The bill provides the legislative framework for digital verification services (DVS), which will allow people to prove their identity and facts about themselves by using apps and online services, backed by a government “trustmark”. 

The government says it supports the principle of data accuracy, but it is still going ahead with an approach based on the historic mess which has allowed “sex or gender identity” to substitute for sex in official records. This will allow people to have officially endorsed digital identities that allow them to “prove” that they are the opposite sex. 

Following the recent Supreme Court judgment which confirmed the importance of sex (meaning biological sex) as a characteristic in life and in law, it is critical that the government’s new digital identity system enables everyone to verify their sex data accurately, and does not “verify” false information or the mixed category “sex or gender” (which cannot be verified). 

The issue of unreliable data based on gender self-identity has already been discussed in the House of Lords. Safeguards were added to the Data Bill through amendments introduced by Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Lucas in January. These amendments were then removed in March in the Commons as the Government did not support them. They are now going to be proposed again by the Conservative front bench in the Lords. 

Since then the Supreme Court has pronounced clearly that the Scottish Government was wrong about the meaning of sex in the Equality Act. The Scottish Government’s position was also that of the UK Government, and of every regulator. 

The idea that “everything is okay” and nothing needs to be done with this bill to solve the problem of inaccurate and confused sex data is preposterous. 

The government appears to be suggesting that the DVS system will be able to “verify” gender as well as sex – despite the fact that the Supreme Court has made clear that gender is not a legal category that is recognised in UK law. It is planning to replicate the confusion that the Supreme Court has just cut through. 

Sex Matters has produced a briefing for peers on the amendments:

This includes the findings of a YouGov poll which asked people what sex data should be based on for digital verification services. The majority of people (54%) say biological sex at birth. 

The problem with current sex data collected by public authorities

Public authorities such as the DVLA, Passport Office and NHS allow people to change their recorded sex on request. This has been done by these agencies without any legislation, parliamentary oversight or robust record-keeping. It is estimated (based on the census) that up to 100,000 people may have different sexes recorded by different public bodies. 

If this problem is not solved before the government feeds this data through its new “information gateway” it will now be putting a false and unreliable “proof” of sex in everyone’s pocket. 

Not only does this allow people to have an app on their phone that “proves” they are the opposite sex – which data users will be required to treat this as authoritative information with government endorsement – but because different apps can get data from different government sources, they could switch apps and so switch sex at the press of a button. 

This will destroy the ability to reliably share and use data about sex, which is crucial for safeguarding, healthcare, single-sex services, sports and collecting demographic data, and for compliance with the Equality Act. 

In the debate in the House of Commons on 8th May 2025, Chris Bryant MP, the Minister of State for Data Protection and Telecoms, said that the government accepts the Supreme Court ruling and agrees that data accuracy is important. Nonetheless, he rejected an amendment by Dr Ben Spencer (which would have done something similar to these Lords amendments) and made a series of excuses for refusing to take adequate action. (Read these in more detail in our report of the debate.)

Excuse 1: don’t worry, we are already fixing bad sex data

IN FACT: While the government says it recognises the need for accurate sex data, it has given no indication that it has an effective plan to fix the historic failure illustrated by the Sullivan review. Meanwhile, it is steaming ahead with the Data Bill, establishing a new information gateway which will allow these inaccurate datasets to be used as the foundation for the new digital verification system. This is a problem that urgently needs solving. 

Excuse 2: digital identities don’t change anything

THIS IS FALSE: digital identities create new capabilities. Currently, people can use their passport to show a false sex, but when doing so they also reveal their name and date of birth. And any data user who is aware that “passport sex” is unreliable can reject a passport as proof of sex and use some other source instead, including the evidence of their own eyes. Once digital identities are rolled out, people will be able to “prove” their false sex without revealing any other personal information by using a general-purpose government-endorsed app. One obvious use will be online sexual fraud (“catfishing”). Nothing will stop an individual from having two trustmarked apps on their phone and being able to “prove” they are whichever sex suits them at any given moment. 

Excuse 3: even though digital identities claim to “prove” sex, nobody will use them to prove their sex

THIS IS IRRESPONSIBLE. The aim of the DVS system is to enable people to prove facts about themselves. As the Supreme Court judgment confirmed, single-sex provision is required by law to be on the basis of biological sex. We know that some transgender people are disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling and some are already declaring publicly that they intend to flout the Supreme Court judgment and continue to try to use spaces, services and sports intended for the opposite sex. The government should not be providing such people with a way to digitally “prove” a falsehood about their sex that will make it hard or impossible in practice for a service provider to restrict entry to a single-sex space or service to people who are entitled to be there.

Excuse 4: the new clause goes significantly further than the findings of the Supreme Court

THIS IS WRONG. The Supreme Court made clear that a person’s sex is a fact about them that is needed for many everyday interactions including use of single-sex and separate-sex services, as well as for health and social care, the public-sector equality duty and positive-action measures. Having accurate data does not mean that a trans person will be “outed” when proving their age to buy a bottle of wine or proving their identity to hire a car. These interactions do not require sex data at all.

Excuse 5: “trans rights” mean bad sex data can’t be fixed 

THE LAW REQUIRES DATA ACCURACY. Data-protection laws already require that when personal data is recorded by data collectors, it is accurate. The only reason this is not already happening is that, when it comes to sex, this law is widely flouted. Many public authorities have long recorded “gender identity” instead for some people. Recording people’s sex accurately for a lawful purpose does not interfere with their Article 8 rights. The DVS system will only share people’s information with their consent. 

Excuse 6: fixing bad sex data is incompatible with the Gender Recognition Act

THIS IS CONFUSED. The government has expressed concern that: “the amendment does not take account of the fact that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 gives those with gender-recognition certificates a level of privacy and control over who has access to information about their gender history”. The amendment does not seek the recording of people’s “gender history”. It seeks to ensure that biological sex is recorded accurately and can be shared or kept private for any particular interaction, with user consent. This does not breach the Gender Recognition Act. 

This is simply not good enough. Unless Parliament addresses this problem we will end up back in court demanding that sex-based rights be upheld. 

The post House of Lords to debate digital identity amendments again appeared first on Sex Matters.

Under the 1992 Workplace Regulations, most workplaces must provide single-sex toilets for their employees, as well as changing rooms and washing facilities where required. While toilets can be single-user fully enclosed rooms, the most common approach in larger workplaces is two or more cubicles inside an enclosed room, with handwashing facilities in a shared area, all behind a door marked either Male or Female. There will often be a unisex single-user accessible toilet as well.

The Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers was crystal clear that any space designated single-sex is solely for the use of people of that sex. This is because in order for a space (or service) to be lawfully provided for one sex only, it must satisfy one of several criteria called the “single-sex exceptions” in the Equality Act. Roughly speaking, these criteria are various situations in which including people of the other sex would be inappropriate. If an employer designates a space as “single sex” and then states in its policies that certain people of the other sex can enter, then the space automatically fails to meet these criteria. 

The Supreme Court judgment therefore means that all employers need to make clear in their policies that whenever a space is marked as being for one sex or the other, it is not for use by members of the opposite sex, regardless of claimed identity, certification or lifestyle. 

The widely promoted idea that people may choose the facilities that suit their gender identity, or that they feel comfortable with, is legally wrong. Facilities are either for one sex only or for both sexes, with no exceptions. There can be no excuse for an employer to let people use the facilities marked for the other sex. This deprives everyone else of the single-sex provision they are entitled to under workplace regulations. 

The signs on the doors of workplace toilets and other facilities are health and safety signs. They should no more be ignored than signs that say not to block the fire exit or warnings about hazardous materials. 

Whose job is it to enforce this?

Your employer

Your employer is responsible for complying with the law. No individual employee should have to request that it do so, nor should anyone have to challenge someone using the wrong facilities. 

It is not enough for employers to provide men’s and women’s toilets. They must also ensure that the rules for use are clear and complied with by everyone.

The Health and Safety Executive is the regulator that oversees the 1992 Workplace Regulations. In response to a letter from Sex Matters, the chief executive of the HSE wrote:

“For legislation that requires an employer to provide an item or facility for their workers, HSE would consider not just whether it is actually present, but also whether an employer takes steps to ensure that it is used as they intend. For provision of men’s and women’s toilet facilities for workers, we would consider the availability of separate facilities and whether or not the employer is following a clear policy and decision-making process as to their use.”

This is unambiguous: employers have a responsibility to communicate and enforce their policies and ensure that men are not using the women’s facilities (and vice versa).

If there are men using the women’s toilets or if the policy is that anyone can use whichever facilities they prefer, or if traditional cubicled communal spaces are relabelled “unisex”, you should complain.

You could report the problem to your supervisor or your immediate manager. Employers are required to display a health and safety at work poster in the workplace that includes details of the health and safety representative. Explain the issue and suggest a solution (there should be a clear policy that male and female facilities are provided on the basis of biological sex). 

If your concern is not taken seriously, you can escalate to either your head of health and safety or human resources. Explain the same concerns that you previously expressed and why you believe your concerns have not been acted upon.

You are protected by law from suffering a detriment if you raise health and safety concerns with your employer or the enforcing authority. In fact, under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, employees in Britain have a responsibility to report any matter which a person with their training and instruction would “reasonably consider represented a shortcoming in the employer’s protection arrangements for health and safety”.

Use our template email below and attach our workplace toilets factsheet to make this point to your employer. 

Your union

If you are in a trade union and you are concerned that your employer does not take the issue seriously, you can report the issue to your trade union safety representative. 

Their role is to check and follow up on management’s actions or lack of action on health, safety and environmental issues in the workplace. This includes the regulations on toilets, changing and washing facilities. Trade-union safety representatives can also report the issue to the HSE.

The regulator

If your employer does not respond by adopting or confirming that it has a clear sex-based policy, and that it will enforce that policy, you can make a report to the regulator. 

Health and Safety Executive

For health and safety in workplaces, including schools and colleges, hospitals and nursing homes, central and local government premises, factories, farms, building sites, mines and offshore installations, the regulator is the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).  

• In Great Britain, you can report employers in these sectors that do not comply with the 1992 Workplace Regulations to the HSE via its website.
• In Northern Ireland, the regulator is the HSE NI. 

Workplaces not covered by the HSE are covered by a local authority. 

Your local authority

If you work in an office, hospitality, retail, wholesale or distribution, or leisure, the relevant regulator is your local authority – your district council or local unitary authority. 

Search online with the name of your council and “health and safety at work” to find a number or online form for reporting the problem. 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission issued interim guidance to back up the Supreme Court judgment. This states that in workplaces and services that are open to the public:

• “trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex
• in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological women) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities
• however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use
• where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided
• where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men.”

Organisations that fail to comply with the Equality Act 2010 can be reported to the EHRC. 

If you report your workplace to the HSE or your local authority and it refuses to act, report both your workplace and the regulator to the EHRC.

What should you do?

Many organisations are reviewing their policies in the light of the Supreme Court judgment. You may want to start by asking what your employer is doing and on what timescale. You can remind them that this is the law. There is no need to wait for guidance: in fact there could be legal risk for those whose policies do not comply right now.

Don’t be tempted to go to the press or talk about your employer on social media. Your aim should be to keep your job and to follow your employer’s established processes for raising issues like this.

Keep a paper trail of your engagement with your employer and with the regulators.

Template email to raise concerns about workplace toilet policies

This template email is designed to help you clearly and confidently raise concerns about workplace toilet policies, whether they are about: 

• the removal of single-sex facilities
• the introduction of “gender-neutral” or unisex toilets
• unclear guidance on who is permitted to use which amenities. 

The sample text can be used to start an informal conversation, adapted to submit a formal grievance, or amended to escalate a previous complaint.

How to use it

• Copy and paste into an email, with the optional sections to suit your own situation.
• Replace placeholders like [manager’s name] and [insert specific issue].
• Attach our Workplace toilets factsheet.
• Send it as an informal query or adapt it to form part of a formal grievance if needed.

Sample text

Attach factsheet

Use this if policies allow self-ID toilet use

Use this if toilets are being refurbished or changed

Use this for disinformation clarification

Use this if you want an informal resolution

Use this if you are raising a formal grievance

Sign-off

Feedback

Let us know if you succeed, or if you hit a brick wall: email TellUs@sex-matters.org.

The post Workplace toilets: know your rights appeared first on Sex Matters.

What was the decision about?

On 16th April 2025 the UK Supreme Court handed down a judgment in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers¹ which determined the correct interpretation of the protected characteristic of sex in the Equality Act 2010. It concluded (at paragraph 264):

“the words ‘sex’, ‘woman’ and ‘man… mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man.”
[emphasis added, here and throughout]

The court ruled that the Scottish Government was acting unlawfully in treating men who identify as women and who have a gender recognition certificate as women for the purpose of a government policy aimed at improving inclusion of women in public life.

The court uses “biological sex” to mean the sex of a person at birth (paragraph 7). The underlying meaning of biological sex in law has been settled since the case of Corbett v Corbett in 1971 where the High Court held that it is observed at birth and relates to the biology of sexual reproduction. 

The Equality Act has wide-ranging practical, everyday consequences for many individuals and organisations. The judgment said (at paragraph 175):

“The concept of sex is of foundational importance in the EA 2010.” 

This was an important judgment that brings clarity to the law and will make it easier for: 

• employers, service providers and others to understand their responsibilities and avoid breaking the law
• employees, workers, service users and members of the public to understand their rights and avoid acting unreasonably.

The Equality Act (EA 2010) defines unlawful acts in relation to individuals and groups that share protected characteristics which put them at risk of suffering discrimination and harassment. These characteristics are age, sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, gender reassignment and marriage or civil partnership.

The Supreme Court reached its conclusion by focusing on the Equality Act’s purpose; both to protect women against the discrimination they may experience because of being born female, and the different life experience and discrimination that may be faced by people who identify as transgender.

The protections in the EA 2010 recognise that people who share a particular protected characteristic often have common experiences or needs, whether arising from differences in their body characteristics or the way society treats people who share a characteristic. These shared experiences or needs give rise to particular disadvantages if they are not met, and differentiate that group from other groups. Men and women are two such groups.

The duties imposed by the EA 2010 require that duty bearers:

• do not directly discriminate against people based on their protected characteristics, apart from where there is an express exception
• avoid unlawful indirect discrimination by anticipating where particular rules, policies or practices might affect those who share a protected characteristic and have distinct needs or interests in consequence
• take reasonable steps to prevent harassment, which is defined as unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them
• ensure that if they take “positive action” they are able to target it at members of a disadvantaged group sharing a particular characteristic.

Public authorities subject to the public sector equality duty (PSED) must also analyse how their policies impact on differently-affected groups in order to advance equal treatment. 

The court said: 

“Clarity and consistency about how to identify the relevant groups that share protected characteristics are essential to the practical operation of the EA 2010.”

“It must be possible for sex to be interpreted in a way that is predictable, workable and capable of being consistently understood and applied in practice by this wide range of duty-bearers.”

Sex discrimination

Sex discrimination is when you are treated differently because of your sex, in relevant situations covered by the Equality Act 2010.² The treatment could be a one-off action or could be caused by a rule or policy. It doesn’t have to be intentional to be unlawful. 

There are some circumstances when being treated differently due to sex is lawful.³ These include separate-sex or single-sex spaces or services for women (or men) as a group – for example changing rooms, toilets and washrooms (provided for privacy and dignity), homeless hostels, segregated swimming areas (which might be essential for religious reasons or desirable for the protection of women’s safety, or the autonomy or privacy and dignity of the two sexes), and medical or counselling services provided only to women (or men) such as cervical-cancer screening for women or prostate-cancer screening for men, or counselling for women only as victims of rape or domestic violence. 

The court concluded (at paragraph 210) that both the proper functioning of the core provisions of the Equality Act, and the exceptions which allow for single-sex sports, associations, services, communal accommodation and higher education institutes, depend on a biological interpretation of sex. 

The court noted that this framework of sex-discrimination protections and exceptions was first brought in by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and said that there is no reason to suppose that Parliament intended to introduce a change when it replaced this with the Equality Act. That is, sex means what it has always meant: the ordinary everyday meaning of being male or female. 

The judgment says (at paragraph 171): 

“The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man. Persons who share that protected characteristic for the purposes of the group-based rights and protections are persons of the same sex and provisions that refer to protection for women necessarily exclude men. Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman.”

The Supreme Court rejected as incoherent an approach that would include “trans women” (that is, biological men who identify as transgender) under the protected characteristic of being a woman, and “trans men” (that is, biological women who identify as transgender) under the protected characteristic of being a man. It said (at paragraph 172):

“We can identify no good reason why the legislature should have intended that sex-based rights and protections under the EA 2010 should apply to these complex, heterogenous groupings, rather than to the distinct group of (biological) women and girls (or men and boys) with their shared biology leading to shared disadvantage and discrimination faced by them as a distinct group.”

It also rejected (at paragraph 175) the idea that the words sex and woman might have different meanings in different parts of the act as this would offend against the principle of legal certainty and the need for a meaning which is constant and predictable.

It found that gender-recognition certificates (GRCs) are irrelevant to the Equality Act and to most everyday situations, and are confidential documents. 

While the question before the court related specifically to the status of transgender people who have GRCs (around 8,000 people), the reasoning that biological sex matters also applies in ruling out gender self-identification as a feature of the Equality Act. At paragraph 203 it said:

“Since it is in practice impossible for organisations to distinguish between people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment who do and do not have a GRC, many organisations feel pressured into accepting de facto self-identification for the purposes of identifying whom to treat as a woman or girl when seeking to apply the group-based rights and protections of the EA 2010 in relation to the protected characteristic of sex.”

The judgment notes (at paragraph 200) that a “full process of medical transition” has no effect on the person’s sex as a matter of law. 

Gender-reassignment discrimination

Gender reassignment is when you are treated differently because you have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in one of the situations covered by the Equality Act. The treatment could be a one-off action or as a result of a rule or policy. It does not have to be intentional to be unlawful.

The Supreme Court noted that “gender reassignment” is a different and separate protected characteristic from sex. The Equality Act refers to it as relating to “a transsexual person”. It is defined at section 7 of the act as the attribute of proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process (or part of a process) of changing physiological or other attributes of sex for the purpose of reassignment the person’s sex.

The protection does not depend on having a GRC, or on having a diagnosis, or any medical treatment or surgery. The judgment says (at paragraph 200):

“But the fact that section 7 refers to a process for reassigning sex does not lead to the conclusion that such a process results in a change in the protected characteristic of sex under the EA 2010. Section 7 does not say this…”

“The critical process on which the section 7 characteristic depends involves a change in physiological or other attributes of what must necessarily be biological sex; but there is nothing to suggest that undergoing such a process changes a person’s sex as a matter of law. It does not.”

At paragraph 202 it notes that:

“Neither possession of a GRC nor the protected characteristic of gender reassignment require any physiological change or even any change in outward appearance.”

“Moreover, in either case, the individual’s biological sex may continue to be readily perceivable and may form the basis of unlawful discrimination.”

The judgment notes (at paragraph 201):

“Nobody suggests that a person with a protected characteristic of gender reassignment is entitled on that basis alone to be treated as if their sex has changed for any legal purposes.”

This confirms the earlier judgment in the earlier case won by For Women Scotland in 2022 (FWS1).⁴

Discrimination claims and comparators

The core purpose of the Equality Act is for individuals to be protected from discrimination and harassment and to be able to bring claims because of a protected characteristic. 

The Supreme Court noted that they don’t have to have that characteristic to bring a claim. It is well-established that direct discrimination because of a protected characteristic encompasses not only cases where the complainant affected by has the characteristic in question, but also where the discriminator perceives them to, or in some other way associates the complainant with the protected characteristic. All that is required is that the protected characteristic is a ground for the treatment in question. 

No change is needed in the definition of sex to bring transgender individuals (with or without a GRC) under the protection of the act if they face unlawful sex discrimination either in their actual sex or their target sex.

Comparators are a key tool in considering discrimination claims. The purpose of a comparator is to test a claimant’s claim that the protected characteristic they rely on was the reason, or at least a reason, for the way they were treated.

In a sex discrimination claim the comparator is a person of the opposite sex who is otherwise the same or not in materially different circumstances.

• The comparator for a man is a woman.
• The comparator for someone perceived to be a man is someone perceived to be a woman.
• The comparator for someone associated with being a man is someone associated with being a woman.
• The comparator for a woman is a man. 
• The comparator for someone perceived to be a woman is someone perceived to be a man.
• The comparator for someone associated with being a woman is someone associated with being a man.

At paragraph 251 the Supreme Court gives the example of:

“a trans woman who applies for a job as a sales representative and the sales manager thinks that she is a biological woman because of her appearance and does not offer her the job even though she performed best at interview and gives the job instead to a biological man. She would have a claim for direct discrimination because of her perceived sex and her comparator would be someone who is not perceived to be a woman. The fact that she is not a biological woman should make no difference to her claim.”

Similarly the indirect discrimination provisions of the EA 2010 apply both in relation to a disadvantage which relates to a person’s actual sex and where they face a disadvantage that relates to the opposite sex, insofar as they are also put at that same disadvantage. 

A transgender person also has a separate protection against discrimination and disadvantage related to being in the group sharing the characteristic of gender reassignment.

In a gender-reassignment claim, the comparator of a transexual person is a person who is not transexual but who is similar in other material respects.

The single-sex and separate-sex service provisions

A key question considered by the Supreme Court was how the two protected characteristics relate to the law around provision of single-sex and separate-sex services (which are found in Schedule 3 part 7 of the act), where the prohibitions against discrimination are disapplied. The judgment concludes (at paragraph 218):

“Read fairly and in context, the provisions relating to single-sex services can only be interpreted by reference to biological sex.”

It explains (at paragraph 213):

“It is likely to be difficult (if not impossible) to establish the conditions necessary for [lawful] separate services for each sex when each group includes persons of both biological sexes.”

Examples of how meeting the “gateway conditions” to provide such a service depend on a recognition of the separate needs of the two sexes included:

• A homeless shelter could have separate hostels for men and women provided this pursued a legitimate aim, which might be the safety and security of women users or their privacy and dignity (and the same for male users).
• A cervical-cancer screening service is only needed by female people.
• A situation where a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of or physical contact with a person of the opposite sex – examples include a female-only changing room or on a women-only hospital ward or in a rape-counselling group.
• A female massage therapist offering massages in her clients’ homes might reasonably object to providing this service to a man.

The judgment makes similar points in relation to the provisions concerning communal sleeping accommodation (and associated sanitary facilities), which relate to bodily privacy and expectation of separation between the sexes. 

Once the gateway conditions are met for a woman’s service (at paragraph 221), the Supreme Court explains that:

“provided it is proportionate, the female only nature of the service would engage paragraph 27 [of Schedule 3] and would permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status.”

There is nothing in the judgment that suggests that the question of what is “proportionate” is a question to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis with individuals; rather it relates to whether the rule is lawful.

The judgment describes how service providers offering a single-sex service are also exempt from the prohibition against gender-reassignment discrimination (as long as their conduct is proportionate). For example, a “trans man” (a woman living in the male gender) can be lawfully excluded from a female-only service, without this amounting to gender-reassignment discrimination. 

“This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women-only service being provided.” 

