Another Your Party MP is accused of ‘explicit transphobia’
On 14 November, Adnan Hussain of the Independent Alliance of MPs stepped away from the Your Party steering process. Your Party supporters have previously accused Hussain of transphobia, leading to reactions like the following:
oh no, they lost the transphobic landlord, how ever will the project continue… https://t.co/NfIfLpZWN1
— Ben Smoke (@bencsmoke) November 14, 2025
Now, Independent Alliance MP Iqbal Mohamed has defended Hussain’s past comments, drawing transphobia accusations of his own.
Your Party suggesting a ‘third space’
Maryam Jameela wrote the following for the Canary on 7 September:
Both Corbyn and Sultana have been rare shining lights in British politics over the last few years. At the Canary we’d love nothing more than for whatever Your Party becomes to be successful. We have the same values, the same politics, and the same goals.
So, when we say the following it’s in the spirit of wanting to work together to have better futures for the people that have been abandoned by mainstream politics: Your Party has a transphobia problem brewing and it must be addressed.
In that article, she highlighted messages from Hussain including the following:
As Jameela noted:
It has become a transphobic talking point to consider trans people a threat to cis women’s spaces. Hussain’s easy agreement with this moral panic is extremely worrying.
Hussain’s argument that ‘socially conservative’ Muslims should be free to hold transphobic views was not shared by a majority of potential Your Party supporters, it turned out. And importantly, people on the left are not supportive of the same argument in reverse.
A recent example of this was when trans essayist Contrapoints issued a statement in which she criticised the left for vociferously opposing the Palestinian genocide. In that post, she admitted her feelings were driven in part by the fact that she’s a trans woman, as she believed the pro-Palestinian movement made it impossible for the genocide-overseeing Kamala Harris to win the 2024 election — ultimately resulting in the aggressively transphobic Trump seizing power.
How did the left respond?
They certainly didn’t respond by saying trans people should have space to diminish the West’s collective responsibility for an Islamophobic genocide.
For the most part, leftists told Contrapoints that you cannot pick and choose which groups deserve human rights, and that if Kamala Harris didn’t want to lose the 2024 election, she should have pledged to end Israel’s genocide — something she could have achieved with a phone call once she became president.
‘In logic or law’
Iqbal Mohamed has now suggested he holds the same opinion as Adnan Hussain:
advocating trans people need to be segregated off into third spaces is transphobic iqbal.
— Ben Smoke (@bencsmoke) November 14, 2025
1. replace words ‘trans people’ with black people or muslims + argue that advocating they use facilities segregated from the rest of society isn’t racist
2. it’s not british law, even if it was, wouldn’t mean it wasn’t transphobic. plenty of law through history has been wrong.
— Ben Smoke (@bencsmoke) November 15, 2025
This is how people responded:
2 out of 5 “Your Party” MPs are now explicitly transphobic.
Both Adnan Hussain and Iqbal Mohamed have now called for trans people to be banned from single-sex spaces. pic.twitter.com/L4X8YU8Rqb
— Stats for Lefties 🍉🏳️⚧️ (@LeftieStats) November 15, 2025
okay that’s it i literally cannot defend Your Party any longer – it’s MPs are addicted to coming online to remind trans people that their socialist vision of the future involves trans people being outed in public or forced into spaces that endanger us! https://t.co/SyjvaIO29W
— babey 🏳️⚧️ (@edenbound_) November 15, 2025
Notes, there is not even an argument that this wouldn’t be segregation – the soft lie used to make this a seemingly permissible position. This is a pro-segregation position. https://t.co/acqHjYQ5zp
— GlumBird (@GlumBird) November 15, 2025
We should note that Mohamed didn’t explicitly say he agrees with Hussain. We approached Mohamed to ask him to clarify his position, but he hadn’t responded at the point of publication. He has tweeted since we asked the question, however, posting a response to Ben Smoke’s comment above about ‘segregated facilities’:
there’s no false equivalence, both groups facing crackdowns and oppression from the state, both groups of human beings deserving of basic human rights who don’t inherently present threat to others (which is the root of your argument).
