Are the Lib Dems about to turn their backs on the Equality Act?

Lib Dem Autumn conference 2026 was unexpectedly eventful for all the wrong reasons.  

While the conference agenda had been carefully crafted in advance, with input from the Policy and Conference Committees as well as HQ and the Policy Unit, in order to aid the stage management of a successful conference that would launch the party’s new bold and radical direction, studiously avoiding any sign of controversial or “toxic” debate, LGBT+ Lib Dems managed to blow those plans out of the window with their “Emergency” motion, “Restoring Trans Rights” (aka “Destroying Women’s Rights”).

The motion featured on the Emergency Motions ballot alongside others about, for example, tackling the summer wildfires threat and tackling Trump. Conference delegates were invited to rank it among 5 others in order of preference.

There are several serious issues with the motion and the process of it being debated:

1. This motion was not an emergency. 

The Supreme Court ruling was a year and a half ago. There was never any doubt as to what it said: Women are female according to the Act. You can't change sex. Even with a special certificate.

The rationale for the motion being considered an “emergency” apparently stems from the fact that the EHRC Code of Practice for service providers, which interprets how single sex services can be delivered, officially took effect on 5th August 2026, precisely as scheduled.  

But the Code only interpreted what was said in the ruling: Women are female. A special certificate doesn’t change that. There was no chance whatsoever that the Code of Practice was going to say something other than what’s in law - no amount of wishful thinking by activists was going to change that. 

2. The motion was based on a falsehood: “Restoring Trans Rights”. 

Trans people haven't lost any rights - the Supreme Court ruling didn't change the law, it simply clarified it. 

In fact what has been happening since the ruling - albeit at a glacial pace, thanks to widespread institutional resistance - is that women’s rights - to safety, privacy, dignity, fairness - have started to be properly restored. 

3. Such a radical change in policy has happened with barely any scrutiny or opportunity for debate.

The policy adopted calls for a “review” of the Equality Act. Given that this motion is responding to the Supreme Court Ruling on the meaning of sex in the Equality Act (and associated Code) it follows that the intention would be to change the definition of sex in the Act. Such a massive change - a departure from our 2024 Manifesto Pledge to Uphold the Equality Act - a policy change that would drastically impact the rights of 51% of the population - should never be allowed to get on the agenda as an emergency motion except under very unusual circumstances. 

Conference attendees had just two days to read the motion before voting on it. It’s worth noting that while 190 members (of the 727 who voted) ranked the trans motion as their first choice in the ballot, 189 ranked it last, with a further 195 people not ranking it at all

Finally, the motion was allowed just 30 minutes of debate in the auditorium. Despite many of our members submitting speakers cards, only two of them were allowed to speak in the debate (only one of whom was a woman), vs 7 speakers in favour. Furthermore, the debate was scheduled late in the day on Monday - when many members, especially women with caring responsibilities - had already gone home. For such a consequential policy, the way it was handled - with minimal scrutiny and with minimal democratic engagement - was woeful.

From the stage, we heard the familiar list of smears about people who believe women are female being associated with the US far right, we heard how trans people were suffering immeasurably since women had their rights confirmed (interesting considering “there is no conflict between women's rights and trans rights”) and strange “scientific” claims that people really can be born with the wrong-sex brain inside their skull. 

Our Zoe Hollowood - the only woman permitted by conference to speak against a motion to fundamentally undermine women's rights - gave a superb speech highlighting the grave real life consequences and illiberal nature of the project to erase the concept of sex in law. 

Mark Johnston - the other speaker against the motion made the point - glaringly obvious to many - that this policy would be a gift to Nigel Farage.

Both were scolded by the summator from the podium - Mark for no particular reason and Zoe for the crime of “misgendering” - ie referring to a man as male. Astute conference-goers will perceive the inherent totalitarian perversity of this ideology: women who want to debate the problem of men in women’s spaces should only be allowed to do so while referring to men as women, and in all cases with the pronoun “she”.

While faced with immense hostility in the room, beyond the conference walls her speech generated at least 12 newspaper articles as well as mentions in various blogsno less than xxx news articles across the spectrum of outlets. The recording of it has gone viral, with over 500,000 views on X at the time of writing. The hashtag #ZoeForLeader continues to pick up pace. In a nod to David Steel’s famous address to the party faithful in 1981, Mark Johnston’s question - "Are we going back to our constituencies to prepare for government, or are we going back to our bedrooms to prepare for irrelevance?” - has also been widely cited in news coverage. 

Equally, the experience at the Liberal Voice for Women exhibition stand couldn’t have told a more different story from what we saw in the auditorium. Throughout the four days a steady stream of interested members turned up at the stand to discuss and debate, and overwhelmingly to show solidarity with our pro women, pro reality, pro liberty campaign. We got more new member sign-ups than at any previous conference.

It's clear to us that although many members are yet to find their voice, they're starting to understand the issues - they can see what's wrong and they've had enough. Who could blame them for not wanting to subject themselves to the utter hostility we witnessed in the auditorium. The bullying, shaming and emotional coercion of gender critical members is something we hope to draw to the attention of the review that’s being conducted in the wake of the David Campanale case.

The passing of the motion, and the publicity around it, creates an opportunity for our campaign to step up a gear. It also creates a major dilemma for our MPs, all of whom stood on a manifesto pledge of upholding the Equality Act at the 2024 General Election. 

Where does this policy leave them? Will they now support moves to change the meaning of sex in law, given the chance? Will the next General Election manifesto no longer pledge to “Uphold the Equality Act”? Some of them have been duped into thinking this is a trans issue, just affecting a fringe population. When in fact it’s a women’s issue, affecting half of their constituents. If they haven’t yet learnt that they soon will. 

We hope readers will take the opportunity to email their MP and ask them how they intend to navigate this contradiction. If they seem stuck please direct them to us for a comprehensive briefing.