Single-sex charities and associations

The judgment notes that Schedule 16 paragraph 1 EA 2010 allows for an association to restrict membership to persons who share a protected characteristic (which would otherwise be unlawful discrimination in contravention of section 101(1)(b)). Single-sex charities are allowed by the exception in s.193 to restrict the provision of benefits to persons who share a protected characteristic in pursuance of a charitable instrument. 

It finds that: 

“Schedule 16 and section 193(1) plainly intend that single-sex associations and charities should be permitted to exist along with other single-characteristic associations.”

Examples include a mutual-support association for women who are victims of male sexual violence, a lesbian social association and a breastfeeding support charity. 

“To require such associations or charities to reconceive of their objects as targeting a group that does not correspond with their original aims, and to allow trans people with a GRC (of the opposite biological sex) to join would significantly undermine the right to associate on the basis of biological sex (or sexual orientation).”

Sport

Section 195 of the EA 2010 also includes provisions which exempt organisers of competitive activities from sex and gender-reassignment discrimination in relation to “gender-affected activities”. 

The Supreme Court said that this provision is “plainly predicated on biological sex”, and may be unworkable with any other interpretation. The gateway condition depends on a determination of whether the activity is one where physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage when compared to average persons of the other sex. 

The Supreme Court notes that a provision in the act also enables the exclusion of members of the same sex (for example biological females who have taken testosterone to give them more masculine attributes from a women’s sporting competition). At paragraph 236: 

“their exclusion would amount to gender reassignment discrimination, not sex discrimination, but would be permitted by section 195(2).”

The public-sector equality duty and positive action measures 

All organisations subject to the PSED must have due regard for how their rules, policies and practices affect specific groups with different protected characteristics. 

The Supreme Court notes that organisations and bodies that are subject to the PSED are required to collect data in order to fulfil this duty. 

It warns against categorising people and collecting data based on asserted or certified gender identity (that is, having a GRC) instead of sex, saying that a heterogenous group containing biological women, some biological males (trans women) and excluding some biological females (trans men) is a confusing group to envisage and “may have little in common”. At paragraph 239:

“Any data collection exercise will be distorted by the heterogenous nature of such a group. Moreover, the distinct discrimination and disadvantage faced by women as a group (or trans people) would simply not be capable of being addressed by the PSED because the group being considered would not be a group that, because of the shared protected characteristic of sex, has experienced discrimination or disadvantage flowing from shared biology, societal norms or prejudice. Whereas the interests of biological women (or men) can be rationally considered and addressed, and likewise, the interests of trans people (who are vulnerable and often disadvantaged for different reasons), we do not understand how the interests of this heterogenous group can begin to be considered and addressed.”

A similar problem arises in relation to the positive-action provisions addressing particular needs, disadvantages or under-representation of persons who share a protected characteristic.

In relation to the question of representation on boards (positive action to avoid “manels” – all-male panels – and to seek equal representation of women), at paragraphs 241–242:

“If the purpose of the positive action measure is to increase representation on public boards of women (with their shared experience of disadvantage based on sex and overcoming such disadvantage), a certificated sex approach changes the group to be represented. It means that those entitled to be considered for this scheme include biological males who have GRCs but it excludes biological females who have GRCs. This is an irrational approach.”

“Moreover, the different needs of and disadvantages faced by transsexual people (whether or not they have a GRC) can – and in the case of the PSED must – be considered separately without conflating these distinct protected characteristics. To do otherwise is detrimental to both groups.”

Belief discrimination 

The Supreme Court endorsed the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Forstater v CGD Europe and others [2021] UKEAT as “comprehensive and impressive”.

In this case the claimant’s belief was summarised as: 

“She considers there are two sexes, male and female, there is no spectrum in sex and there are no circumstances whatsoever in which a person can change from one sex to another, or to being of neither sex. She would generally seek to be polite to trans persons and would usually seek to respect their choice of pronoun but would not feel bound to; mainly if a trans person who was not assigned female at birth was in a “woman’s space”, but also more generally. If a person has a Gender Recognition Certificate this would not alter the Claimant’s position. The Claimant made it clear that her view is that the words man and woman describe a person’s sex and are immutable. A person is either one or the other, there is nothing in between and it is impossible to change from one sex to the other.”⁵

This belief (termed “gender critical” in recent years) was found in that case to be “worthy of respect in a democratic society” and covered by the protected characteristic of religion or belief. Choudhury P held (at paragraph 32 of that judgment):

“Not only is it worthy of respect, but it is also one that is consistent with the common law under which sex is regarded as binary and fixed at birth for the purposes of all legal provisions which make a distinction between men and women…The coming into force of section 9 of the GRA, under which a person with a gender recognition certificate (‘GRC’) ‘becomes for all purposes’ the acquired gender, does not, as the Tribunal appears to have found, require the claimant to disregard what she considers to be a material reality, namely that sex is immutable.”

This is confirmed by the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Going further, we can say that the Supreme Court’s clarification of the meaning given to sex in the Equality Act corresponds with what has been termed the “gender critical” belief that sex is a material reality that is binary, immutable, and socially and legally important when seeking to understand and address disadvantages.

Those who speak about sex and gender with the “gender critical” view recognise, in common with the Supreme Court, that women and “trans women” do not have the same needs or disadvantages. Thus, when they express this politely, respectfully and in an appropriate situation they cannot possibly be manifesting a belief in a way that can considered “inappropriate” (and thus potentially a reason for it to be lawfully restricted – see Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109). They are simply articulating one of the foundational terms of the Equality Act, which has now been correctly interpreted.

Treating a straightforward expression of the law, whether by a Supreme Court justice or by an ordinary person protected by that law as “offensive” is irrational, and if such a complaint is taken seriously it is likely to lead to unlawful conduct and a breach of that person’s human rights. 

What does all this mean in practice? 

This section does not draw directly from the judgment, but rather makes some inferences and recommendations about what organisations should do to reset their practice given that there has been widespread misunderstanding and misrepresentation of one of the protected characteristics in the act. 

1. Recognise that organisational policies which are not based on the definition of sex clarified by the Supreme Court are likely to result in unlawful conduct. Most employees should not be expected to routinely make difficult decisions which require a knowledge of the law. The organisation’s policies should be simple and clear to guide employees away from the risk of unlawful conduct. They need to be based on the protected characteristics to do this.
2. Recognise that the goal of “inclusion” in line with the act means including, supporting and encouraging people as employees, service users, students regardless of protected characteristics, not including people within categories to which they do not belong when considering measures to address the needs and disadvantages of people who share a particular characteristic. 
3. Use clear language in policy statements, training and data collection. Do not create confusion and unclear expectations about rules and policies, for instance by conflating sex with the idea of gender identity. While staff may use different words about themselves (such as man or woman not relating to their sex, or other terms such as queer, non-binary, transmasc, transfemme or gender-fluid), these are personal descriptors and do not relate to protected characteristics. All staff (and particularly those in decision-making roles) need to understand the terms and concepts used in organisational policies, which should align with the Equality Act:

• Sex means biological sex.
• Having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment does not change a person’s sex.
• Homosexuals are men or women with a sexual orientation towards the same sex.
• Heterosexuals are men or women with a sexual orientation towards the opposite sex.
• Bisexuals are men or women with a sexual orientation towards either sex. 
• Lesbians are women with a sexual orientation towards other women (they share two protected characteristics).
• Gay men are men with a sexual orientation towards other men (they share two protected characteristics).

4. Recognise that these categories relate to groups with particular needs and vulnerabilities. This is core to avoiding unlawful discrimination and promoting equal treatment. This may be disappointing to people who had thought the law was based on gender identity. It will need to be explained sensitively but firmly when organisations are bringing their policies into line with the law.
5. Do not make statements that the organisation disagrees with the Equality Act (including the Supreme Court judgment) or that disparage or celebrate people with particular protected characteristics (including protected beliefs). Do not allow staff networks to make such statements on the intranet or mass emails or suchlike. This could lead to mass harassment claims. Making statements that favour or prioritise particular groups (such as statements of allyship or solidarity in favour of one group at the expense of another) will lead to an unbalanced approach and risk of unlawful harassment and discrimination. 
6. Ensure that where you have sex-based rules they are clear and justified. Where you have policies that treat people differently because of a protected characteristic, identify the reason and the lawful exception you are relying on in the Equality Act. Communicate the rule clearly and apply it to the whole category of people who share the protected characteristic. Avoiding sex discrimination will also protect against gender-reassignment discrimination since you are not reinforcing gender stereotypes by expecting anyone to conform to traditionally masculine and feminine archetypes or judging them on this, but simply expecting them to do their jobs.
7. Operate single-sex services on the basis of clear sex-based rules. The judgment has put it beyond doubt that the Equality Act requires that where single-sex services are provided this is on the basis of biological sex. If you provide a single-sex or separate-sex service (as a whole or part of your service), or manage a relevant sport, association or charity, you should make clear that it is for people of that sex only. This means that the rules exclude males (transwomen) from the women’s category and females (transmen) from the men’s. It is not appropriate to employ a person in a job where being of the opposite sex is an occupational requirement (for example, a “trans woman” as a female rape-crisis counsellor for women).
8. Explain these rules clearly and respectfully to everyone, including transgender people. They are likely to be disappointed, which is understandable, but your responsibility is to treat everyone fairly in line with the law.
9. Apply normal standards of workplace and professional conduct to everyone equally. A transgender employee should be able to expect normal professional courtesy from colleagues and appropriate behaviour from customers, clients, patients, students and so on (that is, no bullying or harassment). But they cannot expect their employer to shield them from the reality that other people are likely to perceive their sex and are often entitled to know it (for instance in interactions involving a health or care professional or being searched by a police officer). Transgender individuals should be expected to comply with rules and policies that are lawful.
10. Consider if any of your policies may result in indirect discrimination both in relation to sex and gender reassignment. Policies that relate to the two sexes, to recording sex, to bodily privacy or to duties of candour, openness and consent may be experienced as detriments by transgender employees. You should consider whether these effects can be reasonably avoided or mitigated (for example by providing a unisex alternative) or whether the policy can be justified as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.
11. Do not consider mitigating potential indirect discrimination by allowing a transgender individual to use opposite-sex facilities. This undermines the legitimate aim of providing separate-sex facilities for privacy and dignity and is likely to result in harassment and discrimination against others. Making a single-user unisex facility (such as toilet, changing room or shower) available is often practical.
12. Do not remove single-sex spaces altogether and make them “gender neutral”. This is not justified, and could be direct or indirect discrimination related to sex as well as a breach of workplace health and safety regulations (and in England, Building Code T). If you do not currently operate on the basis of separate-sex arrangements in situations where they are preferred for privacy and dignity, consider the risk of an indirect discrimination claim. It is good practice to subject any change to single-sex facilities to an equality impact assessment and to consider the particular impact on women and girls of replacing separate-sex facilities with mixed-sex ones.
13. Treat everyone with respect and ensure you have a robust policy against harassment in relation to all protected characteristics. Harassment involves “unwanted conduct which is related to a relevant characteristic and has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the complainant or of violating the complainant’s dignity”. Whether unwanted conduct has the purpose or effect described above will depend on the perception of the person, the context and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

    Sex can be a relevant factor when considering whether conduct constitutes harassment and what it is unreasonable to feel offended or humiliated by. For example two women changing in what is understood to be a female changing room does not create an environment that could constitute harassment. But a man coming in and observing them or undressing with them would. A woman asking another woman if she has a tampon in the women’s toilets is not harassment. A man going into the women’s toilets and seeking to engage women in conversation about their periods would be. Other people’s reasonable expectation of privacy and personal autonomy not to engage in gender-affirming role play should be impressed upon transgender colleagues to avoid them committing harassment by assuming it is appropriate to use opposite-sex facilities. It is not.

    Staff should treat each other and service users politely and respectfully. If staff taunt or ask intrusive questions of their trans-identifying colleague by reference to their sex (or related matters such as anatomy) this could be unwanted conduct that amounts to harassment. However, respectfully making simple statements that reflect that someone is a man or woman using ordinary language in the normal course of professional conduct would not. Such language is needed for communicating rules and boundaries. It is not reasonable to be offended by such statements.

    Transgender colleagues should also be warned against oversharing by talking about their intimate anatomy or seeking to insert themselves in conversations inappropriately (for example a man who identifies as a woman wanting to talk to female colleagues about menstruation). 

14. Set clear expectations and do not entertain unreasonable complaints. Recognising and referring to a person’s sex is not “transphobic”. An employee who has unreasonable expectations of keeping their sex secret, or of policing the thoughts and conduct of other people who recognise their sex, or of accessing opposite-sex spaces or the intimate areas of other people’s bodies without their informed consent, is unlikely to be suited to the world of work. Do not entertain complaints about “transphobia” that relate to ordinary expressions of material reality of the two sexes or of sex-based rules and the rights and protections in the Equality Act. Any policies about preferred pronouns will be subject to the same prohibitions against indirect discrimination and will need to be justified. 
15. Do not tolerate the advocacy of non-compliance with the Equality Act. While people have different beliefs about sex, gender and identity, refusing to undertake legal responsibilities or to recognise obligations in relation to non-discrimination is not an appropriate expression of belief at work, and is a legitimate ground for disciplinary action. 
16. Note that the Equality Act makes specific provisions recognising that a tendency to physical or sexual abuse of other persons, exhibitionism and voyeurism are behaviours which do not need to be tolerated at work. It is well-recognised in the medical literature that for some people (predominantly male), transgender identification can be linked to a paraphilia or sexual fetish such as autogynephilia, exhibitionism or interest in non-consensual sexual activity. Normal standards of workplace propriety, professionalism and safeguarding are a reasonable expectation and are not overridden by any protected characteristic.
17. When you record an employee’s sex do so accurately. Employers are covered by data-protection law (the Data Protection Act and UK GDPR). As an employer you should ensure that your processing of personal data on employees’ sex is lawful. This means the data must be accurate and recorded clearly in a field marked as sex. Collecting and using this data for a legitimate purpose (which does not include unlawful discrimination) does not breach ECHR Article 8 on the right to private life. 
18. Recognise that keeping a person’s sex private at work is rarely practical and is not a reasonable expectation. This is both because of data-protection law and because it is not realistic for someone to expect to be able to keep their sex secret in any face-to-face workplace, or in relation to sex-based rules and facilities. Nor is it reasonable to expect other employees to maintain secrecy about this information, which is usually readily perceivable.
19. Do not collect information on whether individuals hold a GRC. It is not relevant to the Equality Act, and unlikely to be relevant for the purposes of employment. Employers and service providers should generally not ask for or collect this information, and they should dispose of it securely if they recognise they are holding it but have not identified a lawful purpose to retain it.
20. Do not take advice from organisations which do not accept the Supreme Court’s ruling. While you may engage with them to understand their concerns, organisations should be wary of entering into “allyship” relationships or processes that constitute a perpetual negotiation and escalator in relation to a single protected characteristic. This includes “reverse mentoring”, external awards schemes and ratings, and appointment of internal champions. TheEquality Act is carefully balanced. Failing to recognise conflicts of rights, or going beyond the act in relation to some protected characteristics, could lead to encroaching on other people’s rights.

Managing the culture shift

Organisations will need to review all existing policies and training to consider if they result discrimination or harassment in relation to sex, belief, gender reassignment or sexual orientation.

These changes represent a significant culture shift for organisations that have previously adopted guidance such as that promoted by Stonewall and Advance HE, which have misinterpreted the Equality Act.

Amnesty International intervened in the FWS case to argue against the biological basis of sex in the Equality Act. It made the argument that “A blanket policy of barring trans women from single sex services [intended for women] is not a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.”

It argued that the construction of sex put forward by FWS failed “to recognise that a trans woman with a GRC is in a significantly different situation to a cisgender man and therefore, [ECHR] Article 14 [which protects against discrimination in relation to the realisation of human rights] requires that she be treated differently from him i.e. not be excluded from a single sex service or from sport on the same basis (and for the same reasons) as a cisgender man (unless the failure to do so can be proportionately justified).”⁶

These arguments were dismissed by the Supreme Court. 

You do not need to continue to negotiate with individuals and groups advancing this argument. It has been found to be wrong in law.

Continuing to take advice from organisations opposed to the clear recognition of the protected characteristic of sex now confirmed in the Supreme Court judgment is likely to lead organisations to engage in unlawful conduct. 

Organisations should be wary of taking advice from organisations that promote this position, including internal LGBT+ networks and law firms which have declared allyship policies, signed up to schemes such as Stonewall Diversity Champions, or refused to accept the Supreme Court’s judgment.

Recommendations

• We recommend that the process of reviewing policies in light of the Supreme Court judgment is led by an organisation’s general counsel and takes a structured approach.
• Any engagement with advocacy organisations should start with asking them if they accept these principles, which are based on the Equality Act.
• Organisations should not enter into open-ended negotiations or pledge allyship with lobbying organisations, LGBT or other networks, or transgender individuals or consultancies. 
• Engagement should rather be structured as asking for inputs into identifying existing policies, criteria or practices (PCPs) that might result in indirect discrimination, and considering proposals for less discriminatory options. 
• Transparency in this process will help. This includes explicitly using the Equality Act as the framework, and using clear, unambiguous language. 
• There will be disappointment and there may be emotive statements and irrational demands. Do not try to avoid this response by adopting policies which are not clear and which promise one thing to one group and another thing to another (such as “single-sex spaces” that are “inclusive of trans people”).
• The Equality Impact Assessment framework provides a structured means for considering impacts related to all protected characteristics. Policies should not be seen as “belonging” to a particular group.

Getting advice

Organisations should be clear about whether they are engaging with third-party organisations as expert or lived-experience informants and campaigners in order to help them understand a particular point of view or experience of a particular section of the population, or whether they are engaging with them as specialist advisors on Equality Act compliance and organisational policy-setting. 

This should be part of any agreed terms of reference, memorandum of understanding or contract.

Do not take advice from organisations which do not accept the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission and other related regulators such as the Health and Safety Executive, Charity Commission and the Information Commissioner’s Office should put out clear, simple guidance, and cascade this down through sector bodies and professional regulators. 

About Sex Matters

Sex Matters is a charity whose objects are to promote human rights where they relate to biological sex to advance education about sex and the law and to promote the sound administration of the law in relation to sex and equality in the law. It aims to promote clarity on sex in law and policy, including promoting understanding of, compliance with, and enforcement of the protections under the Equality Act 2010.

Sex Matters successfully intervened in the For Women Scotland case in support of the appellant.⁷ The Supreme Court gave particular thanks to our barrister Ben Cooper KC for his written and oral submissions on behalf of Sex Matters (at paragraph 35 of the judgment):

“which gave focus and structure to the argument that ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ should be given a biological meaning, and who was able effectively to address the questions posed by members of the court in the hour he had to make his submission.”

1. For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) [2025] UKSC 16.
2. Equality and Human Rights Commission (2020). Your rights under the Equality Act 2010.
3. Equality and Human Rights Commission (2020). ‘Sex discrimination’, Your rights under the Equality Act 2010.
4. For Women Scotland v The Lord Advocate & Scottish Ministers [2022] CSIH 4.
5. Forstater v CGD Europe and others [2021] UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ.
6. Amnesty International (2024). Amnesty International UK third-party intervention in the Supreme Court appeal of the case of For Women Scotland.
7. Sex Matters (2024). Written intervention to the Supreme Court on the definition of sex.

The post Supreme Court judgment: summary and practical advice appeared first on Sex Matters.

On 8th April 2010, the Equality Act received royal assent. The landmark new law drew together legislation addressing race discrimination, sex discrimination and disability discrimination that had built up over the 1960s, 70s and 90s. Protection for transsexuals had been introduced in 1998 and extended in 2008. 

As the Labour government at the time pointed out, the existing piecemeal legal framework was “complex, inconsistent and often difficult to understand”. The intention was that the act would harmonise and bring this all together into a single piece of legislation that would be accessible and straightforward for employers, service providers, employees and customers.

The Equality Act protects people against discrimination and harassment based on nine protected characteristics: sex, age, race, disability, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or philosophical belief, sexual orientation and gender reassignment. In order to bring all the strands together it contains a large number of exceptions which permit discrimination in relation to particular protected characteristics in particular situations. 

The Equality Act was not intended to make it difficult to provide single-sex services, accommodation, charities or women’s sports. It did not legislate for legal “gender self-id”, nor did it require that men and women were always treated the same or prohibit “misgendering”. 

Trouble with guidance

During the introduction of the Equality Act in the House of Lords, the government’s spokesperson said:

“We expect that more straightforward law will also enable the Equality and Human Rights Commission to draw up simpler practical guidance.”

But the statutory guidance that was produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) did not spell out clearly enough what the protected characteristic of sex meant in light of the Gender Recognition Act that had been passed in 2004. Was sex still about bodies, or must it now be taken to be about identities or certificates? When it came to the exceptions which make it lawful for service providers to provide single-sex and separate-sex services, the guidance was not clear and practical at all.

It started out well. The first draft of the service provider’s code, published in January 2010 for consultation, stuck tightly to the act. It said that single-sex and separate-sex services are lawful if they meet one of several conditions and are a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. It also said that the prohibition against gender-reassignment discrimination does not apply as long the treatment is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. 

The guidance went on to explain that this meant that service providers should consider the needs of transsexual people as those of the women and men using separate and single-sex services. It didn’t say they should allow men into women’s spaces.

But during the course of the consultation this clear, simple guidance was removed and replaced with something else. 

In its consultation report, the EHRC said:

“Various transsexual stakeholder groups responded to the formal consultation and also participated in the parallel consultation events taking place on the nonstatutory guidance. Feedback from the consultation events was incorporated into the employment and services codes where appropriate, particularly on issues of confidentiality, use of single sex services and the legal definition of transgender.”

The trans advocacy organisation Press for Change gave the EHRC an annotated version of the draft code of practice which may have been influential in the changes that appeared in the final draft. 

The statutory code of practice for service providers that was published in 2011 embroidered the Equality Act, following the suggestions of the transsexual groups. It invented a legal requirement to “treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present”.

It said that individuals should be allowed to use opposite-sex services based on their “gender role” and could be excluded only on an exceptional case-by-case basis. 

It also made the unworkable recommendation that any decision to exclude an individual transsexual from an opposite-sex space should take place only after discussion with other users, but also while maintaining confidentiality and taking care to “avoid a decision based on ignorance or prejudice”. 

Other groups and the general public were not consulted on these additions to the code of practice.

The myth grows

From there the myth grew that the Equality Act 2010 gives trans people the legal right to use opposite-sex facilities and services. 

The Government Equalities Office produced guidance together with another trans advocacy group, Gendered Intelligence, which said that good practice was to “try not to assume someone’s gender simply by their appearance” and “assume everyone selects the facilities appropriate to their gender” and that “refusing to allow a woman to use female facilities because staff perceive her to be male” was unlawful direct discrimination. 

The idea that service providers must allow people to self-identify into opposite-sex services based on their gender identity, from toilets to rape-crisis centres, also meant that other people must be kept quiet: “trans women are women” and “trans men are men” and anyone who disagrees can be called a bigot. The organisations that had encouraged the EHRC to produce the unworkable guidance then went around telling organisations that it was ignorant, prejudiced, and “transphobic” to even talk about the issues clearly.

