Lib Dems are against transgender people and want to see them excluded from society. This is not what the Lib Dems stand for. I have met Sir Ed Davey on several occasions, and my own MP, and they support trans people. So, the spokesperson who made the statement that they wished to see the new Guidance issued by the EHRC in force as quickly as possible, clearly is not Transfriendly. It appears that Sir Ed Davey was not aware of this statement as he has made it clear that he supports the Transgender Community, but is aware that the Lib Dems are divided in support for Transgender people. I do not believe that the lawyers with whom the Lib Dems party checked to make sure that they were complying with the Law (even though the Guidance in question is not in force and probably never will be, due to the flaws in it) actually said that it was fine to exclude Transwomen from the quota. The present Guidance is still in force and not outdated. I just find it astonishing that the Lib Dems have been ‘brainwashed’ by activist groups who are against Transgender people. It is very disappointing.