Sex Matters YouGov poll on Supreme Court trans ruling causes concern

A YouGov poll commissioned by anti-trans group Sex Matters has suggested that 50 per cent of Labour voters support the UK Supreme Court’s decision on the Equality Act’s definition of a woman.

The ‘gender-critical’ campaign group reportedly commissioned YouGov to analyse the UK’s response to the judgement, which ruled that the 2010 Equality Act’s definition of a woman and of sex is based on “biology” only.

Its implications have caused wide-ranging concerns among experts and activists, particularly following interim guidance on trans people’s usage of public single-sex spaces, published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which argued trans people should not be allowed to use any gendered public facilities.

Reported by The Sunday Times, YouGov’s polling suggested that the majority of Labour voters supported the Supreme Court’s judgement, while less than a third “believed it was wrong.”

The polling also found a divide between generations, with less than 31 per cent of under-24s supporting the decision, while 72 per cent of 50 to 64-year-olds felt similarly.

The article reported that 62 per cent of Labour voters supported sporting governing bodies that have banned trans women from female sporting competitions.

The poll also found that, overall, 63 per cent of all voter groups supported the Supreme Court’s decision, while 18 per cent believed it was wrong and 19 per cent said they didn’t know.

The poll has caused concern among many in the LGBTQ+ community, especially given its connection to Sex Matters.

“The average person doesn’t know or care about trans people and is just saying what they vibe with in most cases,” one user argued.

Others wrote that the suggestion that public support immediately makes a judicial decision “the right one” short-sighted.

A Labour source told The Times that they believe the polling proves prime minister Keir Starmer, who said he welcomed the result, is “in step with voters,” adding: “We don’t win by pretending the voters are in a different place than they are.”

Responding, a user on Reddit argued it is wrong for the government to “blindly follow public opinion irrespective of the moral rightness or wrongness of each policy.”

“If governments worked like that, we would never have had women’s suffrage, abolition of the death penalty, same sex marriage, etc,” they continued. “The point of Parliament … is that MPs are supposed to be better-informed than the electorate, and less likely to make reactionary decisions.”