The Forum on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Post-School Education, made up of the trade union UNISON, the University and College Union, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Equality Challenge Unit and several other associations, brought out guidance which said: 

“It is professional misconduct, and in many cases it may be a criminal offence to pass on information about a trans person’s gender identity without their consent.”

The Equality Challenge Unit brought out guidance for universities which advised universities to check their curriculum to “ensure that it does not contain transphobic material”. “Unacceptable or unwanted behaviour” and “intrusive questions” were to be dealt with as serious disciplinary offences; “transphobic propaganda” was banned. 

Stonewall picked up transgender campaigning in 2015, adopting a definition of “transphobia” that included refusing to accept a person’s gender identity. It claimed that: 

“When toilets are gendered, in general trans men have the legal right to use the men’s toilets, and trans women have the legal right to use women’s toilets.” 

Its scheme advising and training employers on compliance with its misinterpretation of the law soon covered 25% of the UK workforce, including staff at the EHRC, Ofcom, most of Whitehall and the Scottish and Welsh governments.

In July 2018 the Conservative government launched a consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to make it easier to get a gender-recognition certificate. It was not clear what the relationship between the GRA and the Equality Act was, but the reforms would remove any safeguards from the awarding of certificates. Announcing the consultation in Parliament, minister Penny Mordaunt said: 

“Trans women are women. Trans men are men. And that is the starting point for the GRA consultation. And it will be its finishing point too.” 

This time the consultation did not take place in obscurity. Groups of women, Stonewall-dissident gays and lesbians, rebel academics and feminist lawyers responded by meeting on Mumsnet, on social media and in person to criticise the proposal and call for protection for single-sex services and women’s sport underpinned by the Equality Act. They faced intimidation and attacks for doing so, as well as harassment and discrimination at work.

Winning the Equality Act back 

Over the past five years groups and individuals have made concerted and increasingly effective efforts to speak up, to use the Equality Act to defend the right to do so, and to unpick the bad guidance. We are winning battles in getting back to the purpose of the Equality Act, which is to be clear and simple about protecting everyone’s rights. 

• In December 2019 Maya Forstater lost her employment tribunal claim to have the “gender critical” belief that sex matters declared a protected belief under the Equality Act. It was instead declared “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. The next day JK Rowling sent her famous tweet and entered the debate.
• In May 2021 Ann Sinnot sought permission to judicially review the code of practice that would have forced the EHRC to change the section on single-sex services. However the High Court refused permission. The judge said that since the code of practice said that services “should,” not “must” (treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present), it was not unlawful. Nevertheless the EHRC distanced itself from prescriptive guidance that said men who self identify as women “must” be treated as women, and it made clear that in its view a women-only service was permissible. 
• In June 2021 Maya Forstater won her Employment Appeal Tribunal case, which established that “gender critical” beliefs that sex matters are covered by the protected characteristic of philosophical belief in the Equality Act. This enabled people to speak and write about the issues with less fear of being disciplined or fired from work. 
• In February 2022 For Women Scotland won its first judicial review on appeal against the Scottish government, which had sought to redefine the meaning of women to include men who identified as women in counting the number of women on public boards in Scotland. This was ruled unlawful by a judge as it “conflates and confuses two separate and distinct protected characteristics”. This judgment made clear that sex in the Equality Act is not a matter of self-identification. 
• In April 2022 the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) released new guidance on single-sex and separate-sex services. The new guidance made it clearer that service providers and employers are allowed to offer facilities to women and men separately wherever this is a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” and that policies can explicitly be on the basis of biological sex.
• In October 2022 Sex Matters launched a petition to make the Equality Act clear by clarifying that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not change the definition of sex in the Equality Act. It was signed by more than 100,000 people, and there was a debate in Westminster Hall in June 2023. 
• In December 2022 For Women Scotland lost its second judicial review against the Scottish government, challenging its decision to try to define women in the Equality Act (for the purpose of public boards) as including men with gender-recognition certificates. FWS vowed to fight on. 
• In April 2023 Baroness Falkner, the chair of the EHRC, wrote to the government supporting the call to clarify the Equality Act. She said: ”It has not been straightforward for service providers and employers to apply the law, including in areas such as sport and health services” and that the debate has become so polarised and contentious that civil debate is inhibited. She added that the EHRC has come to the view that if “sex” is defined as biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act, this would bring greater legal clarity in several important areas. 
• In May 2024 the government launched a call for evidence on incorrect guidance on single-sex spaces and gender self-identification. It said that “In some cases organisations believe they are required to allow self-identifying transgender people to access” single-sex services for the opposite sex, and that this is wrong in law. It withdrew the earlier Government Equalities Office guidance. 
• In October 2024 the EHRC published an updated version of its code of practice for service providers for consultation, removing the previous advice that service providers “should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present”. But although it has been improved, the proposed code remains vague and overcomplicated, and suggests legal rights for trans-identifying individuals and legal obligations for service providers that do not exist. Following public consultation, the final version is still to be released. 
• In November 2024 the Supreme Court heard the appeal in the For Women Scotland case, which asked it to determine what sex means in the Equality Act – self-identification had already been ruled out, but does sex relate to bodies or pieces of paper? Sex Matters and a consortium of lesbian groups intervened in support of FWS. Amnesty International intervened in support of the Scottish government. The EHRC also intervened. 
• In January 2025 Stonewall made a quiet change to its definition of “transphobia”. The previous longstanding definition, which included “denying a transgender person’s gender identity or refusing to accept it”, was dropped. 
• In February 2025 the case of Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife was heard at the Dundee employment tribunal. Peggie is bringing a case under the Equality Act for sex discrimination and harassment and belief discrimination for NHS Fife’s policy and conduct allowing trans-identifying male staff into the female changing room. This is one of several such cases. 
• In April 2025 the Office for Students fined Sussex University more than £0.5m for breaching its responsibility to uphold academic freedom when it adopted the Equality Challenge Unit guidance that banned so-called “transphobia” based on a misinterpretation of the Equality Act.

The judgment from the Supreme Court in the For Women Scotland case is expected imminently.

It will then be up to the government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission to make sure that the Equality Act delivers on its promise of being a straightforward law with simple, practical guidance.

The post The Equality Act: 15 years old today! appeared first on Sex Matters.

Looking back at 2018

In 2018 vice-chancellor Adam Tickell led Sussex University to set up an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Unit and join the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme. He promised that the university would “take bold action to transform the campus into one that is experienced as inclusive by all our communities”. 

Meanwhile, concerns about the then government’s plan to reform the Gender Recognition Act towards gender self-ID were growing. Sussex University philosophy professor Kathleen Stock was becoming concerned about both the topic and the lack of academic engagement with it.

Stock speaks up

On 7th May 2018 Stock wrote her first public words on the topic in a personal blog post: 

“Something is afoot in academic philosophy. Beyond the academy, there’s a huge and impassioned discussion going on, around the apparent conflict between women-who-are-not-transwomen’s rights and interests, and transwomen’s rights and interests. And yet nearly all academic philosophers — including, surprisingly, feminist philosophers — are ignoring it.”¹

She followed this with a second blog post on 13th May 2018 calling on fellow academics to stop treating “gender-critical” views as “transphobic” and to recognise that the position that sex matters is worthy of respectful examination.²

Her resolve to keep thinking and writing on the topic was strengthened when she began to receive emails from academics around the country saying that they shared her concern but were scared to say anything. As one wrote:

“I really don’t have a settled view on any of the many issues here, but the lack of conversation and the hounding and bullying of anyone who expresses a thought (not even opinion!) that isn’t popular… all that is depressing and distressing. Predictably enough, I won’t be saying any of that in a public post, because I’m a precariously employed person and a lot of folk who might make significant decisions about my future career prospects have very strong opinions. A little cowardly, but also prudent, sadly.”³

University commits to Stonewall scheme

In June 2018 Tickell launched a new equality, diversity and inclusion strategy,⁴ which included the goal of getting Sussex University into the Stonewall “Top 100” and securing Advance HE’s Athena Swan⁵ status across the university by 2025. The university began preparing to submit its first application to the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index, and reported that it had “started work with Stonewall and the LGBT+ Staff Network by reviewing relevant policies to ensure they are LGBT inclusive”.⁶

Stonewall and Advance HE were not simply promoting freedom from unlawful discrimination and harassment for trans people: they were seeking to stamp out “transphobia” from academic institutions, which Stonewall defined as “the fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including the denial/refusal to accept their gender identity”. 

This attempt to establish denial of the idea of gender identity as prohibited, hateful speech put them on a direct collision course with other people’s rights.

Debate on gender self-ID

On 3rd July 2018 Theresa May’s government opened a 16-week consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act “to make it easier for transgender people to change their legal gender on their birth certificate”.⁷ There could be little doubt that the intention was to press ahead with self-ID. Announcing the consultation in Parliament, minister Penny Mordaunt said: “Trans women are women. Trans men are men. And that is the starting point for the GRA consultation. And it will be its finishing point too.”⁸

Stock kept on being relentlessly reasonable in questioning this proposal and encouraging others to engage. On 5th July 2018 she gave an interview to Brighton newspaper The Argus.⁹ On 6th July 2018 The Economist published an article by her alongside viewpoints from all sides of the debate.¹⁰ On 16th July she spoke at a Woman’s Place UK meeting in Brighton.

In this talk she described a climate of fear in academia and named Stonewall as a cause: 

“By ‘trans activists’ I mean: organisations like Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, and so on: socially prominent, politically powerful, and rich. They have a simplified core political message. They aggressively push the mantra ‘trans women are women’, by which they apparently mean ‘literally women, in every possible sense’, and they promote self-ID.”¹¹

The bill was not long in coming. Stock drew the ire of Pink News,¹² students organised Facebook groups against her,¹³ and there was a protest on campus at the launch of the university’s strategic framework with placards naming her.

By 13th July 2018 Tickell was prompted to ask “those with different views and understandings to please show kindness to each other.”¹⁴

In September The Times carried a story about a Facebook group in which transactivist academics compiled a list of gender-critical colleagues and discussed how to oust them from their jobs by filing complaints. Members of the group claimed that Stock’s presence made the philosophy department at Sussex an “unsafe environment”.¹⁵

On 1st October 2018 The Conversation published an article by Stock.¹⁶ On 10th October she spoke at a Woman’s Place UK meeting at the House of Lords and highlighted the problem with Stonewall’s definition of transphobia.

“That makes anyone who denies that a transwoman is a woman, for whatever reason, transphobic — far outstripping what any reasonable law would prohibit.”¹⁷

On 16th October a group of gender-critical academics wrote a letter to The Guardian. Stock was the lead signatory.

“Many of our universities have close links with trans advocacy organisations who provide “training” of academics and management, and who, it is reasonable to suppose, influence university policy through these links. Definitions used by these organisations of what counts as “transphobic” can be dangerously all-encompassing and go well beyond what a reasonable law would describe. They would not withstand academic analysis, and yet their effect is to curtail academic freedom and facilitate the censoring of academic work.”¹⁸

University adopts hurried policy

One of the things that wins an institution points in the Stonewall Index is marking special days and weeks in the calendar. Transgender Awareness Week was 12th to 18th November 2018, followed by Transgender Day of Remembrance on 20th November.

In a message posted on 8th November, an anonymous administrator of the ‘Sussex Philosophy Students in Solidarity with Trans Students’ Facebook group boasted that “some of us are trying to hold people in positions of authority accountable” for Stock’s views.

On 12th November, it was proposed to the university that it adopt a Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement in time to announce it on Trans Day of Remembrance. Sussex University later told Stonewall that the process that resulted in this proposal was led by “the confidential membership of the Trans and Nonbinary Staff Network” and “its Chair who reports suggestions directly to the EDI unit”.¹⁹ 

A draft was presented to the university’s executive group the following day. It was based on a template from the Equality Challenge Unit (now called Advance HE) and included expansive provisions against “transphobia”, exactly what Stock had been warning about.²⁰

The senior decision-makers who made up the executive group thought the policy was insufficiently well developed and asked for it to be sent to the EDI committee before returning for more detailed discussion. They told the promoter of the policy: 

“If you feel we need to make a statement next Tuesday, this should be along the lines of ‘the University is supporting Trans Awareness Week and has committed to starting a conversation around the development of its Trans Equality Policy Statement’.” 

But the following day the executive group changed its mind. 

Instead of starting a conversation about what should be in a trans equality policy (which might have included Stock and others who shared her concerns), the group agreed to adopt the policy it had rejected the day before. 

This decision was taken at a meeting with a single agenda item. No separate minute was recorded.

It is not clear who or what brought about this handbrake turn, but it appears likely that whatever pressure the executive group was under came from people who wanted to send a clear signal that views like those expressed by Stock would not be tolerated. 

The Trans and Non Binary Equality Policy Statement agreed on in 2018 is a little over a page long. It includes the following statements:

• The curriculum shall not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people, and any materials within relevant courses and modules will positively represent trans people and trans lives.
• Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying (name-calling/ derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures.
• Transphobic propaganda, in the form of written materials, graffiti, music or speeches, will not be tolerated. We undertake to remove any such propaganda whenever it appears on the premises.²¹

Culture of fear

Stock has said that because of the policy, she was afraid to include the issue in her academic work. She said she:

“tried to raise the matter with superiors but to no avail… Over time, my teaching about sex and gender in feminist philosophy grew increasingly cautious, and most of my criticism of the sudden sanctification of gender identity took place elsewhere.”²²

Meanwhile the university ploughed on with trying to climb the Stonewall ladder. In June 2020 it published an action plan based on feedback from Stonewall and “in consultation with the LGBTQ+ Staff Network and the Trans and non-Binary Staff Network”. It told Stonewall that the university’s equality analysis process:

“ensures that policies are developed in discussion with employees with protected characteristics, guaranteeing that actual consultation takes place and that the voices of those affected by policies are heard early in the process of development. For example, the EDI unit sent the Guidance on Transitioning At Work draft document to the Trans and Nonbinary Staff Network for development.”²³

No one else’s views seem to have mattered.

It pledged to engage leadership at the highest level and to publish the annual messages of “commitment to LGBT+ inclusion”.

In 2020 the university signed up to a public “trans rights are human rights” campaign led by Stonewall,²⁴ supporting its political call for gender self-ID. In April 2021 the university established an LGBT+ Equality and Inclusion Self-Assessment Team to develop and oversee the delivery of an LGBT+ Equality and Inclusion Action Plan using the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index to “identify where further action is needed”. It said that it would arrange listening sessions “to hear the voices of LGBTQI+ staff and allies”.²⁵

Stock, a lesbian who disagreed with Stonewall, faced social isolation, investigations, public letters with mass signatures solicited online and an internal email campaign.

In May 2021 the Reindorf Review commissioned by Essex University was published. It exposed how accusations of transphobia are deployed to curtail academic freedom, and highlighted unlawful university policies developed through processes captured by internal and external lobby groups, and the culture of fear experienced by staff and students who disagree with gender-identity ideology.

In June 2021 the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that gender-critical beliefs were “worthy of respect in a democratic society” and protected by the Equality Act.

But the campaign against Stock intensified, and the university’s response continued to be inadequate. She filed a complaint to the university for its failure to support her.

According to a report in The Times, at the beginning of the new academic year in 2021 a student started “dropping into Whatsapp groups” and inviting others to get involved in a campaign to oust Stock. Around 15 students formed the group “Anti Terf Sussex” and began planning “Anti Stock Action”.²⁶

On 7th October they let off flares and pasted up posters around the university demanding that Stock be sacked.

The posters accused Stock of “transphobia” and of making students unsafe, and demanded that she be fired. 

Finally, on 8th October, the vice-chancellor went on the BBC’s Today programme to defend the “untrammelled right [of his academic staff] to say and believe what they think.”²⁷ 

It was too little, too late.

On Saturday 16th October nearly 100 people took over an open day at the University of Sussex to protest against her employment.²⁸ They yelled slogans including “Stock out!”, “Get Kathleen off our campus!” and “No Terfs here!”²⁹

The university released a statement saying: “Over the past two weeks, the University of Sussex has vigorously and unequivocally defended Professor Kathleen Stock’s right to exercise her academic freedom and lawful freedom of speech.”³⁰

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, commented.³¹ Several open letters of support were organised: one by philosophers,³² one by legal academics³³ and one by the new organisation Sex Matters.³⁴

The OfS contacted the university on 22nd October 2021 seeking further information.

Stock went off sick because of the intimidation, and then resigned.³⁵

In a statement in the House of Lords on 16th November the education minister said that she had been informed by the Office for Students (OfS) that it had opened an investigation into whether the University of Sussex has met its obligations on academic freedom and freedom of speech.³⁶ 

OfS finds Sussex University has breached higher-education regulations

Three and a half years later the OfS has released its findings and fined Sussex University £585,000.³⁷

It found that the university had been breaching Conditions E1 and E2 of the OfS’s regulatory framework by adopting the trans and non-binary equality policy, and in the state of its decision-making.³⁸

Condition E1 protects academic freedom and freedom of speech.

“Academic staff at an English higher education provider have freedom within the law: 

• to question and test received wisdom; and 
• to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at the provider. 

The governing body takes such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured within the provider.”

The OfS found that the Trans and Non Binary Equality Policy Statement based on the Advance HE template resulted in the restriction of lawful speech, including in course materials and curricula, and created a wider chilling effect leading to self-censorship.

Condition E2 requires that:

“The provider must have in place adequate and effective management and governance arrangements to: 

 (i) Operate in accordance with its governing documents.”

The OfS report describes the rushed process by which the policy was adopted during that week in 2018. It also found that:

• The Prevent Steering Group approved and adopted the 2021 version of the university’s Freedom of Speech Code of Practice despite that group not having delegated authority to do so. 
• The 2023 version of the External Speakers’ Procedure was approved by the university’s executive group despite that group not having delegated authority to do so. 
• The executive group also approved the 2022 and 2023 versions of the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement, despite that group not having delegated authority to do so. 

The OfS says this meant that: 

“Decisions were made by individuals or groups that had not been identified by the university as appropriate decision-makers and there is a risk that this may have led to decision-making of a degraded quality, and as a result, decisions may not have been made in the best interests of students and staff, and in accordance with the university’s legal and regulatory obligations.” 

The baseline penalty for these breaches, aggravated by the fact that they were longstanding and not reported, was over £3.6 million. This was reduced to £585,000 to reflect that this was the first time the OfS has found breaches by a university in relation to freedom of speech and academic freedom.

The OfS also said that although it does not come within the area it regulates, the university may not have complied with its legal duties relating to freedom of speech under Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986; Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and the Equality Act 2010 in relation to indirect discrimination and the public-sector equality duty. 

Alison Johns, Chief Executive of Advance HE, has now written to VCs of member universities acknowledging that “certain policy statements cited in the findings originated, in part, from a template developed by the Equality Challenge Unit”. She says that the template does not reflect the institution’s current approach or guidance on free speech, protected beliefs and good relations, and encourages members to review their trans inclusion policies and web pages and remove “any legacy language” cited by the OfS.³⁹

Why didn’t Sussex stop?

Why was Sussex so unwilling to drop the faulty policy it had adopted so rashly and start again, involving a wider range of stakeholders, recognising that other people had an interest, and taking legal advice with a view to protecting people with all protected characteristics equally in compliance with the law? 

The answer seems to be that on this subject senior managers were exerting no leadership, and the only focused goal was gaining Stonewall 100 status by 2025.

At the end of 2019 the EDI deputy pro-vice-chancellor who had led on the initial strategy left and the university went through three interim appointments over the next three years. 

In June 2021 Tickell announced his intention to step down as vice-chancellor. He moved on to be vice-chancellor of Birmingham University. 

In October 2021 Sussex hired David Ruebain as its new pro-vice-chancellor of culture, equality and inclusion. The role was elevated to the executive group at the highest level of the institution. Earlier in his career Ruebain had been CEO of the ECU (the organisation where Sussex University’s bad policy had originated).⁴⁰

Professor Sasha Roseneil started her tenure as vice-chancellor at the beginning of August 2022. 

None of these people was willing to demonstrate the leadership and judgement they were paid for, and which were needed to take on and face down the “confidential trans network”. The treatment meted out to Stock, Falkner⁴¹ and JK Rowling made clear what would happen if they did. 

On 16th August 2022 the university released a slightly updated version of the policy.

• The requirement to represent trans people and trans lives positively in modules and courses was removed.
• The stereotyping statement was amended to read: “The curriculum shall not rely on or seek to reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people.”

It added the words “Approved by the University Executive Group”.⁴²

On 17th January 2023 there were further updates:

• A safeguard was added stating that “nothing in this Policy Statement should be taken to justify sanctioning academic staff for questioning or testing received wisdom or putting forward new ideas including controversial or unpopular opinions within the law and nor should this Policy Statement be taken to justify disproportionate restrictions on freedom of speech.”
• The provision on “transphobic propaganda” was removed and incorporated as “any abusive, bullying or harassing material” under the provision on transphobic abuse, harassment and bullying.
• A definition of “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying” was added, saying that it “mean[s] unwanted behaviours and communications that could reasonably be expected to cause distress or fear among trans people”.⁴³

A further updated version was released in May 2024.⁴⁴ The OfS considered the 2022 and 2023 versions and said that while there were improvements, the policies continued to prohibit lawful speech and have a chilling effect (it has not yet considered the 2024 version). 

The changes to the section on “transphobic propaganda” and “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying” show the confused genesis and evolution of the policy. 

Provisions against “transphobic propaganda”: how Sussex University’s policy evolved

2018 and 2022 policies say “transphobic propaganda” will be removed:

Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying (name-calling/derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures.

Transphobic propaganda, in the form of written materials, graffiti, music or speeches, will not be tolerated. We undertake to remove any such propaganda whenever it appears on the premises.

In 2023 this is replaced by “any [transphobic] abusive, bullying or harassing material”:

Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying* (e.g. name-calling/derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures. Any abusive, bullying, or harassing material (e.g. written materials, graffiti or recordings) will be removed from University premises.

* We use the term “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying” to mean unwanted behaviours and communications that could reasonably be expected to cause distress or fear among trans people.

In 2024 this is linked to the test for criminal harassment:

Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying* (e.g. name-calling/derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures. After consideration of its form and contents, material (e.g. written materials, graffiti or recordings) that is found objectively to be abusive, bullying, or harassing will be removed from University premises.

* We use the term “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying” to mean unwanted behaviours and communications that could reasonably be expected to cause distress or fear among trans people. This definition is objective and replicates the definition in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as set out in the Cod [sic] for Crown Prosecutors.
(Emphasis added)

Sussex University’s responsibility is to protect its students and staff from unlawful harassment related to protected characteristics in the Equality Act, not criminal harassment under the Harassment Act 1997 (which would be a police matter). 

Sussex University digs in

Roseneil has not taken the news of the OfS finding well. She has doubled down on defending the policy and the university’s decision-making, accusing the OfS of “decreeing libertarian free-speech absolutism as the fundamental principle for UK universities” and “perpetuating the culture wars”. She says the university will appeal against the fine and seek a judicial review of the decision. 