— Ben Smoke (@bencsmoke) November 15, 2025
Novara, meanwhile, has reported that Mohamed may have already been on his way out:
Novara Media is reporting that Iqbal Mohamed also doesn’t want to be a member. https://t.co/YCwnoiZhe3 pic.twitter.com/4EJq1292ek
— tombricks 🇵🇸 (@tombruhcks) November 14, 2025
Featured image via Iqbal Mohamed
Comments 19
Leave a Reply
The Canary
PO Box 71199
LONDON
SE20 9EX
Canary Media Ltd – registered in England. Company registration number 09788095.
For guest posting, contact [email protected]
For other enquiries, contact: [email protected]
© Canary Media Ltd 2026, all rights reserved | Website by Monster | Hosted by Krystal | Privacy Settings
Transition does not change male offending patterns – no male, however he identifies, belongs in women’s or girls’ protected, sex-segregated spaces.
No one is born in the wrong body.
That is demonstrably false!
Why?
How predictable. The leaders of the left, and their entourage, shamelessly leading the working class down another dead end. History repeating itself, this time as farce. The ruling class are chuckling to themselves at how easy it is to divide one section of workers against the others. Divide and rule: a strategy considerably older than the failure of reformist politics.
The rights of women should be a priority for any left wing party. These rights need to be protected from men however they identify themselves. Screaming TERF or worse at Women who stand up for their rights is playing into the hands of the right.
The canary is in the grip of trans ideology.
An ideology that falls apart under the mildest of scrutiny.
Indeed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkttzU86CFE
So these MPs are now “transphobic” for being concerned about women’s safe spaces, or women’s sports. Not for denying anyone the right to “identify” as the opposite sex. I am reminded of the accusations of Antisemitism directed at those who who who are critical of the worst excesses of Israel’s genocide. The problem with any identity politics is that there are always those who “take the piss”. It was identity politics that gave the world Israel!
There are compromises that have to be made between women’s safety and the rights of trans people to express themselves. Until trans rights advocates appreciate that, they will destroy the left!
Exactly.
https://davehansell.substack.com/p/joining-the-dots
“Just as critics of Israel (Jewish critics included) are depicted as antisemitic, so, to take one high profile example of the same process at work, are those who insist sex is binary and biological (trans-women like Deborah Hayton included [ depicted as transphobic.
Just as to be accused of anti-Semitism is to be guilty of it, notably in the McCarthyite climate of a British Labour Party deeply and overtly hostile to all talk of class, so is it with the transphobia charge.
A process used by those who cares less about what is being done, and more about who is doing it to whom. Those designated as virtuous can do no wrong, and those designated as villains can do no right. At every level. In every context…..
…..Ordering people on pain of every form of ostracism, backed by Establishment Institutions and Corporations, to ‘wheesht for Thatcherism’ is not and never will be a successful or winning approach.”
Would the Canary support a policy of desegregation in toto? End ALL gender segregation. One toilet facility, one changing rooms, one prison system, one sporting body.
Why not?
“to remind trans people that their socialist vision of the future involves trans people being outed in public or forced into spaces that endanger us!”
And who is it that is “endangering” them? Men? So then you are capable of comprehending why born women feel the same way about born-male transwomen, can’t you?
But you just don’t want to, because Ideology, pride, and ego.
Ben Smoke are you of the belief only Heterosexual’ are Bigoted, that all the members of the Gay Community are squeaky clean and say nothing insulting or demeaning about Heterosexual People, People with Mental Health Disabilities, Physically Disabled People, Unemployed People, Homeless People, People in Glass Houses you should be capable of finishing the phrase Mr Smoke, and as another old saying goes there is No Smoke Without Fire, I will finish by asking You these question’ Do You pander to the Right and do You have an adverse dislike toward Jeremy Corbyn and the Left the British Jews for Labour or any Jewish Right Wing terrorist group for that matter, will ever again instigate the removal of a British Political Leader, These criminals have been found out and if I were you I would tread carefully I do not see any posts of you attacking Starmer Reeves Streeting or the other useless Cabinet Members nor the Incompetent Party in General.
Precisely.
The third constant in life, additional to death and taxes, is that it does not matter what aspect of human existence one examines but that there will always be some who take advantage to the point of, to use industrial language,, kicking the arse out of it.
This is why society attempts to create and maintain rules and laws based on objective based empirical evidence which covers everyone.
