Gender Critical Beliefs: Equality Act 2010

Rosie Duffield Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered gender critical beliefs and the Equality Act 2010.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The Equality Act, passed by a Labour Government in 2010, protects people from discrimination based on nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. The Act has a commendable objective: to prevent people from acting on their prejudices and disagreements in a way that results in the discriminatory treatment of others. It exists not to eliminate difference or ensure conformity, but to foster good relations and tolerance between different groups.

Sometimes rights clash. Very few examples of that clash have played out as publicly and discordantly as that between sex and gender identity: that is, the rights of biological women, and sometimes men, and the rights of those who change their social gender to transition to women. Significant feminist gains have been made in policy and law since the women’s liberation movement of the 1970s. Those gains include recognition of specific rights and services for women on the basis of their sex, be that in hospital wards, prisons, rape services, domestic abuse shelters, lesbian dating sites and clubs, women’s health organisations and women’s sports teams—spaces that meet our specific requirements as women. Those gains are being eroded by the blind acceptance by some, including policy makers in this place, that anybody who identifies as a woman de facto becomes one. At a time when male violence against women and girls is at epidemic levels in the UK, women’s single-sex spaces could not be more important.

Our desire to be kind, inclusive and accepting are worthy and valuable human traits. It is that pursuit of tolerance that underpins our law on discrimination.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on her stance, courage and wise words. Does she agree that respect is a two-way street? Although we should respect someone’s belief, we have been edging towards a place where biblical questioning of a view is taken as an offence. I treasure, as the hon. Lady does, biblical beliefs. I fight for anyone to live their faith in so far as it does not lead to harm or injury. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government should also take that approach?

[Rosie Duffield]

I thank the hon. Member for his point. I agree that all of those beliefs should be—and are—protected under the law.

Our desire to be kind, inclusive and accepting are worthy and valuable human traits, and it is the pursuit of tolerance that underpins our law on discrimination. They are essential values in a pluralistic democracy where we can acknowledge, navigate and respect our differences. Yet a tendency has arisen in polarised debates, particularly around sex and gender, to treat holding a belief opposing one’s own as not merely a point of disagreement, but a moral defect in the person with whom one disagrees.

That has been clearly demonstrated in the terms that have been used for women who think that our biological sex matters, that it is a material reality that cannot be changed and is entirely different from gender identity—that is, gender-critical women like me. Nasty, puerile terms, many unrepeatable in this place but repeated ad infinitum across social media, such as bigot, Nazi, fascist and TERF—trans-exclusionary radical feminist—are just some examples.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the hon. Member is aware of the case of my constituent, Roz Adams, who was employed as a counsellor and support worker at Edinburgh Rape Crisis. She was investigated for potentially transphobic views, having asked how she would respond to a woman service-user who asked the sex of a support worker who identified as non-binary. Does the hon. Member agree that targeting women with gender critical views in turn targets women advocating for women’s services, especially for women survivors of rape and sexual assault?

[Rosie Duffield]

Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member so much for raising that case. It shocked and peaked quite a lot of people that just asking for single-sex services when they are more vital than ever got Roz Adams into so much hot water. It is absolutely unbelievable, and good luck to her in her fight.

Ironically, the name calling—the extreme, nasty and degrading names used for women and sometimes men who do not accept that biological men can be women—is often under the guise of “being kind”. Gender critical women are frequently shut down, told to be quiet, or told that it is not right to use accurate language to describe our bodies. Words and language matter, and material reality matters infinitely. There are situations where sex matters and the rights of women and girls must take precedence. Women and girls must be able to use language to describe our experiences and not be persecuted for causing offence or distress.

To believe in women’s sex-based rights and publicly advocate for them results in being readily labelled as hateful or transphobic. However, I am gender critical because I am a feminist and care deeply about the rights of women and girls. I do not seek to destroy the rights of trans-identifying people or any other group, and never have done. My sex-based rights as a woman have nothing to do with those other groups of people.

Gender critical beliefs are legally protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010, following the Forstater employment tribunal case in 2021. The tribunal found that Maya Forstater’s beliefs, which she sincerely holds, are widely shared, based on fact, and are reflective of the law of the land, yet despite that judgment, in the four years since there has been an unprecedented run—a steady stream—of similar high-profile and costly employment tribunal cases involving gender critical beliefs that point to a problem that many in this place refuse to acknowledge, including, I am afraid, the Minister responding to this debate.