She describes the policy statement as no big deal because she says it does not have the status of being a “governing document” of the university:

“This is a really small statement, of which we have many dozens, if not hundreds, of similar policies and statements. Whereas the governing documents of the university are its charter and statutes and regulations.”⁴⁵

The idea that this was “a really small statement” is inconsistent with what Sussex University has been saying for the past five years.

The university started this process in 2018, promising to “take bold action” under the guidance of its trans and non-binary network group and Stonewall. This is exactly what it did, year after year. The people in charge of this were senior and paid good money. Each year they reported to the Council, and the Council agreed to the goal of achieving Stonewall status. 

In May 2024 the university celebrated reaching its goal of being ranked 30th in the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index Top 100.⁴⁶ As it completed its way up the ladder towards that goal, every year it assured Stonewall that the policy was supported at the highest level and that the university took a “zero tolerance” approach to “transphobia”. That blinkered determination to prioritise the narrow demands of ideological lobbyists within and outside the university led it to overlook its duty to prevent harassment of staff who dissented from that ideological position, and to uphold academic freedom and free speech on campus for everyone.

1. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Academic philosophy and the UK Gender Recognition Act’. @kathleenstock blog (archived).
2. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘What I believe about sex and gender (and what I don’t)’. @kathleenstock blog (archived).
3. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Anonymised responses from other academics to my articles on sex, gender, and philosophy’. @kathleenstock blog (archived).
4. University Of Sussex (2018). Inclusive Sussex: equality, diversity and inclusion strategy 2018–2025.
5. John Armstrong and Allice Sullivan (2024). ‘A critical analysis of Athena Swan as a policy-scoring scheme’. British Educational Research Journal, volume 51, issue 1.
6. University of Sussex (2018). Equality, diversity and inclusion annual report to council 2017/18.
7. UK Government (2018). ‘Government announces plans to reform process of changing legal gender’. Press release, 3rd July 2018.
8. UK Parliament (2018). ‘Commons: 3 July 2018 (Volume 644)’. Hansard.
9. Jody Doherty-Cove (2018). ‘“Trans women are still males with male genitalia” – university lecturer airs controversial views. The Argus.
10. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Changing the concept of “woman” will cause unintended harms’. The Economist.
11. Kathleen Stock (2018) ‘A Woman’s Place is Turning the Tide’. Woman’s Place UK.
12. Ella Braidwood (2018). ‘University lecturer criticised after declaring “trans women are still males with male genitalia”’. Pink News.
13. Facebook page: ‘Sussex Philosophy Students in Solidarity with Trans Students’.
14. Adam Tickell (2018). ‘A message from the Vice-Chancellor – living our values’. University of Sussex website.
15. Lucy Bannerman (2018). ‘Trans Goldsmiths lecturer Natacha Kennedy behind smear campaign against academics’. The Times.
16. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Why self-identification should not legally make you a woman’. The Conversation.
17. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Women’s Place talk: full text House of Lords Oct 10th 2018’. @kathleenstock blog (archived).
18. Kathleen Stock et al (2018). ‘Academics are being harassed over their research into transgender issues’. Letter to The Guardian, 16th October 2018.
19. Stewart (2022). ‘Information about Stonewall Workplace Equality Index (WEI)’. What Do They Know.
20. Equality Challenge Unit (2016). Trans equality policy statement.
21. University of Sussex (2018). Trans and Non Binary Equality Policy Statement.
22. Kathleen Stock (2025). ‘Fortunes are changing in the culture war Sussex University should move on’. UnHerd.
23. University of Sussex (2020). Stonewall Workplace Equality Index Action Plan.
24. Stonewall (2020). ‘Over 100 major companies join together to say trans rights are human rights’.
25. University of Sussex (2021). Equality, diversity and inclusion annual report to council 2020/21.
26. Tom Ball (2021). ‘Inside the “cloak and dagger” campaign against Kathleen Stock’. The Times.
27. Tortoise (2021). ‘The Kathleen Stock case is about much more than trans rights’.
28. Harry Lambert (2021). ‘Kathleen Stock and Sussex University: the war over academic freedom’. The New Statesman.
29. Sam Baker and Jacob Thorburn (2021). ‘Masked mob demand trans row professor is sacked in campus protest after defending anonymous crusade because “they don’t want to be abused online”’. Mail Online.
30. University of Sussex (2021). Post on Twitter @SussexUni, 21st October 2021.
31. Kishwer Falkner (2021). Post on Twitter @EHRCChair, 10th October 2021.
32. UK philosophers (2021). Open letter of solidarity with the University of Sussex.
33. Legal academics (2021). Open Letter to Sussex University from legal academics.
34. Sex Matters (2021). ‘Academics write to the EHRC’.
35. Richard Adams (2021). ‘Sussex professor resigns after transgender rights row’. The Guardian.
36. UK Parliament (2021). ‘Professor Kathleen Stock: Resignation (Volume 816: debated on Tuesday 16 November 2021)’. Hansard.
37. Office for Students (2025). ‘Regulatory case report for University of Sussex: OfS decisions relating to breaches of conditions E1 and E2 and the imposition of monetary penalties’.
38. Office for Students (2022). Securing student success: Regulatory framework for higher education in England.
39. Alison Johns (2025). Letter from Advance HE to university vice-chancellors, 31st March 2025.
40. David Ruebain (accessed March 2025). Profile on LinkedIn.
41. Sex Matters (2024). ‘Timeline of efforts to sabotage the EHRC’s work to protect everyone’s rights’.
42.  University of Sussex (2022). Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement.
43. University of Sussex (2023). Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement.
44. University of Sussex (2024). Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement.
    
45. Richard Adams (2025). ‘University of Sussex taking legal action over £585,000 free speech fine’. The Guardian.
46. University of Sussex (2024). ‘University of Sussex named 30th in Stonewall’s Top 100 Employer 2024 list’.

The post What happened at Sussex University?  appeared first on Sex Matters.

The government is passing legislation to establish a “trustmark” for digital identity services, and to allow these services to access individuals’ personal information from public bodies, based on their consent. The aim is to give people a way to prove who they are and facts about themselves, without having to show, or have organisations keep copies of, documents such as passports, exam certificates, bills or bank statements.

People will be able to have a government-endorsed app on their phone that they can use to prove things about themselves, for instance that they are over 18, without revealing other information. They will also be able to use digital identity services to help do things like renting a flat, applying for a job or registering on a gig-economy platform. People who want to use paper documents such as a passport to prove their identity will still be able to do so.

The idea is that these digital services won’t share or have access to all your personal information, all the time, only to the items of data you chose to share at any particular moment. With online, automated and at-a-distance interactions becoming ever more important, these trustmarked services are set to become the “identity layer” of UK economic and civic life, underpinning interactions with public and private services, and allowing us to reveal or keep our personal information private when we choose to.

How will digital identity services work?

To be able to reliably prove facts about you, a digital identity service will first need to ascertain that you are who you say you are. For example, if your name is Tracy Edwards it needs to confirm not only that you are “Tracy Edwards”, but that you are that Tracy Edwards. 

It needs to be able to differentiate Tracy Edwards, the prize-winning yachtswoman who is a member of Sex Matters’ advisory group and was born in September 1962 in Berkshire, from the textile artist, the university lecturer, the two registered nurses and the dozens of other Tracy Edwards whose data may be held. 

The digital identity service can then verify other facts (called “attributes”) associated with this Tracy Edwards’ unique identity. Tracy Edwards has a valid driving licence and a certain bank account with a certain amount of money in it; she owns the intellectual property from certain books and is entitled to collect royalties from certain publishers; this is her mobile phone number; she owns a particular property, and so on. 

All that information isn’t in one big database. When she uses a digital identity service for a particular purpose it will ask permission to access the specific data she gives consent for, from various sources. For example, a job application service should be able to verify qualifications from a range of different exam boards and professional bodies, and employment history from different employers. Once the service has done this once, the data can be used for multiple job applications.

Tracy Edwards may want to prove she is over 60 to get a railcard for discounted travel tickets. The digital identity service needs to provide no more information about her age than whether or not she is over 60 (for example by producing a QR or share code that encodes this information). She can then prove she is over 60 without sharing her name or date of birth with the seller. The system has been designed this way in order to preserve the maximum amount of privacy consistent with sharing the information needed for the specific purpose.

A digital identity service does not need to record someone’s sex at all to confirm who they are, or other facts about them. But sometimes sex is one of the pieces of information the person wants to share.

Perhaps Tracy Edwards wants to share certain health information in registering with a pharmacy or private healthcare provider. This includes her sex.

Perhaps she wants to register with an agency that provides personal care at home. It needs to know her sex. She also wants to know the sex of any carers it sends.

Perhaps she wants to join a gym. It wants to record the sex of each member in case it has to provide information to an emergency service. It also uses it for a practical purpose: to create a membership app with a barcode that can be used to swipe for entry to 24-hour unsupervised male, female and unisex changing rooms.

Perhaps she wants to compete in the female elite category of a sport. The athletics club and sports governing body needs to record her sex accurately, as well as the sex of everyone else applying to be in that category.

Perhaps she wants to join a dating site. It asks individuals to provide their sex. 

Perhaps she wants to volunteer as a counsellor for vulnerable women. Again, sex matters.

But she may well not want every Amazon delivery driver to be able to access data that shows she is a woman living alone. She may want to enter a writing competition that is judged without information on the writers’ personal characteristics. She wants to take out car insurance; the insurance company shouldn’t take her sex into account in calculating the premium (that has been unlawful sex discrimination since 2012). 

Using digital identity services doesn’t necessarily mean she has to share the fact that she is female in every interaction. But when she does want to share her sex, the data shared needs to be accurate and reliable, for her own safety and security and those of others. 

When she declares her sex she is not declaring her “gender identity”. She does not necessarily want to get into a conversation with a pharmacist’s assistant about why she doesn’t wish to be classified as a “cis-woman” or a “person with a vagina”. The single letter “F”, stored reliably in a data field that is labelled as referring to the immutable, biological characteristic, is precisely the right amount of data for accurately recording her sex. 

What if a person does not want to share their sex? Often they will not have to. If there is no record of a person’s sex, then any pharmacist or radiologist (or computer) looking at their records will need to consider the risks and benefits of any procedure, treatment or medication without knowing that data. The trade-off for not sharing data on sex in such a situation may be that the person accepts higher risk and potentially less benefit. In some cases an individual who chooses not to share their sex will have to accept that means they cannot use a service: a care agency or hospital may not be able to provide care to someone who doesn’t want their sex recorded. A service provider that has accurate data about a transgender person in situations where it needs that data can also be responsive to that person’s wishes concerning their care and privacy.

What is the problem?

The Data Protection Act and General Data Protection Regulations should protect our data, requiring organisations to keep it accurate, label it clearly, not get confused about it and process it only for lawful purposes. But for many years now, many organisations have conflated sex with “gender identity” and enabled people to change their recorded sex to reflect the sex they wish they were.

This means these organisations, which include the Passport Office, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the NHS central Personal Demographic Service (which holds NHS numbers and other core data about us) cannot be used as reliable sources of information about what sex people are. 

Digital identity services have one job: to identify reliable pieces of personal information. If they cannot do this they will fail. They will fail to secure trust and as a result, will fail to save money. They will fail to keep people safe and they will fail to comply with the law.

Sex Matters has been trying (so far with no success) to get decision-makers in government to understand this basic concept.

Last week a committee of MPs removed two clauses from the Data (Use and Access) Bill that had been added by peers during the bill’s passage through the House of Lords. These would have required the government to consider whether these data sources are reliable. On Tuesday, in the next debate on the bill, it is likely to succeed in removing a third safeguard clause. 

Government plans to rely on citizens and business to use “common sense” 

In the debate last week, DSIT Minister Chris Bryant rejected the arguments for ensuring that data about sex is accurate, saying:

“I simply do not buy this argument that we need to make this provision in relation to all digital verification services.”

He recognised that sex matters in prisons, the health service and many other areas, but said: 

“Simple common sense should apply in relation to female-only spaces and wanting to make sure that women are safe.”

But in a letter to Dr Caroline Johnson MP he said:

“Digital verification services can be used to prove sex or gender, in the same way that individuals can already prove their sex using their passport, for example.”

Johnson had to put the record straight about this in a point of order in the House of Commons. We know that “passport sex” is not reliable or accurate. HMPO even explicitly allows men who identify as “crossdressers” to have “female” passports. 

The minister himself appears not to know this, but he also says it will be fine to feed this unreliable data into the new digital identity and attributes verifications system, and allow people to use it to prove their sex. The government has not bothered to do its homework but is expecting millions of individuals such as frontline workers and elderly women who need care to apply “common sense” – that is, to know when they cannot trust the data, even after the government has spent millions of pounds and passed a law to develop an official system to offer a “trustmark” to  signify that the data can be trusted.

The Data (Use and Access) Bill will eventually go back to the House of Lords, without the safeguards the government has taken out. We hope that peers will be more assiduous in considering this flaw in the bill. 

If the government won’t fix it and Parliament won’t fix it, then, as with the For Women Scotland case on the definition of sex in the Equality Act, the matter of whether it is lawful to create a national digital identity framework that cannot accurately verify sex will have to be determined by the courts.

The post Government removes safeguards from digital identity bill appeared first on Sex Matters.

2024

20th December

The week began with Janet Eastham for The Telegraph reporting that Helen Joyce had accused the press watchdog IPSO of double standards after it upheld Juno Dawson’s objection to being described in The Spectator as “a man who claims to be a woman” but dismissed her own, in which The Argus misreported the sex of a trans-identifying man with a criminal record who had made violent threats to her. “Ipso placed the feelings of a violent criminal who threatened extreme violence against a woman who refuses to pretend he is a woman ahead of the feelings of his victim, and ahead of the plain truth,” she said.

Later in the week, Craig Simpson in the same paper reported that Sex Matters is calling for IPSO to scrap its guidelines on gender – which support self-identification of sex even for violent criminals – or for editors to ignore them. Helen pointed out: “The guidance as it stands contravenes the Editors’ Code, the first clause of which is accuracy, sides with violent male criminals and against their female victims and forces media outlets to mislead their audience.”

Helen joined Alex Phillips on TalkTV to discuss the ruling in a case taken by a mother that her 16-year-old daughter, who identifies as a boy, will have to wait for a full mental-health evaluation before she can be prescribed testosterone by Gender Plus, a private provider. The judge accepted that the findings and recommendations of the Cass Review, and Wes Streeting’s ban on puberty blockers on the NHS, meant it might not be in the child’s best interests to take cross-sex hormones. 

In GB News, Eliana Silver reported that women had gathered outside BBC headquarters to protest about the award for “Women’s Footballer of the Year” going to Barba Banda. Fiona McAnena explained: “There is serious doubt that Banda is female – it is much more likely that he is a male with a disorder of sex development based on reports that he failed a gender test.” She suggested that the BBC should celebrate female players instead. Sailor Tracy Edwards, who has just joined Sex Matters’ advisory group, called the award a “destruction of women’s sports”.

The rest of the week’s coverage was on the Labour government’s disappointing and legally inaccurate response to a call for evidence issued under the previous government, which asked for guidance and policies that suggested men who identify as women have the right to use female-only spaces. 

Fiona Parker and Michael Searles reported in The Telegraph, where Maya Forstater said: “The Government is saying it’s fine for a service provider to allow men who identify as women into women-only spaces, as long as it doesn’t say that’s the law. In plain language, it’s saying it’s fine for any man who’s willing to claim he’s a woman to come into women’s changing rooms and showers – spaces where people get naked.”

Susanna Sidell in GB News wrote that Helen had called Labour’s new guidance “legally illiterate” – lawyer Michael Foran, who has joined Sex Matters’ advisory group, pointed out that it “fails to consider the prohibition on indirect discrimination and harassment”. Maya labelled the document a “lazy kick in the teeth to women”. 

Martin Beckford covered the same issue for the Daily Mail. Maya said: “How can you stand against male violence against women while giving away female-only spaces to any man who wants to walk in?” Helen was also interviewed by Ian Collins on Talk TV about the guidance. 

Feminist Joan Smith wrote a scathing piece for UnHerd, saying of the policy: “It’s self-ID by the back door, as Sex Matters was quick to point out.”

Finally, Helen appeared as guest host on a special episode of the Gender: a wider lens podcast to interview Marian Tompson, one of the founders of the global breastfeeding-support network La Leche League, about why she quit the organisation over trans ideology.

13th December

Michael Searles for The Telegraph opened this week’s coverage with the news that NHS England has rolled out a “safer spaces” programme for various “genders” and sexual orientations, including aromantic, non-binary, bi+ and trans. Helen Joyce said that NHS England is perpetuating the myth that people with a so-called “gender identity” are automatically at elevated risk of harm, and that it should instead provide genuine “safer spaces” for female NHS staff in light of the Darlington nurses case.

Next, Steven Edginton for GB News revealed that officials in the Cabinet Office were sent a memo last month celebrating Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDoR). Civil servants were told that it is “a significant day” to remember people killed by “acts of anti-transgender violence”. Maya Forstater said that TDoR events perpetuate the myth that identifying as transgender is a risk factor for experiencing violent crime or being murdered – a claim that is unsupported by evidence – and that no civil-service body should be promoting events based on extreme transactivist claims.

Compact magazine published a piece by Connie Shaw, a university student who was suspended from Leeds Student Radio for her gender-critical views. Connie wrote that reading Helen’s work led her to become more invested in the topic.

Janet Eastham for The Telegraph reported on the criticism faced by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) following its ruling on The Spectator in favour of trans-identifying male author Juno Dawson, who had complained about how he was referred to in an article by Gareth Roberts. Maya said the decision was reckless and hostile, and that it could not be further from IPSO’s mission to “protect the public and freedom of expression”. She also said that the regulator should not be penalising editors and journalists for pulling back the curtain on those who want to manufacture belief in the magic of sex change.

Along with her colleague Craig Simpson, Janet followed up this story with the news that The Spectator is evaluating its relationship with IPSO in light of the decision, which was condemned by the paper’s new editor Michael Gove. Helen said that IPSO’s guidance is biased and illogical, and that journalists and editors feel under pressure to accept the fringe belief that people can change sex as settled fact. Helen’s comments were also referenced in a further story by Janet alongside Charles Hymas on criticism from Conservative politicians that IPSO has engaged in “blatant political activism”.

Fiona McAnena appeared on Kait Borsay’s TalkRadio show along with trans-rights activist Steph Richards to discuss Judy Murray’s comments on sex testing to address trans-identifying men in women’s sports. 

Michael Searles for The Telegraph reported that the devolved government has moved to ban puberty blockers in Northern Ireland permanently, closing a loophole that private clinics – such as Susie Green’s Anne Health – had planned to take advantage of. Fiona said this was a significant shift from the main parties’ stance in favour of blocking the puberty of healthy children and that the decision will be a huge blow to private clinics.

The rest of the week was then dominated by the news that Health Secretary Wes Streeting has extended the ban on puberty blockers in the UK indefinitely. Nick Triggle for BBC News, Eleanor Hayward for The Times, Nuray Bulbul and Emma Loffhagen for The Standard, and NDTV published Helen’s comment that Streeting showed integrity and bravery, and that the ban marks another step towards puberty blockers being relegated to a shameful chapter of history, in which parents and health professionals were emotionally blackmailed into harming children in the name of “progress”.

Michael Searles’ coverage of the news for The Telegraph was also published in major newspapers across Australia, including The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, Brisbane Times and WA Today. Michael quoted Helen as saying that it will be an emotional day for families whose children experienced the physical harms caused by puberty blockers and the campaigners subjected to abuse, discrimination and scorn for raising the alarm in the years before the Cass Review.

Jacquelin Magnay for The Australian quoted Helen’s post on X saying that Streeting not only stood firm on the temporary ban on puberty blockers he inherited from the previous government, but carefully closed loopholes and made it indefinite despite a sustained campaign of lies and emotional blackmail. Writing for UnHerd, Jo Bartosch referenced Maya Forstater’s police investigation in the context of “trans inclusion” policies that will remain in spite of the new ban on puberty blockers.

Naomi Cunningham was interviewed by Iain Collins for TalkTV on the ban, while Fiona was interviewed by Jeremy Kyle, also on TalkTV.

6th December

This week’s coverage began with Kit Shepard for The Times on the news that USA women’s football team head coach Emma Hayes defended the awarding of the BBC Women’s Footballer of the Year to Barbra Banda, who is suspected to be a male with a DSD. Kit referenced Sex Matters’ letter to the BBC, which has warned that the controversy will cast a shadow over its upcoming Sports Personality of the Year event.

Next, Helen Joyce wrote for The Critic on the downfall of the Women’s Equality Party (WEP) and argued that its failure to give a straight answer to the question of our time – “What is a woman?” – was a fatal error, making the party irrelevant in the most active decade in women’s rights activism since the 1970s.

Writing for the Mail on Sunday, Sanchez Manning revealed that University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust now says that its controversial guidance stating that men who identify as women can produce breastmilk “comparable” to women was never intended to encourage men to “chestfeed”. Helen said it was disturbing that it had taken the trust so long to reveal that staff at UH Sussex do, in fact, know that men can’t breastfeed.

Fiona McAnena was interviewed on TalkTV by Jonathan Gullis on the fallout from Rosie Millard’s decision to quit as chair of BBC’s Children in Need charity over its ties to LGBT Youth Scotland. 

Finally, Gareth Corfield for The Telegraph covered the news that LNER refused to respond to an FOI request on the £58K spent to redecorate a train for Pride month on the basis of the requester Carol Fossick’s gender-critical social-media activity. Despite the Information Commissioner’s Office ruling in favour of Fossick, the information requested has still not been disclosed. Maya Forstater said that LNER’s attempt to thought-police passengers for blaspheming against the rainbow suggests a corporate culture that is more akin to a medieval church than a modern business. The story was also covered by John James for Mail Online.

29th November

Connor Stringer for The Telegraph and Sam Merriman for the Daily Mail kicked off this week’s coverage with the news that British Transport Police (BTP) have issued new guidance that allows male officers with gender-recognition certificates to strip-search women. Maya Forstater said that the policy is a shocking breach of human rights and that states have an absolute duty to protect citizens from degrading and inhuman treatment.

Connor then wrote that Sex Matters has sent a letter before action to BTP and plans to bring a judicial review of the guidance. Maya said the legal action is on the basis that the guidance is state-sponsored sex discrimination and sexual abuse, and breaches the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act and PACE, the law that requires strip-searches to only be carried out by someone of the same sex. 

The story was also covered by David Shipley for The Spectator, Susanna Siddell and Eliana Silver for GB News, Lauren Smith for Spiked, and Andrea Tode Jimenez for International Business Times. JK Rowling’s reaction to the story was covered by Daniel Sanderson and Connor for The Telegraph.

Meanwhile, James Beal for The Times reported that police officers in Britain are logging hate incidents against people with gender-critical views despite guidance warning that their opinions are legally held. Helen Joyce was quoted as saying that it’s disgraceful that police forces across Britain continue to ignore this guidance and are recording the personal details of people who accept the scientific fact that people’s biological sex — male and female — cannot change.

Helen had a world-exclusive interview in The Times with Marian Tompson, 94, who recently quit the global breastfeeding support organisation La Leche League International, which she co-founded in 1956, over its support for male breastfeeding. Marian told Helen about how she came to found La Leche and gave her account of how gender-identity ideology took over the organisation by stealth.