The argument being presented is a subjective narrative made up of three elements:
(i) refusal to recognise and accept any possibility of anyone within the monopoly defined wider self-selected/referenced group/gang could or would ever act in bad faith by taking advantage of any system of rights to the detriment of others.
(ii) conversely, with anyone not part of the wider self-identified group/gang the opposite is the case. With no room for consideration of good faith positions outside of the group/gang. Anything not totally in line with the artificially manufactured “reality” and its narrative is by definition bad faith acting by others against the purist position of that subjectively derived ‘reality’;
(iii) selective application of the espoused principle by limiting it to one group and denying the same reciprocal rights to others. Insisting only they and no other identifiable group have the sole monopoly legitimate right to express, advance and enforce their subjective feelings and version of reality on grounds that anyone else is acting in bad faith and automatically guilty of oppressive hatred by ‘imposing their reality on others whilst practicing the same process itself.
A disingenuous and dishonest position and approach, employing a blatant double standard, on a number of levels designed to intimidate and silence.
This rebranding and relabelling something as “left” or “progressive” makes it possible to enforce and get away with any old reactionary policies and behaviours..
If the political left genuinely seeks to be taken seriously in terms of doing the business, it needs to engage with these realities in a mature and grown up manner, rather than operating as though it were in a school playground.
Mossad / CIA / MI5 / MI6 / The Establishment have obviously been busy cultivating the labyrinthine and incomprehensible politics of trans-rights and transphobia within Your Party.
The Green Party will soon be their next target.
They’ve seen how successful the anti-Semitism scam was in derailing Corbyn.
Recognise the pattern comrades and avoid another victory for the right-wing and the Establishment.
Fail to do so and left politics will again be shipwrecked by the identity politics zealots.
The right wing must be laughing their hats off.
As this cartoon observes……..
https://steelcityscribblings.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/power-loves-identity-politics.jpg
……there is nothing more effective in undermining class solidarity and class politics than diverting focus towards the sovereign individualism and atomisation inherent in the concept of self-id. Which actually segregates people into smaller and smaller interest groups and abandons the materialistic analysis which defines the political left, whilst ceding the economic and class based ground and its struggle to the individualist political right.
The insistence on the primacy of subjective based individual/group narratives over testable evidence based objective social reality, because objective society does not exist, only the subjective feelings and narratives of the individual and the group, has familiar echoes.
It should do because this is the narrative of “no such thing as society, only the individual and the family” philosophy of Thatcherism.
An approach which should be anathema to any political or social based group, organisation or institution claiming to be progressive or of the left. It is divisive and represents an extremely effective divide and rule Class based attack using the disguise of left/progressive labels. Salami slicing groups in society which do and should have more in common with each other in a hierarchy of oppression sold as “progressive” by identity politics.
Driving a coach and horses through the principle of equality in terms of objective treatment and approach in favour of subjective — ie selective — judgement based on identity and where that subjectively manufactured identity is located within that manufactured hierarchy of oppression pecking order and rejecting outright any practical notion of a wider society.
Randism on steroids. The rallying cry was once ‘No Pasaran.’ Today it is ‘No Reciprocation.’ Thatchers no such thing as society coming home to roost in a cuckoo that pretends to be ‘left’ and ‘progressive.’
A process and approach which ultra emphasises subjective based differences to divide what should be united. Where Class based action is neutralised in favour of an atomised approach of a war of all against all in order to achieve and maintain control against any practical challenge to the current status quo within that artificially manufactured hierarchy of oppression and the primacy of its narrative. Which is why it is actively supported and financed by authoritarian State institutions and organisations from the police service and judiciary through to corporations and the media — both corporate and in some cases “left” media — across a variety of issues. [19]
“Thus arises an intriguing ‘binary’ relationship between extreme individualistic subjectivism and extreme state authoritarianism. Assertion of non-negotiable pseudo-sacrosanct narcissistic power is common to both. Objective law as irreducible sphere of reality is subverted by arbitrary personalism. Might determines right. Autocracy of self-ID is mirrored by autocracy on high.” (courtesy Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh: https://gordondangerfield.com/2021/05/09/letter-to-a-friend/#comment-2979 )
So, it seems that what Adnan and possibly Iqbal are concerned about is that the membership of Your Party are not “socially conservative”. A brief reminder of what that phrase means: “Social conservatives support the traditional family (nucleated family, male breadwinner, obedient children, female housewife), the traditional definition of marriage (no gay marriage or suchlike), and religious influence in public life (obedience to the preacher), while often opposing abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and secularism. Social conservatives are anti feminist, anti gay, anti trans, and anti secularist. They have a great deal in common with Yaxley Lennon’s political movement (except for one thing, of course).
