Women’s rights and Trans dignity are not opposed: a Christian rebuttal to a false choice
Charlie Lord OBE, Trustee, Treasurer and Company Secretary, writes:
A persistent claim in contemporary debate is that the inclusion of trans people, particularly trans women, comes at the expense of women’s rights. This claim has gained renewed prominence in church and media commentary, often presented as a sober and commonsense position. It is neither. It rests on theological misunderstanding, scientific overreach, and a deeply flawed account of how rights work. In response to a recent Church Times column asking whether trans and women’s rights are opposed, I set out below why this is a false choice, why the evidence does not support it, and why Christians should resist narratives that legitimise exclusion in the name of protection.
Madam, I write in response to Paul Vallely’s column, “Are trans and women’s rights opposed?” (2 January). While the question is framed as an invitation to balance competing claims, the article ultimately reinforces a false and damaging premise: that the dignity, safety, and legal recognition of trans people must come at the expense of women’s rights. From a Christian, ethical, and evidential perspective, that framing is deeply flawed.
Theologically, the Church should be wary of any argument that treats human dignity as a finite resource. The Christian doctrine of creation affirms that all people are made in the image of God, reflecting divine creativity in manifold and sometimes unexpected ways. Christ’s ministry consistently widened the circle of belonging, dismantling social and religious barriers rather than policing them. To suggest that the flourishing of trans people threatens the rights of women is to misunderstand both justice and the Gospel. Rights are not a zero-sum game; they are an expression of our shared commitment to protect the vulnerable and uphold human dignity.
From a legal and human rights standpoint, this oppositional framing is equally unconvincing. The Equality Act was designed to extend protection, not to create hierarchies of deservingness. Supporting trans inclusion does not require the erosion of women’s rights. On the contrary, it reflects the same moral impulse that has driven advances in women’s equality: the rejection of discrimination rooted in fear, stereotype, or social exclusion. My own long-standing advocacy has rested on precisely this principle, that justice is strengthened, not weakened, when more people are brought within the circle of protection.
Vallely’s conclusion, however, rests heavily on a further claim: that trans women retain enduring physical advantages from male puberty and should therefore be excluded from women’s spaces and women’s sport. This assertion is frequently repeated, but it is not supported by settled scientific evidence. The relationship between adolescent development, gender-affirming hormone therapy, and adult physical capacity is complex and still under active study. What evidence we do have points away from the idea of immutable advantage. Longitudinal studies indicate that trans women undergoing oestrogen therapy and testosterone suppression experience significant reductions in muscle mass, strength, and athletic performance over time, with many measures converging towards female-typical ranges after one to two years, and further changes observed over longer periods. Reviews of the available data consistently emphasise that there is no high-quality evidence demonstrating a fixed or universal physical superiority once standard medical treatment has been in place for several years. While the research base remains limited and evolving, it does not support the confident claims of permanent advantage that are so often used to justify blanket exclusion.
Crucially, debates about sport and safeguarding are being used, rhetorically and politically, to legitimise the exclusion of trans women from everyday spaces such as toilets, changing rooms, and refuges. This is not evidence-based policy making; it is the moralisation of fear. Trans women are not a threat to women’s safety, and there is no credible evidence that inclusive policies increase risk. What is clear, however, is that exclusion causes harm, particularly to a small and already marginalised group.
As Christians, our calling is not to rehearse secular culture wars under a theological veneer, but to bear witness to truth, compassion, and justice. That requires us to resist false dichotomies, to attend carefully to evidence, and to listen to the lived experience of trans people, many of whom are people of faith seeking nothing more radical than to live honestly and safely. Women’s rights and trans rights are not opposing causes. They are bound together by a shared commitment to human dignity, bodily autonomy, and freedom from discrimination.
I hope that Church Times will continue to encourage a conversation that is rigorous, evidence-informed, and rooted in the inclusive love at the heart of the Christian faith.
Yours faithfully,
C. E. Lord OBE
Churchwarden, St Lawrence Jewry next Guildhall
Trustee, OneBodyOneFaith
This article was submitted as a letter to the editor of Church Times in response to Paul Vallely’s column “Are trans and women’s rights opposed?” (2 January 2026). It reflects my personal views as a Christian and public advocate for inclusion. I write in good faith and welcome thoughtful engagement grounded in evidence, compassion, and respect.