For Women Scotland’s challenge to the Scottish government in the Supreme Court dominated news for the rest of the week. Sex Matters’ intervention was mentioned in coverage by Susan Dalgety for The Scotsman, Iain MacWhirter for The Spectator, Julie Bindel for the Daily Mail and Julie again for UnHerd, as well as articles by Libby Brooks for The Guardian covering day one and day two of the hearing. Helen was interviewed by Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkTV on the first day of the hearing, as was Fiona by Jeremy Kyle,  while trans-rights activist Robin Moira White, writing for The Independent, criticised the approach of Sex Matters’ lawyer, Ben Cooper KC. 

Fiona Hamilton for The Times quoted Naomi as saying that the long-held conventional wisdom among lawyers that a £5 piece of paper can turn a man into a woman for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 was shaken on day one of the hearing. 

Naomi was also quoted by Catherine Nixey in The Economist as saying that the idea that a certificate transforms a man into a woman is as stupid as giving someone a certificate to say that they are dead when they are alive or that they are alive when they are dead.

Sam Merriman for the Daily Mail quoted Helen as saying the case was forcing the legal system to face up to the destructive ambiguity concerning the legal definition of the word “woman”, which has done great harm to the rights of actual flesh-and-blood women.

Also writing for the Daily Mail, Tom Gordon quoted Maya as saying that the Scottish government’s arguments had been shocking in their hypocrisy, while Fiona McAnena told Alex Philips on TalkTV that the Scottish government had shot itself in the foot by contradicting all the arguments it made when trying to push through self-ID. 

In other news, Matt Lawton for The Times covered the news that Sex Matters wrote a letter to the BBC after Barbra Banda – who is thought to be a male with a DSD – won its award for women’s footballer of the year. The letter, signed by Fiona, warned that the controversy will cast a shadow over the BBC Sports Personality of the Year and that female athletes deserve better than for the national broadcaster to promote this player as if there were no questions to be answered. Fiona was interviewed by Mike Graham on TalkTV on the story.

Finally, former Bracknell Forest Council employee Sarah Holman noted her appreciation of support from Sex Matters in an article by Frances Hardy for the Daily Mail on her upcoming employment tribunal on the grounds of discrimination against her and other female staff who were forced to share facilities with men following a shift to “gender-neutral” toilets.

22nd November

This week’s coverage opened with mentions of the now-dropped police investigation against Maya Forstater for social media posts in 2023. Writing for the Daily Mail, Julie Bindel mentioned Maya in an article on her own experience of being investigated for a “hate crime”, which was covered by Eliana Silver for GB News. Maya was also mentioned by Mary Harrington in an article for UnHerd on how Franz Kafka predicted the age of “petty tyranny” in modern-day Britain.

Next, Fiona McAnena wrote an article for The Telegraph on why the Football Association and Gary Lineker’s silence on the plight of a 17-year-old female football player who was disciplined for asking if a bearded opponent was a man must be fought. Fiona highlighted the hypocrisy of the FA focusing on female health, wellbeing, and safeguarding in its newly launched strategy for women’s and girls’ football, and flagged that in 2003 the FA pointed out that letting male players with trans identities into women’s games could threaten the requirement for a level playing field in sport. 

Helen Joyce was interviewed by Claire Foges on LBC on the scandal surrounding breastfeeding charity La Leche League GB (LLLGB), which has seen whistleblowing trustees forced out for trying to protect the organisation’s charitable aim to provide services for mothers, as defined by UK law, in the face of bullying and pressure from LLL International to include men who want to breastfeed as beneficiaries.

Sex Matters’ concerns that the government’s new digital identity and verification system could be compromised due to incorrect data on sex was covered by a number of IT and technology media outlets. Catherine Knowles for TechDay’s IT Brief and Security Brief, as well as Masha Borak for Biometric Update, cited Sex Matters’ criticism of the reliance on data from DVLA, the passport office and the NHS, which routinely alter sex markers on official records. Maya was quoted as saying that corrupted data on sex will cause serious harm to individuals in areas including healthcare, policing, sport and single-sex services.

Maya’s employment tribunal was mentioned by Kimi Robinson for USA Today, Brendan McFadden for Daily Express US, and The Week in coverage of HBO’s statement that JK Rowling has the “right to express” her gender-critical views.

Fiona was interviewed by Alex Phillips at TalkTV on comments made by Alex Sobel MP on “gender neutral” language in healthcare.

Finally, Sex Matters’ submission to For Women Scotland’s Supreme Court case next week was mentioned in an article by Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn for The Critic. The article speculated whether the case could be First Minister John Swinney’s “Isla Bryson moment”, referencing the controversy that contributed to Nicola Sturgeon’s political downfall.

15th November

This week’s coverage began with Sam Merriman for the Daily Mail reporting that councils are asking parents what gender their three-year-old children identify as when registering for school. The software comes from an external provider and is used by more than 100 local authorities in London and the north of England. Maya Forstater called for the question to be scrapped and said that projecting the adult beliefs and concepts of transactivism onto children is not only ludicrous but also harmful. The news was also covered by Alex Barton for The Telegraph.

Martina Navratilova and Sharron Davies’ challenge to Gary Lineker to address football’s failure to stop men playing in women’s leagues was covered by Tom Morgan for The Telegraph. Sex Matters trustee Emma Hilton asked why he isn’t speaking up for women and girls, and said that men need to raise this given that women have been carrying this issue for years. She also said that it was hard to see the hero men of football history struck dumb by these issues. The news was also covered by Tom Parsons for the Daily Express. 

James Beal for The Times, Martin Beckford for the Daily Mail, Tom McArdle for The Telegraph, and Perry Chiaramonte for the New York Sun covered the news that the US-based La Leche League (LLL) founder Marian Tompson, 94, and British trustee Miriam Main have quit over the new generation of leadership’s inclusion of men in breastfeeding support services. Helen Joyce said that the situation at LLL is one of the starkest examples of how gender-identity ideology turns organisations upside-down, and that by including men who want to breastfeed in its services, LLL is destroying its founding mission to support breastfeeding mothers. Helen was interviewed by Jeremy Kyle on TalkTV about the story.

Martin also reported that EHRC chair Baroness Kishwer Falkner is being kept on in her role for another year. Maya said that the extension of Baroness Falkner’s leadership sends a clear message to the activist lobby that went as far as trying to involve the United Nations to unseat her, and that she has been heroic in her battle to ensure everyone’s rights are respected

Sophie Perry for Pink News reported that equalities minister Anneliese Dodds was facing flak on social media for meeting with Sex Matters. The article reported Sex Matters’ photograph and post on social media about the meeting, but didn’t elaborate on or give examples of any criticism faced by Dodds.

Dominating news the rest of the week was coverage of the police investigation faced by Maya for “malicious communication” over a tweet, following the news that Allison Pearson of The Telegraph faces a similar investigation. Charles Hymas of The Telegraph reported that Maya had been under investigation since June 2023 and was initially only told that this related to a post “targeted” at a member of the transgender community. She then attended an interview and discovered that it related to a transgender GP who she had claimed “enjoys intimately examining female patients without their consent”, for which she said she has evidence. Maya was quoted in the article as saying that she expresses her views because they are important to her, and that she considers them to be a legitimate contribution to an ongoing political debate. The news was also covered by Alex Farber for The Times, Shannon McGuigan for Mail Online, Julia Hartley-Brewer for The Sun, and Eliana Silver for GB News. Maya appeared on Nick Ferrari’s show on LBC to discuss Allison’s story.

Following these reports, the police announced that they had dropped their investigation in a story broken by Katherine Lawton and Shannon at MailOnline, following which Maya was interviewed by Ben Leo on GB News. The update was subsequently reported by Charles Hymas for The Telegraph and GB News in two articles by Gabrielle Wilde and Jack Walters.

8th November

This week’s coverage began with Richard Marsden and Sam Merriman’s article for the Daily Mail revealing that Scouts as young as eight are being made to play a ‘pronoun’ game and urged to use language such as ‘parents’ instead of mum and dad. Maya Forstater said that the activities are a shocking abuse of the trust parents place in the Scouts, and that requiring children and families who join the Scouts to be indoctrinated into this ideology is belief discrimination. The news was also covered by Craig Simpson for The Telegraph, and Maya’s remarks were quoted on Sky News’ Breakfast with Anna Jones.

Writing for The Spectator, Julie Bindel mentioned Maya as one of the women who spoke at the protest against Germany’s new self-ID law on 1st November at the German Embassy in London.  

Next, Max Stephens for The Telegraph covered the news that Marks and Spencer was advertising girls’ first-time bras as being for “young things” instead of girls. Helen Joyce said that it is incredible to see retailers bend over backwards to accommodate the feelings of a tiny number of men and boys who are unhappy about being male and want everyone else to pretend they are female. The story was also covered by Mario Ledwith for The Times, Rebecca Robinson for the Daily Express, Matt Strudwick for Mail Online and Jack Walters for GB News.

Sex Matters’ intervention in the For Women Scotland vs Scottish Ministers case, which will be heard in the Supreme Court later this month, was mentioned in an article by Scottish Legal News on the publication of Scottish Lesbians’ intervention.

Tom Morgan and Ben Rumbsy wrote for The Telegraph on the news that a 17-year-old female footballer with suspected autism has been given a six-match ban by the Football Association (FA) for asking a trans-identifying male player if he is a man. Fiona McAnena was quoted as saying that the FA has declared open season on women and girls by determining that no one can question a male player participating in a women’s game and that the FA’s new strategy for women’s and girls’ football is worthless as long as its transgender inclusion policy is in place.

Helen wrote for The Critic on how the normalising of violent sex acts offers predators a plethora of new paths to semi-plausible deniability, and that even as consent is increasingly understood as vital, other protections against bad sexual encounters are being dismantled.

Finally, Maya appeared on Julia Hartley-Brewer’s show on TalkTV to discuss the news that Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre has been ordered to pay £70,000 to Roz Adams, who was found by a tribunal earlier this year to have been unlawfully discriminated against by the centre over her gender-critical beliefs.

1st November

This week’s coverage began with Fiona McAnena’s article for the Daily Express on the recent controversy which saw the Football Association discipline a 17-year-old female player, possibly autistic, for asking a player on a female team if he was a man. Fiona argued that women are losing fairness and safety, as well as privacy, as a result of the FA’s policies, and that with the FA disciplining players on such matters, they are losing the right to even say so.

Sam Merriman for the Daily Mail revealed that NHS England had been doing mandatory equality and diversity training since August which involved telling staff members that women are “transphobic” if they don’t want to share a bathroom with a male colleague who identifies as female. NHS England removed the training after Maya Forstater wrote to chief executive Amanda Pritchard, saying that the training in respect of sex, gender reassignment and belief discrimination conflicts with and in some places actively contradicts the law. The news was also covered by Alex Barton for The Telegraph and Holly Bishop for GB News. 

Fiona appeared on Kevin O’Sullivan’s show on TalkTV to discuss the NHS England training story in a segment which also covered the rise of so-called “species dysphoria” following reports that another child in a Scottish school is being permitted by the local council to identify as an animal.

Writing for the Sunday Post, Mary Wright covered the news that many of Scotland’s frontline police officers have not been given essential domestic-abuse training, while almost 15,000 have undergone hate-crime training. Helen Joyce was quoted as saying that most citizens care a lot more about preventing and punishing violent crimes than about policing words, especially when factual statements about biological sex have been rebranded “hateful” under Orwellian hate-crime law. Mary’s story also ran in the Edinburgh Reporter.

Lizzie Roberts for The Times reported that the co-founder of Scotland’s first rape-crisis centre, Rosemary Whyte, has urged 16 other centres to follow Glasgow’s lead by restoring female-only services. Maya was quoted as saying that if Rape Crisis Scotland continues to flout its own principles when it comes to single-sex services, and refuses to say what it means by “women”, it would not be surprising to see other centres leave too.

Two broadcast interviews on GB News were missed from last week’s media roundup. Maya appeared on Free Speech Nation with Andrew Doyle to outline what For Women Scotland’s upcoming Supreme Court case means for women’s rights, while Fiona was interviewed by Ben Leo about the SNP’s claim that there are 24 genders in official guidance issued to public bodies about recording identities.

25th October

This week’s coverage began with Sam Merriman for the Daily Mail and Connor Stringer for The Telegraph revealing that the National Governance Association (NGA) has been advising school governors and trustees that teachers who identify as transgender can use the bathrooms and changing rooms of their choice. Maya Forstater said that the NGA’s interpretation of the Equality Act is incorrect and that the NGA and schools that follow its guidance could leave themselves vulnerable to legal challenges.

Michael Searles for The Telegraph revealed that, in a recent job advertisement for a clinical psychologist position, the new Nottingham Young People’s Gender Service listed a requirement to practise in line with WPATH’s widely criticised SOC8 guidelines. Helen Joyce warned that the clinic risks becoming “Tavistock v2” and that leaked materials from WPATH revealed the cavalier attitude of many gender clinicians towards patient wellbeing and informed consent.

Also for The Telegraph, Fiona McAnena contributed an op-ed on the news that the Football Association is disciplining a 17-year-old girl with likely autism for asking a male player in a women’s football match whether he was a man. Fiona argued that while allowing male players into women’s football is bad enough, the FA has compounded the problem by making it a disciplinary matter to question it. 

Next, Jonathan Ames reported for The Times (print only) that Andreas Mueller and Elspeth Duemmer-Wrigley – from the Sex Equality and Equity Network (SEEN) in the civil service – are being sued by a colleague who claims that their view that people who identify as transgender cannot change sex is discriminatory. Maya said that the harm would be felt not only right across the civil service but in workplaces all over the UK if they lost the claim, and that it would give transactivists something close to an ideological veto over staff networks. The news was also covered by Alex Barton for The Telegraph and George Bunn for GB News.

Sex Matters’ intervention in For Women Scotland’s Supreme Court case next month was mentioned in an article by Scottish Legal News. 

Sex Matters was also mentioned by Helen Dale for Quillette in a review of Helen Pluckrose’s new book on surviving social justice ideology in workplaces and schools. The author mentioned Sex Matters as one of a number of UK organisations in the “anti-cancellation sector”.

James Saunders for GB News covered the news that Tory councillor Ed Pitt Ford criticised his Labour-run council for not consulting “trans and non-binary communities” on new public toilets. Fiona was quoted as saying that everyone is either male or female, and that if this local councillor thinks there should be a third, gender-neutral option for public toilets, he could say so.

Sex Matters had three appearances on TalkTV this week. Fiona was interviewed by Ian Collins on the England and Wales Cricket Board’s decision to allow men who identify as women compete in amateur female leagues and by Kevin O’Sullivan on the SNP’s claim that there are 24 genders in official guidance issued to public bodies about recording identities. Maya was interviewed by Julia Hartley-Brewer on the damning findings from the Charity Commission’s inquiry into the charity Mermaids.

18th October

This week’s coverage began with Craig Simpson for The Telegraph on the news that a Welsh council has included King Arthur in a historical “LGBTQ+ timeline” because of a legend that he once wore women’s clothing in order to visit a girl. Fiona McAnena said that whether it’s Joan of Arc or King Arthur, it makes no sense to apply today’s baffling ideologies to historical or legendary figures who wore clothes typical of the opposite sex for whatever reason.

Next, Sam Merriman for the Daily Mail covered the news that one of the UK’s most respected doctors, Professor Karol Sikora, weighed in to correct James Paget Hospital on its guidance that babies are “assigned” a “gender” at birth. Helen Joyce had said that the  leadership at the hospital needs to get a grip, say no to its transactivist staff and return to recognising that accurate language about the two sexes matters in healthcare.

Jennifer Hyland for the Sunday Mail mentioned Naomi Cunningham’s role as barrister for a nurse in Fife who is taking a case against the NHS. The nurse is taking the NHS to an employment tribunal after she was disciplined for complaining about a male staff member who identifies as female using the women’s changing room.

Naomi was also mentioned in an article by Mike Wade for The Times in her capacity as counsel for Roz Adams, who was found by an employment tribunal to have unfairly lost her job at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. At a redress hearing, Adams said that it beggars belief that Rape Crisis Scotland has yet to agree on a clear definition of “women”.

JK Rowling’s first tweet in support of Maya Forstater was mentioned in an article by Lydia Spencer-Elliott for The Independent on the author’s response to the recent incident at a Butlin’s holiday camp which saw a security officer suspended after removing five trans-identifying men from a female toilet.

Analysis by Sex Matters that 21 government bodies have distanced themselves from Stonewall was mentioned by Sanchez Manning for The Telegraph in an article on the demise of the charity’s Diversity Champions programme. 

Next, Sam Merriman and Martin Beckford for the Daily Mail reported that trans and non-binary categories have been added to official forms for reporting the death of a child. Helen said that the ill-conceived, agenda-driven question on the gender identity of the dead child needs to be dropped immediately.

Albert Tait for The Telegraph covered the news that Robert Laverick was suspended as a volunteer at Samaritans after he publicly called for the charity to drop its ties with Gendered Intelligence and posted about the independent review by Professor Louis Appleby which debunked transactivist claims about child suicide. Maya was quoted as saying that organisations like the Samaritans should be taking the review on board, not reprimanding volunteers for sharing it publicly.

Writing on the news that the BBC has nominated a male footballer with a DSD for the Women’s Footballer of the Year prize, Paul Revoir and Sam Merriman for the Daily Mail (print only) quoted Fiona as saying that the BBC is spreading confusion around this problem for women’s sport.

Finally, Ben Rumsby for The Telegraph revealed that the English and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has released a new policy which will see male players who identify as women banned from elite female competition, but not from amateur leagues. Fiona called the move a disastrous, two-tier policy and said that anyone who has played cricket knows that it’s neither fair nor safe for women to face male bowlers and batsmen. She warned about the potential impact on the pipeline of player development and said that the ECB is sending a message to women and girls that unless you’re a top player, you don’t get fair play. The news was also covered by SkySports.

11th October

Anita Singh for The Telegraph kicked off this week’s coverage with the news that Cheltenham Literature Festival issued a warning notice to speakers which compared gender-critical views to racism and homophobia. Festival organisers sent an email asking session hosts to reinforce that the festival does not endorse any “harmful” views that might be shared on stage, together with a list of such views, in which gender-critical was listed first. Helen Joyce said that the festival is only revealing publicly the degree of hostility routinely suffered in private by gender-critical women in literary circles, and that organisers should be pressed to explain exactly how these views might be “harmful”. The news was also reported by Lettice Bromovksy for Mail Online.

Andrew Learmonth for The Herald covered the news that Sex Matters, along with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, Scottish Lesbians, LGB Alliance and the Lesbian Project, has been granted permission to intervene in the landmark Supreme Court case brought by For Women Scotland, which is due to be heard next month. Maya Forstater said that Sex Matters will be calling on the Supreme Court to focus on the protections for universal human rights that are at stake, and to recognise that while everyone has the right to express themselves, dress how they please and call themselves what they want, this does not override the right of women to privacy, dignity, fairness and autonomy.

Spiked published the full transcript of Helen’s recent interview with Fraser Myers, in which she talked about how the pro-trans movement sold the lie of “gender-affirming care”.

Next, Michael Searles for The Telegraph and Shaun Wooller for the Daily Mail reported that the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) is the latest organisation to cut ties with Stonewall. Fiona McAnena said that the college’s decision sends a clear message that it is putting evidence and the wellbeing of patients ahead of the demands of transactivist lobbyists. She added that RCPsych’s recognition that the ideological position of Stonewall may conflict with the professional practice of its members is a significant statement, and that it will put pressure on the college’s peers, such as the Royal College of GPs and Royal College of Midwives, to follow suit.

Finally, Michael and his colleague Tim Sigswoth at The Telegraph covered the news that James Paget University Hospitals Trust in Great Yarmouth has issued a new document that urges staff to not describe babies as “born male or female” and that they should use the phrase “assigned female/male at birth”. Helen said that it is hard to fathom that any hospital is still promoting transactivist language more than two years after the then Health Secretary instructed the NHS to return to biologically accurate language, and that the hospital leadership needs to get a grip, say no to its transactivist staff and return to recognising accurate language. Helen was interviewed on the story by Mike Graham for TalkTV.

4th October

This week’s coverage began with Michael Searles and Connor Stringer’s article for The Telegraph on a leaflet given to patients at NHS cancer centres, including Weston Park Cancer Centre in Sheffield, which states that surgery to remove body parts containing tumours can be “gender-affirming”. The leaflet was made by Macmillan in partnership with a charity called Outpatients. Helen Joyce said that the material was staggeringly insensitive and inappropriate, and the suggestion that life-saving surgery for cancer patients might offer some kind of two-for-one deal, with gender affirmation thrown in, is frankly disgusting.

Rebecca Camber for the Daily Mail reported that rapist Lexi Secker, a man who identifies as a woman, has been sentenced to six and a half years in a men’s prison. Wiltshire Police faced criticism last month after refusing to specify the defendant’s biological sex, saying that “the crime was recorded as being committed by a male”, but Secker went on trial “as a woman”. The article quoted Fiona McAnena’s comment at the time that it is very concerning to see the police pandering to the feelings of trans-identifying males, which does not give confidence that they are policing without fear or favour.

Sex Matters’ appointment of four new trustees was reported by Emily Moss for Civil Society in the publication’s fortnightly roundup of appointments and people moving roles in the charity sector. Naomi Cunningham was quoted as saying that Sex Matters was blown away by the number – over 50 – and calibre of the applicants, all passionate about the protection of sex-based rights, and that the new trustees will play a crucial role in shaping the organisation and taking our influence and impact to the next level.

Helen’s article for The Critic this month focused on gender clinics offering “post-truth medicine” in a charade that relies merely on the symbols of evidence-based medicine. Also for The Critic, Victoria Smith mentioned Maya Forstater among women who have experienced suffering such as job losses, public shamings and physical assaults in a review of Jenny Lindsay’s new book Hounded.

Rod Minchin for PA news agency mentioned Sex Matters’ intervention in the case of school worker Kristie Higgs, who is appealing against her dismissal from a Church of England school in relation to posts on her personal Facebook page regarding relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) at primary schools (which her children were attending). Minchin’s article was published by The Independent, the Evening Standard, BBC News in a piece co-written with Steven Mellen, and 17 regional newspapers from across England, Wales and Scotland.

Staff writers at Christian Today and Lydia Davies at Premier Christian News also mentioned Sex Matters’ intervention in their coverage of the story, as did Tim Dieppe for The Critic and Kate Jones for the Wilts and Gloucestershire Herald, the area in which the school is located.

A second story by Tom Pilgrim for PA, which also referenced Sex Matters, covered day one of the Court of Appeal hearing, at which lawyers for Higgs claimed she lost her role because of the unlawful stereotyping of her beliefs over gender and sexual ethics as homophobic and transphobic. The story was published by 33 regional newspapers across the UK, including Bury Times and the Oxfordshire Herald.