The normalisation of visible hostility towards anyone expressing widely held gender critical beliefs, even on our own green Benches, has been framed as an expression of solidarity with trans and non-binary people. Those within organisations that sign up to expensive re-education programmes, many of which misrepresent the law, and diktats on all employees signing off emails with pronouns, legitimise the constant, passive-aggressive and soft—or even aggressive and open—bullying of those who refuse to comply.

Those who disagree with gender critical beliefs routinely stigmatise women like me as bigoted, a view that arises from a total misunderstanding of what our beliefs are or the motivations of many of those who share them. The social and financial costs of voicing gender critical beliefs, and of challenging assumptions in their workplace, mean that many are afraid and feel they cannot afford to speak up. Still, day after day people who raise concerns about boundaries around single-sex spaces such as changing rooms are being disciplined, dismissed, and hounded from their workplaces.

Two such cases currently attracting huge attention are those of the Darlington nurses and the Fife nurse, Sandie Peggie. Their tribunals have brought the clash of rights into sharp relief. Few people reading that when adult female nurses challenged their employers to stop biological men changing in the women’s changing room could believe that they were disciplined. I have yet to speak to a single British voter who believes that a man should have whatever access he desires to spaces where women are getting dressed or undressed for work. .

Our evidence base is limited, as academics are afraid to research this area for fear of ending up hounded out of their jobs, as academics Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Laura Favaro and many others have been. None the less, the body of evidence is growing. In its rapid evidence review on harassment and censorship to inform the Khan review published in March last year, More in Common found significant anecdotal evidence of harassment faced by groups of gender critical activists. Gender critical people face high levels of harassment in their everyday lives, leading to self-censorship on a scale that should alarm anyone who believes in liberal democracy—including gender critical MPs who have yet to speak up in public.

Gender critical people face severe consequences for engaging in the debate, ranging from social ostracization to loss of employment and livelihood, all for holding three core beliefs: that women—adult human females—are materially definable as a class of human being; that women are culturally, legislatively and politically important, with our own set of needs, rights and concerns; and that women have the right to meet and discuss freely that which affects our lives profoundly.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I take the opportunity to acknowledge the hon. Lady’s bravery in standing up for what she believes in. Does she agree with me that there is a wider political danger from this form of indoctrination and extremism about gender and sex, which is that if the only people in politics who are prepared to speak out about it are from extreme right-wing movements, and mainstream politicians are too afraid to say anything, it pushes ordinary people in the direction of political extremes?

[Rosie Duffield]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman so much for raising that important point. Just for speaking up, I, a left-wing member of the Labour party, have been called a Reform member and all kinds of names, and it has been suggested that I join a right-wing party, yet an awful lot of the articles I read agreeing with me are in the Morning Star. People do not really listen to the ideology behind our beliefs and why we speak up for the rights of working women, which is what the Labour party was founded to do.

We have a duty in this place to ensure that people who hold gender critical beliefs are given the respect they are entitled to. We need to find a workable solution that respects everyone’s beliefs and protected characteristics. I finish by paying tribute to the brave and incredible women—and some men—who know that only women have a cervix and who have stood up to those hounding them at great personal and financial risk to themselves: Maya Forstater, Allison Bailey, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Meade, Roz Adams, Denise Fahmy, Eleanor Frances, Almut Gadow, Laura Favaro, Amelia Sparrow, Jenny Lindsay, Kathleen Stock, Rosie Kay, Selina Todd, Rosa Freedman, Lizzy Pitt and my dearest TERF friends Jo Rowling, Suzanne Moore and supreme shero pioneer Julie Bindel. Those women are just the tip of the iceberg.

I was elected on a manifesto pledge to make the country work for working people. These are working people who are being persecuted for their legal and respectable beliefs. They continue to be let down by cowardly leadership. I have been hounded, harassed, sidelined and briefed against by a party now in government. It is time the Government got to grips with this issue, perhaps by following the lead of the incredibly brave women I have referenced here and the unsung foot soldiers who fight for women’s rights in the workplace the world over.