What’s Wrong With A85?
The National Executive Committee are proposing a motion (A85) to Annual Delegate Conference, without seeking Proud’s views.
Whilst the NEC are perfectly entitled to propose motions for debate without seeking views of Proud, it is disappointing that it did not seek the views of its advisory body on LGBT+ issues.
You would think that any NEC that is serious about LGBT+ rights would at least listen to the ‘Voice of LGBT+ members in PCS’.
Conference notes….
This part of the motion is, to a degree, factually correct. However:
It goes against the overwhelming view of previous conferences that we should reject biological essentialism.
It does not acknowledge the severity of the lived safety issues that the Trans+ community have faced since the judgment. There was targeted harassment of a trans delegate at our very own conference last year when another delegate took it upon themselves to accost the trans person in the toilet. It does not recognise that trans people are now excluded from spaces in society that they previously weren’t.
Conference believes….
This section of the motion does deal with some things that may seem entirely reasonable. However:
The motion does not condemn the clarification as biological essentialism, as per previous conference policy.
The motion seeks negotiating compliance with the law. There is nothing here that PCS believes the law/judgment should be challenged.
The motion does not acknowledge that the freedoms of trans people prior to the judgment were changed once the judgment was handed down. This has stripped away de facto rights and freedoms that trans, nonbinary and intersex people had prior to the judgment.
It also acknowledges that people feel unsafe, unwelcome and unsure. This includes trans, nonbinary and intersex delegates to conference. A good President/Chair of conference would have called it out when a delegate stood up and delighted in the fact that they harassed a trans woman. However, that didn’t happen. Instead, delegates were instructed to raise the issue with the welfare team if support was needed.
By stating that we believe that any statutory guidance predicated on how a person looks will be unfair, dismisses our established position that trans women are women, trans men are men and that nonbinary and intersex people are valid. Our position should be that statutory guidance that denies trans, nonbinary and intersex people access to the spaces they previously occupied is unfair.
Conference instructs the NEC to….
There are a number of issues here.
PCS can hardly restate it’s commitment under Principal Rule 1, when the sitting President refused to deal with bullying, harassment and discrimination emanating from the rostrum. Our leadership cannot expect us to believe their words when their actions say otherwise.
The ‘where practical’ here accepts defeat and flies in the face of the principal that all spaces should be inclusive by default. The NEC should be campaigning for inclusive and gender neutral spaces to be a default, not accepting that it might not be possible.
Guidance for reps is all well and good, but this is, again, accepting transphobia by default, rather than challenging the unjust experience that trans, nonbinary and intersex people have had since April last year.
Whilst it is right that we should ensure that transphobic behaviours are not normalised as general discourse in the workplace, this motion doesn’t have any baseline positions. For example, our position on pronouns, our expectations for support for people who are receiving gender affirming care, it doesn’t set out clearly how we will deal with the CSEP policies when they are handed down to government departments.
The motion seeks to amend existing, democratically decided, policy in the union. Whilst it is the case that gender critical beliefs can amount to a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, it is also the case that we have established PCS positions that do not undermine the rights of those who hold those views. We have rejected biological essentialism as a union, but that doesn’t mean people can’t hold those views. Do you want the NEC amending policy without putting it to conference?
Why you should reject the motion
The motion seeks to amend PCS policy without the scrutiny of conference. Conference has debated policy on gender identity for many years and the Democracy Alliance/Left Unity position is often at odds with the conference floor.
The motion bows down to a judgment that many consider to be unjust. What we need from a trade union is the reaffirmation of our existing policy and a position that “where the law is unjust, we should fight the law”.
The motion is written by an NEC that is currently lead by members who have a record of opposition to Trans+ liberation, (they have regularly been at odds with motions put forward by LGBT+ members) and where Full Time Officials have been gatekeeping the LGBT+ experience. The General Secretary and President have refused to engage with PCS Proud in any meaningful way.
The National Standing Orders Committee, have routinely refused to publish motions on Trans+ liberation off the back of ‘legal advice’ and have even X-Marked motions to ADC 2026 that seek to change the broad rule that allows them to do that as ‘Unclear in intent’ despite the intent being quite clear. They don’t seem to do that on anything else that could lead to challenge, like our position on international issues. Interesting, isn’t it?
Proud Members' Meeting
PCS Proud holds a monthly members meeting on every last Tuesday of the month. The next meeting is 28th April 2026. If you are a member of the Proud network, please email equality@pcs.org.uk to be provided with the link.