Also for PA, Storm Newton reported that delegates at the Royal College of GPs annual conference were told that GPs should consider pronoun badges, progress pride flags and posters signposting teenagers to “transgender services”, as well as changing the “gender” on children’s medical records. Fiona said that the last thing vulnerable children and their parents need when seeking evidence-based treatment is to have collateral representing a harmful, anti-science agenda pushed in their faces, and that GPs should follow the recommendations of the Cass Review instead. The story was published by Yahoo News, The Irish News, Shropshire Star, Rutland Times and the Express and Star. Michael Searles for The Telegraph also picked up the story. Fiona was interviewed on the story by Mike Graham for TalkTV. 

Finally, Dan Barker and Claire Elliot for the Mail Online reported that JK Rowling was among nearly 3,000 people who declared themselves to be a “believer in biology” in the 2022 Scottish census. Maya Forstater was quoted as saying that this is further proof that sex and gender is not a fringe issue to be dismissed, and that it is a direct reflection of deep dissatisfaction that the census did not ask clearly and simply for biological sex.

27th September

This week’s coverage began with Albert Tait and Connor Stringer for The Telegraph on new guidance for care homes on “trans and non-binary inclusion”. The “Circle” guide, which was one of the outputs of a £70K study, was dismissive of evidence that people with dementia can become distressed by changes to their body that they no longer understand, such as breast implants in men. Helen Joyce said that the guide is a shocking example of the way transactivism harms the most vulnerable in society and that rather than offering practical, compassionate advice on how to provide care in these difficult situations, the guide treats vulnerable residents as props in a fantasy of gender affirmation.

Next, Jennifer Hyland for Scotland’s Sunday Mail wrote two articles on the crisis facing Sandy Brindley of Rape Crisis Scotland following the damning independent review into Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. Maya Forstater was quoted in her article, which described how Brindley offered the Sunday Mail the phone numbers of female survivors of sexual assault who would back her up amid calls for her to quit. Maya said that it is clear that for years, Brindley has put her own ideological position ahead of all other considerations, including the wellbeing of survivors.

A second article by Jennifer (print only) reported that analysis by Sex Matters has found that Rape Crisis Scotland (RCS) is in breach of 80% of its own standards by including trans-identifying men as women. Our analysis found that the organisation has broken or not adhered to 51 of 61 Rape Crisis National Service Standards, which are set by RCS and its peers across the UK. 

Maya was also quoted in an article by Jeremy Watson for The Times on the fallout following JK Rowling’s call for Brindley to quit her post. She said that as long as Brindley fails to accept that men who identify as women are not actually women, and have no place in women-only organisations, Rape Crisis Scotland will continue to fail in its crucial mission.

Coverage of Sex Matters trustee Dr Michael Biggs’ work to scrutinise the failed 2021 Census question on gender continued this week. Francine Wolfisz for the Mail Online wrote about Michael’s two-year battle to get the ONS data reviewed and discredited, while Marina Terrangi for the Italian newspaper Il Folgio referenced Michael’s role in coverage of the news. Michael was also interviewed by Tim Harford on the BBC Radio 4 programme More or Less, which reported the story behind the flawed statistics.

Helen was interviewed by Fraser Myers for Spiked’s video series on the damage the trans movement is doing to society and how gender-identity ideology threatens women, children and gay people. She explained how it became taboo to tell the truth about biological sex, and how the spread of gender-identity ideology is giving licence to misogyny and homophobia.

Finally, Ben Rumsby from The Telegraph wrote about the return of footballer Francesca Needham, a man who identifies as a woman, who played at least three times in a female league this summer after pledging to quit the game earlier this year. Needham had caused a female opponent to suffer a season-ending injury by kicking a shot that went to her knee. Fiona McAnena was quoted as saying that the FA needs to get a grip and that it cannot approach this one case at a time. She said that female players need to be confident that they won’t have to face a male player on the pitch or in the changing room.

20th September

This week’s coverage began with an article by Henry Bodkin for the Sunday Telegraph on Sex Matters’ warning that guidance put out by the NSPCC’s Child Protection in Sport Unit potentially puts children at risk by encouraging them to use opposite-sex changing rooms. In a letter to minister Janet Daby, Maya Forstater said that remembering what sex children are is crucial to safeguarding children, and that the guidance actively encourages organisations to put children in situations of potential risk and harm, and to undermine record-keeping.

Mridul Wadhwa’s quitting of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) and pressure on Rape Crisis Scotland chief Sandy Brindley to do the same was covered widely by the media. Helen Joyce was quoted by Jennifer Hyland for the Daily Record, Mary Wright and Lizzie Roberts for The Times, and Sam Merriman and Graham Grant for the Daily Mail (print only), saying that Brindley needs to go as she backed Wadhwa long after it was apparent his leadership was disastrous and defended ERCC’s trans-inclusive policy, which was found by the employment tribunal to be unlawful.

Mary also wrote for The Times about the surge in referrals to Scotland’s Sandyford gender clinic before rules were tightened around assessment, with more than 600 adults and 350 children, one aged just seven, seeking treatment in the past year. Helen said that it is heartbreaking that so many Scottish children are being railroaded onto a dangerous treatment pathway for gender distress based on the falsehood that it is possible to change sex, and that no matter what measures the Scottish government takes, high numbers of children will continue to be referred as long as ideological lobby groups like LGBT Youth Scotland have a stranglehold on Scottish schools.

Following last week’s damning report  from the Office for Statistics Regulation’s on the Office for National Statistics over its handling of the 2021 Census question on sex and gender, Sex Matters board member Michael Biggs wrote a powerful article for The Spectator on why this is the first time that data from the decennial census – the backbone of British statistics since 1801 – has been downgraded. 

This was followed by articles by Hannah Barnes for The New Statesman, who mentioned Michael’s role in highlighting idiosyncrasies early on in a piece outlining why good data matters, and Sanchez Manning for The Telegraph, who interviewed Michael about what led to his scepticism about the data and his detailed investigation. 

Next was Katie Harris for the Daily Express on the row at the Liberal Democrat conference last weekend, after the party’s chair Mark Pack claimed that some people would feel “unhappy and unsafe” about the presence of campaign group Liberal Voice for Women. Fiona McAnena said that party groups have been sidelined from conferences for a number of years, and the ludicrous suggestion from Pack that delegates might feel “unsafe” just exacerbates the hostility these women face when participating in the political environment.

Richard Williams for the Shropshire Star wrote about two local women being among the hundreds of constituents who went to Westminster to meet their MPs as part of Sex Matters’ lobby day last week. Laura Williams and Sally Leighton met with MP Stuart Anderson, who listened to their concerns over the erosion of female-only spaces and said he was extremely receptive and understanding.

Finally, Fiona appeared on TalkTV with Alex Phillips to discuss the new artwork on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square, which features hundreds of plaster casts of people who identify as transgender and non-binary, as well as “species dysphoria” and safeguarding in schools following reports that a child at a British school identifies as a wolf.

13th September

This week’s coverage began with the news that Valentina Petrillo, a male athlete who identifies as female, failed to qualify for the 200m finals at the Paralympics in Paris. Elgan Alderton for The Times quoted Fiona McAnena as saying that Petrillo’s presence meant a woman lost her dream of getting to the Paralympics, and that World Para Athletics had put male feelings ahead of fairness for female athletes.

Oliver Brown for The Telegraph also covered the story and quoted Fiona as saying that allowing places in women’s sport to be taken by men is not progressive or inclusive.

Also for The Telegraph, George Chesterton wrote a feature a week in which the trans lobby was in retreat. Stonewall announced the ending of its schools training programme; the Good Law Project said it would no longer take on trans-related legal cases; and the SNP health minister made a statement to the Scottish Parliament that it accepts the Cass Review. Maya Forstater was quoted as saying that it feels like the grown-ups are back in the room.

Next, Luke Andrews for Mail Online wrote an article exploring why celebrity children are more likely to identify as transgender. Helen Joyce was quoted as saying that people who have gone down this path with their children become cheerleaders for the trans movement because they have to convince themselves that they’ve made the right choice.

Mary Wright for the Scottish Daily Express covered a letter from former John Lewis employee Lesley Pickup that slammed the retailer’s “trans-inclusive” policies. Fiona was quoted as saying that female staff members and customers have been saying to John Lewis for some time that its so-called “trans-inclusive” policies are causing harm and distress, but that it had failed to listen.

Finally, the Office for Statistics Regulation’s damning report on the 2021 Census question on sex and gender was widely reported in the media. Sex Matters trustee Dr Michael Biggs was quoted by James Melley for BBC News, Sam Merriman for the Daily Mail, Robert Booth for The Guardian, Connor Stringer for The Telegraph, James Beal and Steven Swinford for The Times, and Will Conroy for LBC. Michael said that the admission the question was fundamentally flawed was long overdue, and that it is disgraceful that it took the ONS 18 months to admit this.

6th September

This week’s coverage opened with a story by Oliver Brown for The Telegraph on the signing of a male goalkeeper, Blair Hamilton, to Sutton United’s women’s team, which follows the appointment of Lucy Clark, a man who identifies as a woman, as manager earlier this year. The article quoted Maya Forstater’s comments from 2022, when Hamilton was signed onto the women’s England Universities team, that women will lose out from being on the squad and will also potentially be put under pressure not to speak up about it.

Next was Geraldine Scott and Shayma Bakht’s coverage for The Times on Tory leadership hopeful Robert Jenrick saying that the protection of single-sex spaces is not top of the agenda for 90 percent of people. He pledged to spend the most time on issues such as the cost of living, housing and public services and said that doing so would win back Lib Dem voters. Helen Joyce said that attempting to ignore the harms caused by gender ideology will solve nothing, and indeed will only worsen conflicts over women’s rights and child safeguarding. She also said that Sex Matters polling showed that Tory manifesto pledges on sex and gender were popular with voters across the political spectrum — including the Lib Dem supporters Robert ­Jenrick says he hopes to attract. The story was also covered by Amy Gibbons for The Telegraph.

Helen appeared on TalkTV with Alex Phillips to discuss the British Medical Association’s investigation into the leaking of news about a vote on the Cass Review.

Elgan Alderman for The Times covered the news that Valentina Petrillo, a male runner who identifies as a woman, reached the semi-finals of the women’s 400 metres at the Paralympics. Fiona McAnena said that Petrillo’s presence means that a woman has lost her dream of getting to the Paralympics and it’s a shame World Para Athletics has put male feelings ahead of fairness for female athletes.

Writing for The Telegraph, Dan Sanderson revealed that an Edinburgh high school is teaching children that people who identify as transgender are “often killed” as part of a worksheet that outlines how protected groups, excluding women, are impacted by crime. Fiona said that the exercise marked a new low in how sex and gender is being taught in Scottish schools, and that whoever drafted this worksheet has ignored the many ways in which women are disproportionately victims of crime. The news was also covered by David Walker for the Scottish Daily Express and Dan Woodland for the Daily Mail. 

Finally, Ben Rumbsy for The Telegraph covered the news that the World Darts Federation has threatened female darts players with disciplinary action if they refuse to play male opponents who identify as women. The move follows the withdrawal of British and Danish female players from matches against trans-identifying men in recent months. Fiona said that female darts players are losing twice over by being forced to play or lose their future chances, and that it shouldn’t be left to women to take a stand. The story was also covered in The Sun by Michael Hamilton.

30th August

This week’s coverage began with the news that more than 500 academics have written to Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson to urge her to implement the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act after her announcement last month that it would be halted. In response to the letter, which had Richard Dawkins and Niall Ferguson were among the signatories, a government source said that it makes “no apology for pausing the Tories’ hate speech charter”. In an article by Martin Beckford for the Daily Mail, Helen Joyce said the government’s statement was astonishing and that the planned law would have protected staff and students with a wide range of lawful beliefs.

Writing on the same topic, Robert Tombs for The Telegraph mentioned the attempts to cancel Helen’s talk at Cambridge University’s Gonville & Caius College in 2022. He referenced the actions of students as well as the Master and Senior Tutor’s efforts to sabotage her appearance, and said that basic legal protection is the indispensable first step to protecting freedom of speech on campuses.

Helen was also quoted in commentary following the conclusion of Tickle v Giggle in the Federal Court of Australia. Jo Bartosch for Spiked and Holly Lawford-Smith for Quillette referenced the judge’s dismissive comments about Helen’s expertise following her submission of evidence to the case.

Sex Matters did two TalkTV interviews on the news that the British Medical Association has launched an investigation to determine which council members may have leaked news of a vote on the Cass Review to the media. Helen was interviewed by Julia Hartley-Brewer and Maya Forstater by David Bull.

Helen was interviewed by Nick Ferrari on LBC regarding the news that the Red Cross has adopted “inclusive” language, with the banning of descriptions such as “born a man or woman” and “biological male or female”.

Mary Wright for the Scottish Daily Express and Scottish Daily Mail broke the news that Scottish Women’s Aid will consider applications from men who identify as women for a woman-only role, on the basis of protections relating to gender reassignment. Maya said that it was inexcusable that Scottish Women’s Aid continued to misinterpret equality laws and put the feelings of men with trans identities before the needs of vulnerable women. She also said that if a job needs to be done by a woman, as is usually the case in the women’s sector, employers can lawfully discriminate by excluding men from consideration for the role. The story was also picked up by Simon Johnson for The Telegraph.

23rd August

In continuing coverage of the boxing scandal, Tom Morgan’s exclusive in The Telegraph on the Taiwanese government’s attempt to silence Fair Play For Women began this week’s news. London-based officials from Taiwan asked the group to delete posts on social media about boxer Lin Yu-ting, claiming that it “wrongly” referred to Lin as biologically male. Sex Matters trustee Dr Emma Hilton said that if Lin is actually female, it would have been very straightforward to successfully challenge the IBA’s decision through the Court of Arbitration for Sport last year, and that we can only speculate about the reason this option was not taken up. The story was also picked up by the Irish Independent.

Also in The Telegraph, Helen Joyce wrote a comment piece on the sexualised insults and death threats faced by pregnant sports presenter Laura Woods after she retweeted an article by The Telegraph’s Oliver Brown on the boxing controversy. Helen said the treatment of Woods is far from unusual, and that women who stand up to bullying by the trans lobby are told that accepting other people’s identities does them no harm, and that they must “be kind”. As she said, being punched in the face by someone whose biology means they’re more than twice as strong as you is pretty obviously harmful.

Fiona McAnena and Emma were quoted in a Daily Mail article by Barbara Davies on Khelif’s mother Nasria’s reaction to the scandal. Fiona said that both Khelif and Lin are believed to have a disorder of sex development (DSD) that means they benefit from male sporting advantage, while Emma said that inclusion must not be offset against safety.

Maya Forstater was mentioned in a Newsweek article by Ryan Smith on Khelif’s filing of a legal complaint in France for alleged cyber harassment. The article speculated that JK Rowling has gone “silent” since the complaint was filed, and mentioned that Rowling’s share of a post by Maya was her last activity on X since 7th August. (She has syarted tweeting again since.)

In other news, Alex Ward for the Daily Mail reported that the BBC referred to “people who have periods” in an article about a new Edinburgh Fringe stand-up show by comedian Bella Humphries, who uses her experience of a period-related health condition as material for her show. Noting that when the BBC talks about prostate or testicular cancer, it refers to “men”, Helen said that the channel’s longstanding double standard when it comes to stories relating to women’s and men’s health is deeply sexist and frustrating. The BBC amended the article to use the word “woman” after being contacted by the Daily Mail.

Michael Searles for the Sunday Telegraph revealed that schools and education services referred 160 children directly to the Tavistock clinic, with more than 30 under the age of ten. Helen said that this is the most extreme example to date of what experts call the “school to clinic pipeline”, and proves that schools have been directly responsible for setting children on a pathway that leads to irreparable physical harm. She also said that once Parliament resumes, the Education Secretary should move swiftly to publish guidance for schools on how to support gender-distressed children while protecting all children’s rights and upholding safeguarding principles.

A follow-up article in The Telegraph by Amy Gibbons reported that nearly two-thirds of teachers who have read the draft schools guidance on how to deal with gender-distressed children think it is more divisive than helpful. Helen said the survey showed how little teachers seem to have absorbed the messages of the Cass Review, and that activist teachers may exploit any wiggle room in the final version or even breach their legal duties by ignoring the guidance entirely. She also said that if gender ideology is to be rooted out of the school system, all head teachers will need strong, unambiguous guidance and a simple, clear model policy based on proper safeguarding of children.

16th August

This week’s coverage began with Helen Joyce’s essay in The Times on the new government’s shelving of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which would have protected gender critical academics and students, as well as Jewish students. She wrote that the act would also stand up to Chinese influence on what is said on UK campuses.

Fallout from the Olympic boxing scandal continued to dominate the news this week after biologically male boxers Imane Khelif and Lin Yu Ting won gold in their respective weight categories. Helen Lewis for The Atlantic quoted Sex Matters trustee Dr Emma Hilton’s research on the performance gap between males and females, which argued that the Olympics could have avoided ugly debate by addressing legitimate questions about unfair advantage.

Oliver Brown for The Telegraph said that it was a phone call with Emma which first gave him an inkling as to the significance of what was going to be taking place in the Olympic boxing tournament. He quoted Emma as saying that the IOC is trying to balance fairness, inclusion and safety, but that safety is not about balance and there is a cut off.

Tom Morgan for The Telegraph covered the news that sports presenter Laura Woods received death threats for praising Oliver’s article. Woods said that she had learnt a lot from reading Emma’s work which explains how confusion surrounding DSDs in sport can occur and what it means. Helen was interviewed on the story by Mike Graham on TalkTV.

Also in The Telegraph, Suzanne Moore praised Emma’s work explaining the science behind DSDs in sport in an article which argued that Lord Sebastian Coe could be the saviour of women’s sport if he becomes the next IOC president.

Writing for Reduxx, Bryndis Blackadder referenced Sex Matters’ media briefing on why sex matters in sport in relation to the boxing scandal and DSDs. She quoted Emma as saying that allowing a male into the female boxing ring is the equivalent of letting a heavyweight into the ring with a lightweight, and that a female has to be well over 30 kilograms heavier than a male to match strength levels. 

Mike Keegan and Sam Lawley for Mail Online referenced previously reported comments by Maya Forstater and Fiona McAnena in their coverage of Khelif’s gold medal win, as did their colleague Cameron Roy in his coverage of Olympic rower and BBC presenter Matthew Pinsent’s criticism of the IOC’s handling of women’s boxing at the Olympics.

Fiona’s podcast interview with Spiked’s Brendan O’Neill, discussing how this disturbing display of violence against women came about, was written up in an online article, with Fiona arguing that women’s sport is not a consolation prize for men.

Fiona was also interviewed by Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkTV on the news that a trans-identifying man Valentina Petrillo is set to be the first transgender athlete to compete in the Paralympic Games. Fiona said that there is no world in which anyone thinks it can be fair that when you get too old for male sprinting, you then become a female sprinter.

In other news, Michael Searles at The Telegraph broke the news that NHS radiographers are required to ask men and boys over the age of 12 if they are pregnant, in line with guidance from the Society of Radiographers. Fiona said this is among the worst examples of professional bodies losing their senses, and that putting healthcare staff and male patients through such a humiliating farce is both inappropriate and a waste of time. The story was also picked up by Charlotte Wace for The Times and Xantha Leatham for the Daily Mail (print only), whose story was picked up by several Australian newspapers including The West Australian, Perth Now, Sound Telegraph, Great Southern Herald and Bunbury Herald. Fiona was also interviewed on the story by Mike Graham from TalkTV.

Olivia Peden for the Belfast Telegraph interviewed Helen on the news that the UK government extended the ban on puberty blockers in July for the newspaper’s podcast.

Finally, Simon Johnson for The Telegraph covered the news that Scotland’s Sandyford gender clinic will still treat more than 1000 children and young people, despite banning self-referrals. Fiona said that ensuring referrals can only be made by suitably qualified clinicians will help protect vulnerable people, especially children and young people, from activists.

9th August

The Olympic boxing controversy continued to dominate much of this week’s coverage.

Fiona McAnena was quoted by Sports Pro Media and Jamie Gordon for The Sun as saying that it’s grossly unfair that at the pinnacle of her sporting career, Italian boxer Angela Carini had to concede for her own safety.

Tom Morgan for The Telegraph quoted Fiona as saying that the IOC could have prevented this scandal by acting on the evidence in front of them. She also said that the IOC is responsible for two athletes being thrust into the global spotlight unnecessarily, and for the grief, physical pain and missed opportunities suffered by female boxers at these Olympics.

Oliver Brown also quoted Fiona in a profile of Daley Thompson, saying that it is enormously valuable to have his advocacy for the protection of women’s sports. She also said that people often ignore non-athletic, middle-aged women speaking about this topic but Thompson is listened to because he is both male and a hero.

Writing for The Australian, Jacquelin Magnay quoted Fiona as saying that the Olympic boxing scandal has broken through into the mainstream and many non-sports fans are now concerned.

Fiona did several interviews on the controversy, including LBC with Matthew Wright, Free Speech Nation on GB News with Andrew Doyle, TalkTV with Kevin O’Sullivan and GB News again on Monday at 3.30pm.

Sex Matters trustee and developmental biologist Dr Emma Hilton’s research that a male boxer’s punch is 160% more powerful than a woman’s was quoted by Gustavo Muñana for Inside the Games.

Emma was also quoted by Will Pugh for The Sun, saying that athletes with “typically male” XY chromosomes, like Khelif, should be barred from competing against those without.

In a feature by Sofia Bettiza for BBC News on the science behind the boxing controversy, Emma was quoted as saying that the gene called SRY, which stands for “sex-determining region of the Y chromosome” – also known as the make-male gene – is the master switch of sex development.

Emma and Sally Parkin were quoted by Sam Greenhill for the Daily Mail (print only), with Emma saying that it’s not just unfair but dangerous for someone with male biology to punch a female boxer. Sally said that sex is a material reality and is not changed by what is written on a piece of paper.

Emma appeared on GB News with Eamonn Holmes and Isabel Webster to discuss the story.

Maya Forstater’s reaction on X to one of the boxing matches in question was mentioned by Iwan Stone and Shekar Bhatia for Mail Online.

Sex Matters’ briefing on disorders of sex development (DSDs) in sport was cited in the print version of an article by Matt Lawton, Martyn Ziegler and David Brown for The Times, as saying that sporting bodies worldwide need to act now to protect fairness and safety for women.

It was also mentioned by Susan Dalgety in a column for The Scotsman, clarifying that the DSD 5-ARD is the condition that South African athlete Caster Semenya has, and which led to the Court for Arbitration in Sport ruling that 5-ARD athletes can be barred from women’s competitions.

In an attempt to address a lot of the misinformation circulating amidst the controversy, Sex Matters hosted a media briefing on Thursday that was widely attended by international journalists, producers and broadcast presenters. Fiona chaired the session and Emma, Sharron Davies MBE and Mara Yamauchi spoke and answered questions. Sharron’s comments at the briefing led to stories by Tom Morgan for The Telegraph and Daniel Boffey for The Guardian.

In other news, writing for the Scottish Daily Mail and the Edinburgh Reporter, Mary Wright reported that National Galleries of Scotland continues to display a photograph of former SNP equalities officer Cameron Downing, who was recently jailed on charges of sexual assault and violence. Fiona was quoted as saying that simply putting up a trigger warning is insulting to his victims, and all victims of sexual violence.

