LGBT+ History Month

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in a debate that was opened with such excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne).

It is also an honour to speak having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), whose mention of “Beautiful Thing” got me thinking about the different ways that queer culture has been depicted in our culture. He reminded me of a social media post a few weeks ago by the TV critic Scott Bryan, who said that over his lifetime, LGBT+ and queer storylines have gone from

“being a rarity or…too controversial”

decades ago, to being in soaps, where they were often depicted as a moral outrage,

“to being occasionally mentioned but never explored (aka the gay best friend)”.

In other words, LBGT+ characters were presented but their storylines were never developed. Later, there would be some exploration, but typically there would be a tragic ending and the character would die. Later still, a gay or LGBT+ character might be explored, but only after the watershed, and really only to be embraced by an LGBT+ audience. In more recent years, we have seen the creation of queer shows, which may be targeted at younger people to tell them that everything is going to be okay, or, as we saw with “Heated Rivalry”, something altogether different—I think I will leave my description at that.

In thinking about that, I realised that what we are talking about are largely lesbian and gay TV shows, not trans TV shows. In turn, that made me realise that, although Pride is primarily of, by and for the people who dance under the same rainbow, it is also about liberation for everyone from prejudice. Really, we can only open our eyes to a safe and more compassionate society if we listen to trans people and protect them.

I want to reflect what some of my constituents who are trans have said to me. They have told me that they believe that too often their identities, their rights and the care that they receive are separated completely from what they need, and politicians do not listen to what they have to say. We do not realise that, although we talk in debates about the difficulties that trans people face, the predominant narrative is not universally true. It is not the case that all trans people are constantly suffering, depressed or impoverished. Susannah, who lives in my constituency, said:

“I am a very happy person leading an ordinary, productive and caring life. I am loved by my family, loved by friends. Trans people are doctors, accountants, crafts people, nurses, teachers, pilots, shopkeepers, carers… we are good and decent people spread across the country, leading productive lives.”

When we tell stories like my constituent’s, we are telling stories about real people and real families, and we are talking about the harms and the opportunities that society chooses to prevent or permit. In telling these stories, I also want to pay tribute to the parents of trans children; when society at large seems to have it out for their kid, that often takes a toll on them. They have fierce, unwavering love, but often that is ignored and their concerns go disregarded. I want them to know that I am listening to their views, just as I am listening to the views of their trans children.

That is particularly important because, although we do not choose our sexual orientation or gender identity, being openly gay or trans very much is a choice. I could no more be straight than a trans person could make themselves cisgender. The alternative is to stay in the closet and feel shame wash over you—a shame that can lead to anxiety, depression and sometimes even suicide. Being gay or trans is about choosing yourself—that is the choice. When our opponents try to make the cost of choosing yourself too severe to bear, when they try to make transgender people cisgender by denying them care or surgery, when they say that they seek to spare young people from medical care or surgery, they are effectively implying, although they do not say it, that people can be cured of being transgender—that all it takes to convert them is the denial of gender-affirming medical care or surgery.

That is important to dwell on given that Parliament will—very soon, I think—be considering a ban on conversion practices. We can ban the practices, but we have to realise that the rhetoric itself can be used to attempt to convert. Opponents do not care at all about the danger involved in forcing a transgender person to be cisgender, and they do not care that it will not work. Just as they would not see that forcing a gay person to be straight is dangerous and will not work, so they do not realise it about transgender people.

I choose to support trans young people in making their own decisions about transition, from early and more reversible options such as changing a name or pronouns, or starting puberty blockers, to less reversible options such as surgery, which usually come later. I choose to support trans youth in deciding their own identity and future, because it is wrong to force them to identify with the sex they were assigned at birth.

In fact, all of us here would choose to support anyone and everyone, in deciding their identity, to choose themselves, whatever that means and whatever it may be. When politicians in this place, on issues affecting trans people, divide us with rhetoric that inflames, unconcerned by whether the things they say can be backed up by evidence, they are pursuing a politics based on scapegoating, not science. Those who say that this move can be contained to trans people should know this: trans people can never be sidelined or sacrificed, because every human is entitled to dignity and respect. That comes through in the words of my constituent Antonia, who says:

“As a trans woman all I want is to receive the same health care, freedom and be able to live my life the same as everyone else. We work, pay bills, go shopping, watch TV and have friends. We’re not a cult or a freak show.”

In the words of Mich,

“The phobia whipped-up towards the trans and gender non-conforming is so disproportionate to the small numbers of us and how unthreatening we are — we’re just trying to live our lives”.

On its own terms, the argument falls apart. When trans people are attacked, it is not just harmful to trans people; it is about attacking trans people today, potentially with a view to attacking other minorities tomorrow. History warns us what happens when the way is paved and the bar is lowered for all minorities to be attacked. Too many of us who are not trans or gay simply are not free in our society and our country to choose themselves in their everyday life, and that is a problem.