Thing is, he’s probably right. Your Party is unlikely to adopt any of those positions (but, we’ll wait and see). He’s also right in seeing these things as fundamental to any political movement.
If (and it would seem so) that is his personal opinion then he clearly would find it impossible to remain within a party of the Left. They are not of the Left, and perhaps hoped that they would be able to oversee the party development process to ensure that Your Party built around the principles of social conservatism and anti-zionism. Having failed to do that they are off. I can’t wish them luck with their own new political organisation, indeed I hope to see the day when all social reactionaries are negated by overwhelming public opinion.
Reactionaries and Conservatives are quite different.
A Conservative may wish to slow the process of Progressive change, but will compromise, and when the changes are common sense and widely popular (Such as gay marriage fx), will also come to support them quickly. They will become “Traditional freedoms” to defend.
A Reactionary on the other hand wishes to actively reverse Progressive policies, will not compromise, and will refuse as ‘Traditional’ anything except the most brutal and ‘medieval’ policies. They may commonly even hate actual Conservatives more than they do the Progressives.
This is why Murdoch and by extension his ‘readers’, are properly described as “Reactionary”, rather than merely conservative.
And why a social-conservative with pro-welfare ideals can still belong in a progressive party.
Worth people reading WSWS.org on ‘Your Party’. ‘The essential question is not which bureaucrat is backed by the pseudo-left, nor is it a case of “breaking” from them when they inevitably betray. What is necessary is for workers and young people to reject all efforts to subordinate their struggles to a reformist agenda.’ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/11/11/lqhk-n11.html
A valid line of argument which needs more meat on the bone.
Starting with the concept of reform agendas, which represents a less explicit way of recognising that the problems in the UK and the Collective Worst in general are structural.
The cul-de-sac in which the present manifestation of what self-identifies as the ‘political left’ is trapped mirrors that of the ‘political right’:
https://warwickpowell.substack.com/p/post-liberalisms-funhouse-mirror
“It* offers no economic program. Rather, it’s a politics of cultural grievance. The alt-right’s failure is structural, reflecting the foundations of a political economy that has – for at least four decades, and perhaps more – hollowed out the foundations of a half-decent life for a growing proportion of people.”
*The term “it” here being just as applicable to the Western cultural paradigm and its structural failure and collapse as it is to the various political philosophies operating within that cultural paradigm.
Indeed, much of what thie author of this polemic writes could substitute the terms “left/alt-left/progressive left/pseudo left” [delete whichever is inapplicable] for his term ‘alt-right’ and it would remain applicable.
Hello Dave. The above is just one of a number of articles that the WSWS have written regarding ‘Your Party from a Trotskyist perspective. Here’s another: ‘As the Socialist Equality Party has consistently argued, Labour’s degeneration and transformation into a party no less reactionary than the Tories, and similarly despised, is not the product of mistaken ideas and bad leaders. It is rooted in fundamental shifts within the foundations of world capitalism. The development of globalised production, falling profit rates and rampant financialisation backed by public debt have ended any possibility of combining a defence of the capitalist profit system with securing reforms, however limited.
The working class in Britain and internationally faces a world in which the super-rich oligarchy monopolises an ever greater percentage of the world’s wealth and the imperialist powers build up their militaries for wars for territory and resources. Workers’ collapsing living standards are the price to be paid, and police-state measures deployed and right-wing parties cultivated to repress resistance.’ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/07/27/ozvq-j27.html
‘An Open Letter to Supporters of Your Party’. ‘Your Party’s documents make no reference to history. Corbyn offers no explanation for the transformation of the 125-year-old Labour Party into a ruthless instrument for Thatcherite and far-right policies. None of the major struggles of the working class in Britain or internationally are reviewed.’ https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/10/22/gtsv-o22.html