Naomi Cunningham was quoted widely on the news that the NHS will conduct clinical trials on puberty blockers as part of its plan to overhaul services for children. She told Shaun Wooller and Alex Ward at the Daily Mail that while well-meaning, these trials pose the very real risk of the NHS sacrificing the otherwise good health of vulnerable children and causing them grave physical harm in the name of research.

Denis Campbell for The Guardian, Sam Blanchard for The Sun, James Rodger for the Birmingham Mail and Matthew Lodge for Mail Online quoted Naomi as saying that Sex Matters understands why the NHS and Dr Hilary Cass believe that clinical trials of puberty blockers are necessary, but we would urge them to reconsider. She also said that such trials are ethically unjustifiable, given the known risks of permanent damage to fertility, sexual functioning and general health. BBC Radio 4 reported Naomi’s comments on the 6pm news.

Fiona appeared with Alex Phillips on TalkTV and Nana Akua on GB News to discuss the inclusion of services for detransitioners as part of the new NHS plan.

Finally, Alex for the Daily Mail covered the news that Dr Hilary Cass sent a letter to senior NHS England figures warning them about concerns relating to adult gender clinics. The letter relayed the concerns of medical professionals who had worked at the clinics, with fears about rushed consultation processes, patients being put on hormones on their second visit, and a philosophy that it was up to patients to make their own mistakes. Maya was quoted as saying that adults who believe they can change sex often have complex mental-health histories and are in the grip of “magical thinking”.

2nd August

This week’s coverage began with Alex Ward for the Daily Mail (print only) on the news that Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson plans to drop legislation to protect free speech on university campuses that was due to be implemented imminently. Helen Joyce was quoted as saying that this was a serious misstep. In a follow-up article by Alex, Helen shared her own experience of being harassed by students and said that the move will have a chilling effect not just on academics, but on students and speakers whose views aren’t popular on campus. 

This was followed by the news that the High Court has upheld the government’s ban on puberty blockers for gender-distressed children following a legal challenge from Jolyon Maugham’s Good Law Project. Alex covered the news for the Daily Mail, as did Jonathan Ames for The Times. Both quoted Maya Forstater as saying that the legal challenge had been brought by activists and was not in the best interests of children, and that the Cass Review had debunked the falsehood that puberty blockers are life-saving. Fiona McAnena appeared on Julia Hartley-Brewer’s show on TalkTV to discuss the story.

Next was reporting on the British Medical Association council’s vote in favour of a motion for prompt access to so-called “gender medicine” for under-18s and a vow to lobby ministers and NHS leaders to oppose implementing the Cass Review’s recommendations. Eleanor Hayward for The Times, Laura Donnelly and Daniel Martin for The Telegraph, Shaun Wooller and Alex for the Daily Mail, and James Saunders for GB News all quoted Helen as saying that the move was scarcely believable and that the Cass Review is most authoritative synthesis of the evidence concerning the treatment of gender-distressed children and young people.

In commentary, Ella Whelan cited Sex Matters in a piece for Spiked that analysed pressure on Team GB athletes to be champions of social justice. She mentioned that only certain causes are “acceptable” and questioned what would happen if a female athlete decided she wanted to campaign for a group such as Sex Matters or LGB Alliance.

Helen wrote a powerful column for The Critic on the glorification of self-mutilation in popular culture in the form of mastectomies. She said that asserting mastery over their future selves is a feature rather than a bug of mastectomy, and that while anorexia has been widely understood as self-harm, mastectomy is being sold as liberation.

Helen’s book was referenced in a review of new books by Helen Pluckrose and Eric Kaufmann by Gavin McCormick for The Critic, as part of a wave of recent books tackling culture-war topics.

Dominating global headlines for the rest of the week was the news that Italian boxer Angela Carini was forced to abandon her fight against Algerian Imane Khelif in the women’s boxing event at the Paris Olympics. Khelif had previously been excluded from women’s boxing after failing a sex test. Jamie Gardner for PA Media quoted Fiona as saying that the incident should be enough to end the absurd and dangerous spectacle of males in women’s sport once and for all. Fiona explained that testosterone levels in healthy men and women don’t overlap, and said that most elite female athletes want a return to sex testing as a condition of eligibility to protect the integrity of women’s sport. The PA story was picked up by ITV and The Newsletter, and included in stories by Mark Atkinson for The Scotsman, Mairin de Barra for Gript, and Aidan Radnedge and Arthur Parashar for Mail Online.

Sex Matters did several interviews on the topic. Fiona was interviewed on GB News by Tom Harwood and LBC by Shelagh Fogarty. Helen was interviewed on GB News by Ben Leo and Alex Phillips on TalkTV.

26th July

This week’s news began with coverage by Eleanor Hayward for The Times and Jack Maidment and Tim Sigsworth for The Telegraph of the watershed report by government suicide advisor Professor Louis Appleby, which found there was no evidence to support activist claims of a “surge” in suicides among gender-distressed children. Maya Forstater said the report tackles the darkest and most extreme narratives used to embed gender-identity ideology, and that we are relieved the government is standing up to the most vile bullies in the transactivist movement with truth and common sense.

Michael Searles for The Telegraph revealed that NHS equality training tells staff that using the wrong pronouns for trans-identifying people raises the risk of suicide. Maya said this was grossly irresponsible and that the suggestion that not affirming gender identities increases suicides not only goes against available evidence, but also completely contradicts the Cass Review’s recommendations.

Next, Fiona McAnena was quoted in stories by Amy Gibbons for The Telegraph, Martyn Brown for the Daily Express, and Greg Heffer for Mail Online on Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy’s comments on men in women’s sports. Nandy said that biology matters but that it should be up to individual sports to decide their own policies, arguing that “most” sports had got the balance right. Fiona said that policies are all over the place from sport to sport, meaning that women and girls face unfairness, the risk of injury and exclusion at all levels. Fiona was interviewed on the topic by Jeremy Kyle on Talk TV and Ben Leo and Miriam Cates on GB News, and Helen Joyce was interviewed by Kevin O’Sullivan on Talk TV. 

Finally, Maya’s case was mentioned by Jo Faragher in Personnel Today in coverage of the news that barrister Allison Bailey lost her appeal against Stonewall after she claimed the charity tried to silence her for her gender-critical views.

19th July

This week began with further coverage of Health Secretary Wes Streeting’s commitment to make the previous government’s emergency ban on puberty blockers permanent. Helen Joyce was quoted in articles by Geraldine Scott and Jonathan Ames for The Times and Steph Spyro for The Express saying that the move is an excellent sign that Labour intends to take an evidence-based approach and will prioritise child safeguarding, but urged him to rein in the private sale of cross-sex hormones. Helen was interviewed by TalkTV’s Jeremy Kyle on the move and described how gender clinics have been prescribing off-label puberty blockers to children.

Helen was also quoted in an article by Marion Scott for the Sunday Post which revealed that LGBT Youth Scotland met with the Scottish government’s cabinet secretary for education, Jenny Gilruth, earlier in the year to raise concerns about school staff being reluctant to engage with its beliefs relating to gender identity. Helen said that any group that takes an approach incompatible with the findings of the Cass Review should not be anywhere near children.

Next was an exposé by Adele Waters for the Daily Mail which revealed that there are 33 rapes and assaults in NHS hospitals every week. The article referenced Sex Matters’ position that single-sex wards and spaces are key to protecting the safety of female patients.

Martin Beckford for the Daily Mail, Daniel Martin for The Telegraph, Jonathan Ames for The Times and Rob Moss for Personnel Today quoted Maya Forstater in coverage of new guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission which states that men who self-identify as women should not be considered for female-only roles, unless they possess a gender-recognition certificate. Maya was quoted as saying that the move to clarify that self-ID is not the law was long overdue, but that it is never appropriate for a man to try to access female-only roles or services, even if he has a piece of paper which claims he is a woman. Helen was interviewed by Ian Collins for TalkTV on the new guidance, and said that if a man isn’t suitable to do a job, the government can’t give him a piece of paper that will make him suitable.

In the lead-up to the King’s speech, several articles ran preview stories in anticipation of a ban on so-called “trans-inclusive conversion therapy” being included in the new government’s agenda. Amy Gibbons for The Telegraph referenced Sex Matters’ call for the Prime Minister to resist calls for speedy action on the matter and warning that any legal changes must be approached with utmost caution. Amy mentioned Sex Matters in an overview of what to expect in the King’s Speech, as did Rhianna Benson writing for Tyla. 

Sam Lister for the Daily Express quoted Maya as saying that the people who will be harmed by the proposed law are distressed kids. Maya also had an op-ed in the Daily Express, which said that “conversion therapy” is thankfully a thing of the past and that the evidence isn’t there to justify a ban.

Following the King’s speech, Maya was quoted in an article by Martin Beckford for the Daily Mail on concerns that a ban on so-called “conversion therapy” risks criminalising parents, teachers and doctors. Maya said that the measures could be a Trojan horse that harms the very children it is meant to protect.

Maya had a full-page opinion piece in the Daily Mail which said that it will take courage for Wes Streeting to stand up to bullying and death threats from transactivists for taking an evidence-based approach to the banning of puberty blockers. She referenced Jolyon Maugham, who has made outrageous claims about the threat of child suicide and said that NHS managers have sought to surpress related evidence. Justin Webb referenced Maya’s article in the paper review on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Sex Matters was featured in an article by Lynne Walsh for the Morning Star on how campaigners for sex-based rights see their priorities under a new government. Lynne reported on Maya and Helen’s remarks at an event organised by the group Outspoken Women at Swansea University earlier this month. Maya said that the Equality Act is a priority, as this puts the focus on women’s rights. Helen made the point that during the election campaign, politicians who were asked about women’s rights often responded by talking about “trans rights”. 

Finally, Shaun Wooller for the Daily Mail reported on the British Medical Association’s failure to publicly back the Cass Review and its lack of transparency regarding a reported council vote this week on whether or not to back Dr Cass’s findings. Fiona McAnena said the situation was a shocking sign of the times and shows that even respectable medical organisations can fall prey to an activist agenda that is not in patients’ best interests.

12th July

This week’s coverage began with an article by Sam Lister in The Express setting out a “10 point common sense plan” the paper thinks the new Labour government should adopt, quoting Maya Forstater as saying: “Keir Starmer promised to protect single-sex services: now he needs to deliver.” 

The following day Lister wrote for The Express about JK Rowling’s criticism of the appointment of Anneliese Dodds as Minister for Women and Equalities. The story was also covered by Daniel Martin for The Telegraph. Both quoted Maya, who pointed out that the prominence of sex-based rights during the election campaign showed that “most people think genuinely single-sex spaces are essential, and that the government should move swiftly to fix the legal muddle that means service-providers are frightened to provide them”.  

On Wednesday SWLondoner ran an article by Mizy Judah Clifton giving a transactivist take on what to expect from the new Labour government. It quoted Steph Richards, a trans-identifying man who writes for the TransLucent website, as saying: “[Labour is] not going to be perfect. [But] groups like Sex Matters will lose a lot of their venom, for a time. They’ll still have influence, but less than they had with the Tories.”

Our main coverage for the week came in response to our first letter to Sir Keir Starmer as prime minister, in which we and other groups called on the new government to exercise extreme caution concerning so-called “conversion therapy”. Amy Gibbons and Daniel Martin in The Telegraph, Katie Harris in the Daily Express (print-only) and Amy Gibbons in a follow-up article for The Telegraph, all covered the letter. 

Helen Joyce was quoted as saying that “It is vital that the new government takes the time to think through the knock-on impacts of any legislation in this complex and sensitive area. If it rushes, it risks catastrophic harm to the vulnerable children and young people it is seeking to protect.” Maya was quoted urging the government to move responsibility for conversion therapy from the equalities minister to Wes Streeting, the new Health Secretary, and Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary. “I think that the danger is, if they take a woke approach rather than a science approach, that the legislation will harm children and vulnerable people that it’s aiming to protect,” she said.

The week finished with Michael Searles reporting for The Telegraph that Streeting is expected to extend and make permanent the emergency ban on new prescriptions of puberty blockers put in place by his predecessor, Victoria Atkins. Helen was quoted as saying that this was “an excellent sign that Labour intends to take an evidence-based approach to child gender medicine, and to prioritise child safeguarding”.

5th July

This week’s coverage began with articles by Jeremy Watson in The Times and Justin Bowie for The Courier on the news that a female NHS Fife staff member is taking legal action against her employer. The woman was suspended for complaining about NHS Fife being in breach of the Equality Act for allowing a man who identifies as a woman to use female changing facilities. The case is being supported by Alba candidate Neale Hanvey, who referred the woman to Sex Matters. 

The news was also covered by Kate Foster for the Daily Mail, who quoted Fiona McAnena as saying that the situation showed that gender ideology has been allowed to trump all other considerations, and that it looks like a Scottish government body prioritising the feelings of men over the safety and wellbeing of female staff members. Fiona’s comment was also reported by Jack Walters for GB News.

Next, Chris Hastings for the Daily Mail reported on a cast member of the West End production of the Disney musical Frozen appearing on stage with a placard that read “Protect trans youth with your vote”. Helen Joyce said that it is inappropriate to proselytise about trans identities to little girls, since teenage girls are most likely to get caught up in the trans social contagion. She also said that the move played on children’s naivety and vulnerability, and is the opposite of child safeguarding.

Helen wrote a powerful essay for The Critic on the weaponisation of language by gender ideologues; specifically the use of irregular verbs and euphemisms, and the manipulation of word definitions.  

Sex Matters’ biggest news story for the week was the publication of our general-election survey, which found that those who voted for Labour in the 2019 general election are more aligned with the Conservative Party’s position on sex and gender. 48% of Labour voters support the proposal to clarify sex in the Equality Act, and 40% oppose plans to make it easier to change the sex on birth certificates. The Telegraph, Martin Beckford for the Daily Mail, Katie Harris for the Daily Express and Jack Elsom for The Sun quoted Maya Forstater as saying that politicians should take serious note of the overwhelming support for sex-based rights across the political spectrum.

Writing for the Daily Mail, Harriet Line wrote about the Liberal Democrats’ pledge to make the gender-recognition process “easier” and to recognise non-binary identities in law. Helen was quoted as saying that these measures would drive a coach and horses through protections for women, and that granting legal recognition to ‘non-binary’ identities is about as sensible as granting legal status to star signs.

Meanwhile, Steerpike’s column in The Spectator told the story of a woman going by the name of “Amelia Sparrow” who is taking legal action against the Liberal Democrats for discrimination, harassment and victimisation after three days of working for one of the party’s MPs. Sparrow told the columnist that she noticed there were no Lib Dem MPs at a Sex Matters event earlier this year.

Rounding off pre-election coverage, Daniel Martin for The Telegraph reported Keir Starmer’s confirmation that the Labour Party would not amend the Equality Act to clarify the definition of woman. Maya said that the next government must grapple with the serious lack of clarity about the law on single-sex services, which is undermining the rights and safety of women and girls in practice, and that if the Labour Party will not do this by amending the Equality Act, it will fall to the EHRC to issue usable statutory guidance.

Finally, in her capacity as an expert on women in sport, Fiona was interviewed by Martin Daubney on GB News on a new campaign to promote sport to teenage girls which saw Team GB rugby players dressed in lingerie for a photoshoot. Fiona said the campaign was regressive and sexualised female athletes.

The post Sex Matters in the media – 2024 (July to December) archive appeared first on Sex Matters.

Trusting government computer systems to be infallible can result in serious harm to ordinary people. I’ve learned this during the many years in which I have been supporting victims of the Post Office scandal in the face of defensive and intransigent public bodies.

That is why I feel obliged to speak out now, as I see the risk that history repeats itself. The government is working on another ambitious IT project: the digital identities framework. Its reach extends across every government department. It will be used by hundreds of thousands of private businesses and millions of individuals. The benefits – in business savings, government efficiency, technological innovation and reducing bureaucratic burdens for citizens – could be immense. If this project is a success it will position the UK as a world leader in digitising personal identity and unlocking economic growth while protecting individuals’ privacy and preventing identity theft and fraud.

But the downsides if the government gets the digital identity infrastructure wrong are equally immense. I was therefore mystified to learn that many of the public bodies that are to provide the fundamental personal data attributes to the system do not keep accurate records of individuals’ sex. There are no safeguards to stop them providing ambiguous and outright wrong data. I fear that unless the government builds in these safeguards now, as a matter of urgency, we will see the same tragic mix of personal suffering and public waste that followed the Post Office scandal.

Whether someone is male or female is a material, unalterable fact about them. That fact needs to be reliable when recorded at birth, and for the rest of their lives. All personal data can be kept private in some situations. But accurate data is also routinely needed in everyday situations such as healthcare, sport, law enforcement and single-sex services, both to ensure that everyone is treated appropriately, and to keep people safe.

A person whose sex is recorded wrongly may receive the wrong medical diagnosis and treatment, with potentially catastrophic results. A care agency relying on government digital identities that misrecord sex may unwittingly send a man who identifies as a woman to provide intimate care to an elderly or disabled woman alone at home – even if that woman has specified that she wants a female carer. Transgender people will be ill-served too: since different government sources, all of them treated as authoritative – completely reliable – may contradict each other concerning a single individual’s sex. Such a person may be locked out of the system altogether, flagged as a “synthetic data” risk – that is, as a fraud. This is the opposite of what was intended, which is to try to accommodate everyone, enable them to keep their data private and let them share it when they choose.

The case of Baby Lilah described in this report is a rare case of administrative error in recording sex at birth. But it illustrates a fundamental point: that it is the duty of the state to ensure that everyone’s foundational personal information is accurate and usable.

Together with Lord Lucas, I helped to add three safeguards to the Data (Use and Access) Bill. These would prevent unreliable data sources being given a top score for reliability. They are sensible, practical and essential. They will ensure that the system works as it should for everybody, including transgender people, and forestall another IT disaster.

The government says it will seek to remove those clauses, claiming that they breach human rights. This is a serious assertion that deserves a serious response.

This paper from Sex Matters shows that, far from this being the case, the three safeguards are necessary to support everyone’s human rights. Unless the government resolves the fundamental problems with personal data on sex before building this system, individuals’ human rights will be harmed and a great deal of taxpayers’ money will be wasted. The true breach of human rights would be ploughing ahead and creating a system that cannot reliably verify one of the most fundamental facts about every citizen, and which systematically marks false information as true.

I urge the government to treat the problems I and others raised in the House of Lords with the utmost seriousness. If it does not, I fear the country is sleepwalking into another high-cost computer-system scandal.

Safeguards to protect data integrity in the digital identity system

The government is seeking to build a secure, privacy-preserving digital identity system that will allow people to prove their identity and facts about themselves securely, privately and remotely. 

Leading on this for the government is Cabinet Member the Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP. His department, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, is responsible for delivering this ambitious and important project. The Data (Use and Access) Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, will establish the legislative framework.¹

The crucial job for this framework is to ensure that wrong or unreliable data is not mislabelled as true and reliable. This requires quality controls, and clarity and consistency about definitions and metadata. 

The government bill was introduced and passed through the House of Lords and is now going through the Commons. Among the amendments made by peers were three that strengthen the law to ensure that any public authorities that provide people’s personal information to the system only provide information that is reliable and trustworthy.

1. The Secretary of State must assess whether public authorities handle personal data accurately and reliably (clause 28(4)).
2. Public authorities can only share data that is accurate, and they must know what it refers to (clause 45(6)).
3. The Secretary of State may establish a “data dictionary” so that different items of data are not muddled up (clause 140).

These three safeguards would work together to solve the legacy problem of public authorities being ambiguous about what information they are collecting under “sex” and whether they are keeping it accurate and reliable. Currently organisations confuse three different things and often record them interchangeably:

• the immutable material reality of a person’s biology
• legally modifiable “certified sex”, which can be changed by law in the UK with a gender-recognition certificate (GRC)
• self-declared “gender identity” based on subjective internal feelings.

The government says ensuring data accuracy would breach human rights 

The government is seeking to remove these three clauses, which safeguard data integrity from the bill during the next stage of the debate.²

Section 19 of the Human Rights Act requires government ministers to tell Parliament whether or not each law they seek to introduce is compatible with human rights. When introducing the Data (Use and Access) Bill to the Commons, the Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, made a statement on the front page of the bill that clause 45(6) is incompatible with human rights. 

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Secretary Peter Kyle has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998:

I am unable (but only because of clauses 45(6) and 141(2)) to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.

Clause 45 concerns the establishment of the “information gateway” through which public authorities such as the NHS, HM Passport Office and DVLA will provide information directly to digital identity apps without individuals having to upload a picture of their paper documents. This clause empowers public authorities to disclose pieces of your personal information directly to a certified service at your request (in practice, this will happen by you clicking “yes” to consent to an app retrieving specific pieces of your personal data from government sources). 

Clause 45(6) imposes some simple, straightforward quality controls on this:

Public authorities and the information gateway

In introducing the bill for its second reading in the Commons, the Secretary of State explained why he thinks this clause breaches human rights:

“People will use digital identities to buy a house, to rent a car and to get a job. The intention of clause 45(6) is to force public authorities to share whether someone’s information, such as their sex, has changed when disclosing information under clause 45 as part of a digital verification check. That would mean passing on an excessive amount of personal data.”

Sir Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State for Data Protection and Telecoms, made a similar point in response to questions from Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi and Conservative MP Dr Caroline Johnson: 

“We are getting a bit more technical than I am able to answer precisely, but my bottom line is that if somebody is applying to rent a property, the landlord should not have to know both sex at birth and gender. That is an inappropriate invasion of people’s privacy.”

European Convention on Human Rights Article 8

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The government is considering the wrong use cases

Both ministers raised the spectre of people being forced to share information about their sex in situations where that information is not needed – when buying or renting a property or car, for example – and said that this would force them to share an excessive amount of information. This will simply not happen. 

By principle and design, the digital identity system is privacy-protecting. It is designed to share each piece of an individual’s information only with their consent, and for a specific purpose. As John Peart, Assistant Director for Market Oversight and Integrity, Office for Digital Identities and Attributes at DSIT, explains:

“The last time I tried to get into a nightclub, I got asked for ID. To prove my age, I handed over my driving licence to the person on the door. They looked at it, then scanned it to keep a digital copy of it.

“In handing over my driving licence, I exposed my full name, my full date of birth, my home address, my sex, and my signature. Not only had I handed this information over to a complete stranger, but there is now an electronic copy of my driving licence and all my personal data stored on someone else’s IT system (hopefully securely).

“It doesn’t need to be this way. The venue staff only needed to confirm one attribute of my identity; that I was over 18. If I was able to use a digital identity, that could have been all they were given access to. Using a digital identity service – like an app on my phone – would likely have been a safer and more privacy-preserving way to prove who I am.”³

Similarly, for an individual to prove their right to rent, they need to show only that they meet the legislated criteria (which relate to citizenship or immigration status). A digital identity service which checks whether someone meets these criteria will not ask for, record, check or pass on information about the individual’s sex as this is neither relevant nor necessary. No-one will question why someone male has adopted a female and title or vice versa. A fingerprint or facial biometric check will be used by the computer app to ascertain people’s identity without needing to record anyone’s sex for this purpose.

