Trans voters have been told that refusing to back a party that undermines our rights is a form of “purity testing.”
That if we don’t fall in line behind the candidate who is slightly less hostile than the other, we are sabotaging our own future.
But here’s the truth: refusing to vote for someone who is willing to debate or dismantle your basic human rights is not a purity test – it’s self-preservation.
The “Purity Test” Accusation and Why It’s Wrong
When other groups refuse to support a candidate who threatens their rights, it’s seen as principled.
Nobody tells disabled voters they should compromise with a party pushing to cut essential support. Nobody expects women to vote for someone who undermines reproductive rights.
Yet, when trans voters set the same boundary, it’s dismissed as naive or unrealistic.
This isn’t a luxury demand. It’s a baseline requirement.
How Damage Limitation Voting Brought Us Here
We’re told elections are about damage limitation: choose the lesser evil, even if it’s still harmful.
That’s how many of us ended up voting Labour, to stop something worse.
But look where that’s led us.
The party that was supposed to protect us has quietly dismantled the commitments it made, leaving trans rights in tatters.
Labour’s Record: From Promises to Betrayal
Labour campaigned on dignity, equality, and protection for marginalised groups. In practice, it has:
- Abandoned its commitment to self-ID, despite years of promising reform.
- Refused to challenge the EHRC’s increasingly hostile stance toward trans people.
- Used language that panders to hostile media narratives, framing our rights as up for “debate.”
- Allowed key figures, including Keir Starmer, to publicly retreat from earlier pledges under pressure.
These are not isolated moments.
They are part of a pattern of appeasement to those putting the pressure on politicians.
The message is clear: our existence is negotiable.
That is not what we voted for.
The Necessity of Accountability
Voting for a party is not a blank cheque.
Political support should come with the expectation of accountability.
When a party betrays its promises, whether through action or inaction, it must be held to account.
Settling for harm, just because it’s slower or quieter than the alternative isn’t good enough.
What Trans Voters Should Demand Moving Forward
We cannot keep voting on the hope that the next government will be slightly less hostile.
We must insist that support for our rights is a minimum entry requirement for any party seeking our votes.
And we must demand accountability for every stance a party takes, not just on trans issues, but on all human rights.
Our votes are not automatic. They must be earned.
The Silence of New Voices
The emergence of Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn’s new party in the UK offers a potential alternative to the status quo. But potential is not enough.
While they have spoken strongly on many issues, their stance on trans rights has been notably quiet.
We cannot assume silence means safety. They too must be pushed to make their position clear, commit to defending our rights, and demonstrate they will not treat us as a bargaining chip.
Any party seeking our support must be ready to stand openly with us.
In Conclusion
The accusation of “purity testing” is a smokescreen to silence us.
We are not asking for perfection, but we are asking for basic safety, dignity, and equality – and vocal support of these.
If a party cannot offer that, they have no right to our vote.
If you like this post, please subscribe/share/like
Share ‘Purity Tests, Damage Limitation, and the Cost of Compromise‘ with others
Donate to Amelia’s Angels!
Everything we do: life coaching, support, advocacy ETC, is offered free. But a few kind people have asked how they can support the work, so this is a way to do that if you’d like to. What we’re building here will need funding down the line.
Discover more from Amelia's Angels
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