We must all support trans young people. When we do not, it continues a problem that we have in our society of ignoring young people full stop. Whether it is about sexual orientation, gender or something else entirely, younger people go unlistened to. When that happens, it has a hugely negative impact on them. We should all choose to support trans and gay young people, but we should especially choose to support children and young people.

If we listened to many young trans people and enabled them to choose, we would listen to what they have to say about puberty blockers. Puberty blockers are reversible, but puberty is not. Puberty blockers can stop the harms of an unwanted, irreversible puberty, as children watch their bodies change in ways that might be difficult or impossible to undo later. That is why it matters that young people do not miss the window in which blockers can prevent the irreversible physical changes of puberty while simultaneously extending the diagnostic period. In other words, blockers are a way to buy time and enable young people to have the choice and freedoms to explore their identity without the added stress of pubertal changes. With blockers, children report feeling less anxious and more comfortable with themselves. Liberated from the constant dread of puberty, they can bring their focus back to the things that matter in childhood and everyday life—learning, socialising and simply being kids. We know that pubertal suppression can help the mental health of trans children.

I said that we need to think about the science; at least eight recent studies have linked pubertal suppression to improved mental health, including a UK study that found improvements in overall psychological functioning. Those who oppose or query what I say should look at Rosalia Costa’s piece in the Journal of Sexual Medicine from 2015. Similarly, a study by a Harvard medical school research group found that adolescents who received puberty blockers had lower odds of experiencing suicidal ideation later in life compared with those who desired blockers but were unable to access them. There was an article by Jack Turban in Pediatrics in 2020 that is comprehensive on that point.

This goes to the point that we need all policy decisions to be led by the clinical evidence, but we also need to be clear-minded about what that means. In clinical medicine, it can never be known for sure what an outcome will be for patients. Medicine is always a field of probabilities, not certainties, and that will be true of puberty blockers. It is because they are so hotly politicised that we have to be careful to hold puberty blockers to the same standards as all other medication; we cannot allow the debate to fixate only on the risks and unknowns from medications that are emotionally charged and heavily politicised in our country. We need to do that, because gender dysphoria is real. It can show up in serious ways, including eating disorder symptoms and other mental health struggles. When we allow younger people and children to experience those harms, we are doing them and our society a disservice.

I hope that all politicians in this place will be led by the science and by compassion. I hope that with this Labour Government, we will see not just the conversion practices ban come forward in the time before the next King’s Speech, but, over the course of the first term of this Labour Government, a movement towards a trans persons’ civil rights Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mims Davies]

We’re all going, aren’t we?

One of the best things to happen to me over Christmas was to be at the celebration of Brad and Tom’s wedding.

[Tom Hayes]

The shadow Minister is talking about the introduction of same-sex marriage, and I want to emphasise that that was a moment of cross-party history. The Liberal Democrat Baroness Featherstone worked as part of the coalition Government with the Conservatives to introduce that legislation, which was carried overwhelmingly by Labour MPs. Does the shadow Minister recognise that as an example of cross-party consensus behind LGBT rights, which we should celebrate?

[Mims Davies]

I am delighted that it was the Conservative Prime Minister who I came into the House under who drove that legislation through. It truly was cross-party— I very much agree. Today is not about one-upmanship; it is about celebrating our party, our place and all the work we do where we can.

I had the joy of headlining and co-DJing the LGBT Conservatives’ closing party at party conference in 2025. It was the 50-year celebration. People described it as a cross between DJing and a Peloton class. The Terrence Higgins Trust reception is another staple of our party conference calendar. We hear at those events from members of our party—I am sure this has happened across many parties—who had to meet in secret. Those are now some of our most popular events at conference, and that shows deep pride in the change that we have all seen.

The first HIV testing was funded under a Conservative Government, and I am pleased to say that I got tested—as, I am sure, did many others—here in Parliament this week. It was quick and easy, and it was important to remind people that they can show their status, and get treatment and peace of mind for themselves and their loved ones. It rightly tackles the stigma that remains; the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) mentioned “the gay plague” and the previous stigma.

I encourage people to sign up to get a test online and have it delivered to their door, whether they are in my constituency, in Sussex or in the rest of the United Kingdom. Being rural or far away from a sexual health clinic should not hold people back from getting tested and staying safe. I welcome the updated HIV strategy, which builds on previous heavy lifting by the Conservatives. In 2014, we legalised self-testing kits for HIV, and they were rolled out in 2015. We then had the PrEP trial in 2017. This gives me the opportunity to point out that women, older people and ethnic minorities are all more likely to get diagnosed late, so they should look after themselves by taking the test.

I thank all the charities and campaigning groups, because we all want to say the same thing: love who you love and make sure that you take advantage of the opportunities that are out there. It is key that we get more ambitious with PrEP usage in order to get to the goal to which we are all committed: ending new HIV cases.

Finally—I have said this previously, especially to my constituents, but it is especially true as we head towards Valentine’s day—we all need to be clear that no matter what political party people support, where they live or who they love, they should never feel unsafe or worried about who they are. We will always work together to strive for dignity, inclusion and compassion.