Majority of Cambridgeshire County Councillors back motion supporting rights of transgender men, women, and non-binary individuals
A majority of councillors at Cambridgeshire County Council agreed to back a motion sharing support for the rights of transgender men, women, and non-binary individuals.
The motion was put forward by Cllr Alison Whelan (Liberal Democrat), who said trans people receive a “disproportionate amount of repression and hate”.
Some councillors said they could not support the motion and accused it of “virtue signalling”.
The motion was debated at a full council meeting on Tuesday.
It called for the county council to publicly reaffirm its commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion, and to ensure that women and girls, trans men, trans women and non-binary individuals are protected from gender-based violence and systemic discrimination.
The motion referenced the recent Supreme Court ruling that decided that under the Equality Act 2010 ‘sex’ means biological sex and that ‘woman’ refers to a person born female and ‘man’ refers to a person born male.
It said this ruling had “significantly impacted the legal recognition of trans and non-binary individuals, restricting their rights and exacerbating discrimination”.
Cllr Whelan said her motion was designed to support all people across Cambridgeshire, but focused on a small group she said were currently receiving a “disproportionate amount of repression and hate”.
She read a letter to the meeting from a transgender person who said simply by existing they were being “called a threat, a danger, a problem to be solved”.
Cllr Whelan added that people who take rights away from one group of people “then take them away from everyone”.
She said the motion offered the county council the chance to show its support and that it cares for “not just trans men, trans women, and non-binary people, but to every single person in this county”.
Cllr Yannifer Malinowski (Liberal Democrat) seconded the motion. She said most of the people she had spoken with since being elected were either unaware or perfectly happy to have a transgender woman as their councillor.
She said her gender identity had not been an issue since she was elected, but she would never have had the “confidence or personal strength” to be a councillor if she had not transitioned.
She raised concerns about the impact of the Supreme Court ruling, which she said was “misguided and misquoted” and had been “twisted and warped by sinister forces in our politics to push transgender people back”.
Cllr Malinowski said a “toxic political and social climate” was making day-to-day life for trans people “really difficult”.
She said: “We must show that against this backdrop we here in Cambridgeshire stand in solidarity with the LGBT+ community, especially trans men, women and non-binary people, who face the greatest of all barriers to acceptance.
“Please resolve as this motion says to publicly reaffirm this council’s commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion, ensuring all women and girls, including trans women like me, and trans men and non-binary individuals, are protected from gender based violence and systemic discrimination.
“And most importantly please let’s resolve to fight for the strong protections for women and girls, including trans women, and also for trans men and non-binary individuals to ensure our rights to education, healthcare and social support are safeguarded going forward in these very uncertain times.
“Supporting this motion is the least we can do in the wake of this hostile interpretation of the misguided and misquoted supreme court ruling.
“It will make such a difference for people out there like me to hear at least someone, somewhere in a position of power actually cares and gives a damn about our lives and about the challenges now facing our community.”
Cllr Elisa Meschini (Labour) said the debate on this issue had become a culture war and made a “political football of real people and communities who just wish to live a dignified life”. She said the impact of this had been “heartrending to see” and thanked Cllr Whelan for bringing the motion for the council to show its support.
Cllr Elliot Tong (Green Party) said he did not think the government should have any role in defining someone’s gender identity.
He said: “Trans men are men, trans women are women and non-binary identities are valid.”
Some councillors raised concerns about the motion.
Cllr Ross Martin (Conservative) said he really appreciated the stories shared with the meeting by Cllr Whelan and Cllr Malinowski, and said his ‘heart goes out to them’.
He said the concerns raised were “100 per cent concerns” they all should be talking about, but said he “urged some caution”, adding that it was not for the council to challenge the court ruling.
Cllr Martin said it had been made clear that the law “still provides strong protections for trans people under protected characteristics”.
He also raised concerns that the motion was “alarmist” and said “legal clarity does not equate to hostility”.
He said: “I stand for compassion, I stand for understanding differences, but I also stand for respecting the law.”
Cllr Charlotte Lowe (Conservative) said she recognised the “importance of protecting all from discrimination”. However, she argued the motion “misrepresents” the Supreme Court ruling and said it “did not remove rights from trans individuals, but clarified the legal definition of women”.
Cllr Lowe also raised concerns that the motion “risks undermining single sex spaces which are lawful and necessary”.
Cllr James Sidlow (Reform UK) accused the motion of “virtue signalling”.
He said it was an “emotive subject”, but that he had to “strongly criticise the motion”, claiming it was “steeped in gender ideology” and that it “promotes the idea of personal identity overrides sex”.
Cllr Sidlow added that the Supreme Court ruling affirms that sex refers to biological sex. He said “this protects women and girls” and argued the motion “seems to disregard it”.
Cllr Whelan said the motion had been “carefully constructed to comply with the law”.
She thanked the councillors who had “spoken up with compassion and support”. She said: “Those who have spoken against trans lives, so be it, they do not need your approval to exist, nothing will stop them from existing, they have existed throughout history.
“There is no gender ideology, just people, not movement, just people.”
The motion was ultimately backed by a majority of councillors, with 40 voting in support and 15 voting against.