Use cases where sex matters

But digital identity apps will also have many uses where information about a person’s sex is relevant to the service being accessed. A digital identity and attributes system that cannot supply this information reliably would be seriously inadequate. 

For example, a person might use a digital identity to join a dating service or a gym; to apply for a job in social care or at a rape-crisis centre; to sign up for sporting competitions and to register with a sports governing body to track their sporting achievements; to share information about themselves with a healthcare provider; when applying for vetting to join the police; or when being questioned as a suspect in a crime. Your sex is not relevant for the general “right to rent”, but it is likely to be relevant to your landlord if you are seeking to rent a room in a house-share or hall of residence, or booking a homestay via an online app that involves sharing facilities with other people (where a female host might specify female guests only). 

The government has recently won a case at the Court of Appeal defending the decision not to give a Californian man a legal “non-binary” identity in the UK. Anna Thompson, the Deputy Director of the Equality Hub in the Cabinet Office, said that the government had undertaken a scoping exercise and found that male/female identifiers “are intrinsic to systems that departments use to function and provide services to the public”. The court summarised that she gave evidence that:

“Sex is… an important factor in the provision of a wide variety of public sector services: the prison estate is exclusively split into male and female accommodation; hospitals may have single sex wards; and local authorities may fund rape crisis centres and domestic abuse refuges that offer their services to females only. She says that in so far as some government services recognise that some people may prefer not to be referred to as either male or female: ‘This tends to be the exception rather than the rule and in no circumstance amounts to legal recognition.’ By way of example, the Department for Work and Pensions (‘the DWP’) uses the title ‘Mx’ if individuals ask for it, but this does not affect their entitlement to sex-specific benefits.”⁴

A person may be called Mr, Ms, Mrs or Mx or other honorifics without their title needing to match their sex. If a person does not want to share data recording their sex, they may not always have to. In some situations there can be an option to respond “prefer not to say”, and a person may elect not to hold information on their sex in a reusable digital identity app at all, while still holding other data such as their name and date of birth. 

Where sex really is a relevant eligibility criterion for a service or job, someone who does not wish to share that data may simply not be able to use that particular service or apply for that job. What the digital identity system should not do is provide false information and attest that the information is true. 

Ensuring data accuracy does not force information to be shared

The Secretary of State said that the safeguard in Clause 45 would “force public authorities to share whether someone’s information, such as their sex, has changed… as part of a digital verification check”. This is a misunderstanding. The digital identity system will share information only with consent. The safeguards do not force data to be shared; they simply ensure that when a person asks for a piece of data to be shared it is accurate.

The safeguards included in 45(6) are practical requirements for data accuracy. They would ensure that information is clearly defined and accompanied by metadata. For example, if a public authority shares that a person’s name is “Joyce”, this needs to be accompanied with metadata tagging the field as either first name or last name. If it shares a person’s date of birth, this has to be accompanied by metadata clarifying the date format, so that 1st December does not get confused with 12th January. 

Adequate metadata would also make clear whether the data refers to a type of attribute that can change (such as a person’s name, address, age or certified sex) or a type that is immutable (such as place of birth, date of birth or actual sex). This is important for error-checking. A person may have records showing two different addresses over time. But if a person appears to have two different dates of birth, then either there has been an error in their data, or these are records for two different people. This does not mean that their address or date of birth or sex needs to be shared every time they use their digital identity; it only means when this information is shared as verified data, it should be accurate. 

46(6)(b) says that a public authority has to be able to attest that the information it shares is accurate (at the time of recording, for those attributes that can change), and 46(6)(c) says that if information has been corrected, this has been done by lawful means. If a public authority cannot attest to accuracy, then it cannot share the data. It will not be forced to share whether someone’s information has changed; it will simply respond that it cannot reliably provide or verify that piece of information. 

Since we are talking about large computer databases, in most cases the question of whether a public authority or other data collector can attest to the accuracy of a piece of information is not a question about the data it holds on a specific individual, but a question about the adequacy of the rules it uses for collecting and storing that category of information for everyone. 

For example, a public authority may hold your mobile phone number because it has asked for that number (for example, when you apply for a passport you are asked for your mobile number in order to receive a text when your new passport is dispatched). But unless the authority has verified that the phone number is correct (such as by texting you a security code and asking you to enter it on a website), the authority is not able to know that the phone number it holds is accurate – you could have entered a wrong digit by mistake. So even if most of the phone numbers the Passport Office holds are likely to be correct, it cannot share anyone’s number as authoritative data because it does not know which ones are wrong. 

Similarly, if an authority has stored information on your sex in a field along with other people’s self-identified gender, it will be unable to attest that any specific individual’s “M” or “F” actually relates to their sex. The safeguards mean that it would have to respond that it does not hold the information on anyone’s sex sufficiently reliably to share that information via the information gateway. 

Public authorities should provide accurate data

The principles of checking data quality and attesting to each attribute separately are built into the digital identity system through a scoring framework for information.⁵ The big flaw with the current design of the system is that conformity with this standard will be assessed only for the private-sector service providers seeking certification to be part of the scheme. Public authorities are presumed to provide authoritative information and their data will be given a top score automatically. 

This mirrors what happened in the Post Office scandal, when private-sector sub-postmasters were held to stringent standards while the poorly designed government computer system was simply assumed to be correct. 

The government’s digital identity scoring framework says that to be authoritative for a particular piece of information, a public source must “make sure the integrity of the information is protected”. During the Lords stage of the debate, the Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation, Sir Patrick Vallance, said:

“We must have a single version of the truth on this. There needs to be a way to verify it consistently and there need to be rules. That is why the ongoing work is so important. I know from my background in scientific research that, to know what you are dealing with, data is the most important thing to get. Making sure that we have a system to get this clear will be part of what we are doing.”

But there is no safeguard to ensure that information from public bodies is reliable, and we know that public authorities such as the NHS, DVLA and HM Passport Office have not ensured that the integrity of sex data is protected. These public authorities record immutable sex, “certified sex” and self-declared gender identity in the same field interchangeably, which means they cannot reliably say which piece of information they hold for any individual. Wrong and inconsistent information has been recorded for tens of thousands of people.⁶

What is wrong with the data sources?

HM Passport Office allows people to change their recorded sex with as little as a statement from themselves and one other person.⁷

The DVLA allows people to change their recorded sex by making a declaration that they “solemnly and sincerely declare” they wish to live in the opposite gender.⁸

The NHS allows people to change their registered sex on request.⁹ It then gives them a new NHS number.

The safeguards do not breach human rights

The Secretary of State said that the result of clause 45(6) would be:

“Passing on an excessive amount of personal data. Sharing such changes by default would be an unjustifiable invasion of people’s privacy.”

The government’s assessment of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights said:

Digital Verification Services and data sharing by public authorities (clauses 45-49): The Department considers that, but for clause 45(6), any interference with Article 8 rights pursues a legitimate aim, being in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the country, and is proportionate (see paragraphs 35-46). However, given that clause 45(6) forms part of the Bill following a non-Government amendment, the Department considers that the Secretary of State cannot make a statement that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with Convention rights.”¹⁰

This is simply wrong. If someone asks a data controller to share a piece of their personal data (such as their biological sex), then it is not an “unjustifiable invasion of their privacy” to do just that. This is true for everyone, including trans people, since like everyone else they need to be able to share accurate information on their actual sex (for instance, with healthcare providers). 

Similarly, expecting people to provide accurate data in answer to the question “What is your sex (we mean biological sex)?” is not requiring excessive information; the correct answer is precisely the right amount of information to answer the question. This is true for everyone, including trans people. 

The slightly different question, “What is your actual sex as recorded at birth, or if applicable as modified by a UK gender-recognition certificate?” is also capable of being answered truthfully and unambiguously, and is sometimes necessary, for example for the purpose of marriage or pensions. 

But the two questions are not the same and the metadata for the field needs to be clear about which of the two questions the data relates to (since the second attribute can change and the first cannot). 

In either case, collecting, recording and sharing information that a person has consented to share is a “proportionate means to a legitimate aim” and not a breach of Article 8 (the right to respect for private life).

Objective facts about a person can be verified. Examples include what sex they are, whether they have a valid driver’s licence, whether they are married and to whom, that they have parental authority for a particular child, what qualifications they have, and that they live at a particular address. 

A category of data that has no objective means of verification and can be changed by the user (such as dietary preferences, gender identity or how happy they are feeling) cannot be verified. Individuals can of course assert such personal information about themselves. A public authority might wish to collect such self-asserted data as part of a survey (the census includes several such questions), but it cannot provide it as authoritative. 

The human-rights arguments about privacy have been made before, in relation to the census. In the run-up to the 2021 Census in England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics issued guidance stating that people could answer the “sex question” on the census with whatever was stated on any official document (such as a passport or driving licence). 

The campaign group Fair Play For Women challenged this guidance in a judicial review. Sir James Eadie KC for the ONS argued that sex was an “umbrella term”, and that asking about a person’s actual sex risked a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. Mr Justice Swift disagreed and found that Fair Play For Women had a “strongly arguable case”. He said:

“I doubt there would be any breach of article 8(1) rights [from asking for a particular definition of sex] but, if there were, it would be justified. The question would be posed in pursuit of legitimate objectives… and any interference would be justified on the fair balance principle, in particular, given the careful and confidential way in which census information is used.”¹¹

Around the same time the Equality and Human Rights Commission also clarified in relation to the Scottish Census that: 

“Collecting information on sex assigned at birth can be, but will not always be, an interference with a trans person’s right to a private life.”¹² 

The Office for Statistics Regulation has also issued guidance for collectors of official statistics (and on good practice for others). It does not say that it breaches human rights to collect accurate data on sex or to differentiate this from collecting data on self-identified gender.¹³

The information regulator has failed to protect data accuracy

We have written to the Information Commissioner’s Office about the problem of data accuracy and received a disappointing and complacent response: 

“Government departments are responsible for setting out how they record someone’s sex, the purposes for which the information is processed, and how an individual may change this recording in limited circumstances. From the perspective of the accuracy principle, if these departments set out that an individual can record their sex in a particular way after meeting certain conditions (whether this is a gender recognition certificate or another method) then this would be considered accurate for the purposes of processing. This is because the purposes for which government departments and public sector bodies (as data controllers) process this personal data are not limited to identifying a person’s sex as recorded at birth.”

This response sidesteps a central question: for what purpose can public authorities possibly be recording people’s “sex” if they define the term so inconsistently?

What is undeniable is that in some situations, what is needed is the clear fact of a person’s actual sex. Examples include for that person’s healthcare, for establishing eligibility for competitive sport, when seeking access to a single-sex service that requires registration, and when applying for a job that requires someone to be of a particular sex.

Public authorities that mix up objective facts and subjective, unverifiable identity claims should not be allowed to provide the resulting “data” through the information gateway to others, who may unwittingly use it in situations where it can cause real-world harm.

Accurate personal information is a human right

A person’s actual biological sex is a fact about them that does not change throughout their lifetime. But genuine administrative errors can occur and need to be corrected, with careful controls.

The case of Baby Lilah has already been mentioned in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons debates on the Data Bill. Lilah is a baby girl who was born in November 2024. When her parents went to register the birth, the registrar accidentally wrote the wrong sex on the birth register, recording her as “male”.¹⁴

This is a rare but not unknown occurrence. The Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Regulations 1968 set out precise instructions on lawful rectification of different kinds of errors.¹⁵ This involves a strict sign-off procedure and a handwritten note in the margin of the birth register. Correcting an error like this is in no way comparable to recording a transgender person’s “gender identity” in place of their sex.

This system needs careful translation into the digital age, but so far this has been overlooked. Birth records are not only used to create paper birth certificates but also shared as automated data feeds that will flow into digital identity data.¹⁶ As things stand, a child whose sex has been recorded wrongly will have that wrong sex on their official digital record for life. Baby Lilah will have an official digital record that says “male”, with the fact that she is female recorded only in the “MarginalNote” field.¹⁷ But this marginal note is likely to go unread by IT applications, causing anomalies and administrative problems for her as she grows up. 

The right to a means of personal identification has been found by the European Court of Human Rights to be protected under Article 8. We all have a right to have the fact of our sex correctly and reliably recorded as part of our foundational identity (on the birth register and its digital counterparts) and wherever it is needed. 

This applies to Baby Lilah, to people who identify as transgender and to all of us. 

With thanks to Grace Bingham and Ewan Murray for permission to use their daughter Lilah’s photograph and tell her story.

1. House of Commons and House of Lords (2025). Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL].
2. House of Commons (2025). Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] (Amendment Paper).
3. Office for Digital Identities and Attributes (2024). ‘What we mean when we say “digital identity and attributes”’.
4. Ryan Castellucci v Gender Recognition Panel and Others  [2025] EWCA Civ 167
   .
5. HM Government (2024). How to score attributes.
6. Sex Matters (2024). Sex and the Data Bill.
7. HM Passport Office (2024). Gender recognition (accessible).
8. HM Government (accessed February 2025). ’Identity documents needed for a driving licence application’.
9. NHS Primary Care Support England (accessed February 2025). ‘Adoption and gender reassignment processes’.
10. UK Parliament (2025). Policy paper: Data (Use and Access) Bill: European Convention on Human Rights Memorandum.
11. R Fair Play For Women v UK Statistics Authority [2021] EWHC 940 (Admin).
12. Equality and Human Rights Commission (2020). Letter to Kiri Tunks, Judith Green and Ruth Serwotka, co-founders, Woman’s Place UK.
13. Office for Statistics Regulation (2024). Collecting and reporting data about sex and gender identity in official statistics.
14. Amelia Hill (2024). ‘“We were horrified”: parents heartbroken as baby girl registered as male’. The Guardian.
15. UK Government (1968). The Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Regulations 1968.
16. UK Government (accessed February 2025). Life Event Verification (LEV) API.
17. UK Home Office (2022). lev.api/mock/birth_registration_v0.json.

The post Digital ID can’t be gender self-ID appeared first on Sex Matters.

Civil servants are expected to act with impartiality, integrity, honesty and objectivity, under the direction of Ministers and in compliance with the law. But the civil service’s approach to “trans inclusion” has been driven by partisan internal activist networks that promote Stonewall law. Many civil service departments have adopted a policy which defines a “refusal to accept” someone’s self-declared gender identity as transphobia.

This not only affects employment conditions and workplace culture for half a million civil servants, but also their decision-making, which in turn shapes policies across the country. 

Six-figure compensation for civil-service whistleblower

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) have settled the employment-tribunal claim of whistleblowing civil servant Eleanor Frances, agreeing to pay her £116,749. As part of the settlement the departments have committed to return to impartiality and to develop a new policy in relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. 

Eleanor Frances, an engineer and Grade 6 civil-service manager, raised formal concerns in 2022 about her department’s policy on transgender inclusion, but was knocked back and then treated unfairly. 

Despite the Forstater employment appeal tribunal judgment, Frances feared that expressing her belief that sex is biological, binary, immutable, and important could expose her to complaints or disciplinary action. 

She was particularly concerned about what her department’s policy said about single-sex toilets and changing facilities. Across the civil service, departmental HR policies allow people to use facilities intended for members of the opposite sex on the basis of their self-declared gender identity.

Frances was told that if she objected to showering, changing or using the toilet with a male colleague, she could use alternative unisex accessible facilities. The policy also suggested that if staff objected to the presence of a male person in female facilities they could be disciplined for failing to support the gender identity of their colleague.

After raising concerns about the lawfulness of this policy, Frances says she was subjected to a sustained pattern of unfair treatment. She was given baseless negative performance feedback and stripped of her team and responsibilities. She resigned in 2023 and brought claims for discrimination on the grounds of philosophical belief, sex and disability, along with victimisation, protected disclosure detriment and unfair constructive dismissal, represented by Peter Daly and Akua Reindorf KC.

DCMS and DSIT have now agreed to pay her £116,749 and the Permanent Secretaries, Susannah Storey CB (DCMS) and Sarah Munby (DSIT), have agreed to issue a statement saying that their departments are working together to introduce a new policy on trans staff and are committed to ensuring the civil service is impartial. 

Transgender policies in the civil service

What are the policies that Eleanor Frances was concerned about, that are now being revised?

In 2011 a:gender, an internal civil-service network which lobbies for staff who identify as trans or intersex, developed a document on how to treat trans-identifying employees. In May 2014 it was adopted and published on the gov.uk website.

It was updated in February 2016 and published with endorsements from the Civil Service Employee Policy Team and the Civil Service LGB&TI Champion, Sue Owen. Owen, who at the time was the Permanent Secretary for DCMS, called it “an excellent document for everyone in the business” and “comprehensive, authoritative and powerful”.

In 2015 the Government Equalities Office (GEO) published guidance on providing services to transgender customers (with external lobby group Gendered Intelligence) and on recruiting and retaining transgender staff (with Inclusive Employers).

The Civil Service/ a:gender document is extraordinary. It starts with alarming and unreferenced statements, for example: “In 1981, the Harry Benjamin Institute estimated that 50% of the transsexual population died by their own hands by the age of 30.” It cited trans lobby group Press for Change as the source for the claim that “34% of those needing to change gender attempted suicide at least once”.

It also declared that “medical treatment to enable transsexual people to alter their bodies to match their core identity has been highly effective with around a 98% success rate”.

It came up with a spurious estimate that there could be between 7,800 and 17,880 “intersex” civil servants, based on a debunked claim that 1.7–4% of the world’s population is intersex. It embraced a wide range of novel gender identities, including gender-neutral, non-gender, non-binary, pan-gender, poly-gender, third gender, gender-queer and neutrois.

Concerning the Equality Act, it wrongly said that “failure to deal with a transsexual woman in the same manner as other women would be direct discrimination”. It directed civil servants with HR responsibilities that when staff declare themselves to be trans they should be able to use toilets and changing rooms “appropriate to their new gender role”. It suggested that this is a legal right attached to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, saying: “it would be humiliating, inappropriate and undermining to expect a person in their acquired gender to use toilet facilities of their birth sex or indeed be restricted to the use of the accessible toilet.” 

It advised that “any continued objection or inappropriate comments” by work colleagues “should be seen as unreasonable (discriminatory) and should be met with communication, discussion and education before the situation gets out of hand. In this sometimes contentious area, transsexual employees are entitled to expect support from management”.

Similarly, the GEO guidance on recruiting and retaining staff published in 2015 said:

“A trans person should be free to select the facilities appropriate to the gender in which they present. For example, when a trans person starts to live in their acquired gender role on a full time basis they should be afforded the right to use the facilities appropriate to the acquired gender role.”

Sue Owen, who endorsed the a:gender document, also championed government departments signing up to the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme and competing for a place on its index. She said in 2016: 

“Our aim is, of course, for all government organisations to improve the score they are awarded by Stonewall every year.”

She was at the time, and remained until 2022, on the board of trustees of the Center for Global Development, the think-tank that discriminated against Maya Forstater and argued in court that gender-critical beliefs were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”.

In March 2019 the a:gender document was removed from the gov.uk website. In its place departments were told to take responsibility for developing their own policies, and to base their policies on a model provided by the Cabinet Office “working closely with a:gender and others”, and which would be circulated to departmental HR managers.

Meanwhile DCMS and other departments continued to pay thousands of pounds a year to be a member of the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme. DCMS refused to release details of its application to the Workplace Equality Index scheme, saying that to do so would not be in the public interest and would “likely impact Stonewall’s confidence in the process of future discussions, and in addition, damage their commercial interests”. 

DCMS did eventually respond to a freedom-of-information request in 2022 with a copy of the model policy. Compared with the 2016 document, it had been toned down. But it still suggests that individuals who declare themselves to be transgender have the right to use opposite-sex facilities, and that colleagues who don’t accept gender identity should be disciplined. 

The policy promotes gender ideology, saying that:

• Gender identity is the personal sense of one’s own gender.
• To provide an inclusive and supportive workplace, the department must respect and support the gender identities and expressions of all its employees, regardless of how they identify.
• Refusing to accept a transgender person in their affirmed gender, by persistently referring to a trans woman as “he” or “him”, is likely to be harassment.

The policy undermines provision of single-sex facilities, saying that: 

• All individuals have the right to express their identity at work and present in their gender. This could mean… using any appropriate single-sex toilets and other facilities.
• It is assumed that the individual knows which facilities are the best match for their gender identity and expression.
• Some transgender, non-binary and intersex individuals may feel most comfortable using gender-neutral facilities where present, but this is a matter of personal choice.

The policy creates a hostile environment for those with gender-critical beliefs, saying that:

• “Transphobia” is the specific fear or dislike of someone because they are transgender – this includes refusing to accept an individual’s gender identity (this is not just limited to colleagues but could include public figures, criminals, or family members, or to groups in the abstract).
• Deadnaming, misgendering and “outing” (referring to someone’s actual sex) are transphobic behaviours.
• Deliberate, continued and repeated incidents of misgendering are unacceptable and should be dealt with using the bullying, harassment and discrimination policy.
• The gender identities of individuals must be respected at all times, and it remains unacceptable to use former names and/or incorrect pronouns while the individual concerned is not present.

These were the sorts of concerns that were raised internally by Frances. 

By July 2023 a new version of the model policy was in development and had been sent out for consultation within the civil service. It was also leaked to Vice. In some respects it was an improvement, saying that “employees can hold different opinions and beliefs in the workplace… as long as they engage in reasoned and rational debate”. But in other respects it was still seriously flawed, and pushed more responsibility down to individual departments, rather than offering a clear, standardised approach. 

It retreated from gender self-identification but asserted that a trans person with a gender-recognition certificate (GRC) is entitled to use facilities provided for members of their “acquired gender”. For individuals without a GRC it said departments would need to develop their own policies taking into account the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations. It suggested that trans employees could use facilities provided for members of the opposite sex if these were fully enclosed single-occupancy washrooms, but not shared facilities containing cubicles and washbasins. 

An unnamed civil servant quoted by Ben Hunte in Vice called the new draft guidance “terrifying”. Stonewall also condemned it, with Robbie de Santos, its director of external affairs at the time, describing it as “highly exclusionary and reprehensible” and claiming that it “would be unlikely to stand up to legal challenge, as it brazenly ignores the long-established rules around single-sex spaces as outlined in the UK’s world-class Equality Act”. Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, said it was “illegal and… revolting in equal measure”.

The approval process for the policy stalled and was never completed. 

On 8th April 2024 the GEO withdrew its 2015 guidance for service providers and on recruiting and retaining staff saying they were “now out of date”. They were not out of date. They were legally wrong and had been since they were written. 

In May 2024 the then Minister for Women and Equalities launched a call for input asking for examples of policy or guidance in which public bodies or organisations that advise public and private organisations “wrongly suggest that people have a legal right to access single-sex spaces and services according to their self-identified gender”.

The Office for Equal Opportunity (OEO; the successor to the GEO) has recently said that it received 404 examples of policies and guidance. It is not known how many were from central government departments. It said:

“In some cases, guidance reflected the organisation’s own policy to allow those with the ‘gender reassignment’ protected characteristic access to single-sex spaces that correspond with their self-identified gender, but did not incorrectly suggest that this is mandated by the Act. Had organisations suggested that their policy was mandated by the Act, however, this would have been a clear misinterpretation of the law….

“…the results of this call for input suggest that there is further work to do to ensure everyone has clarity about these exceptions in a range of different contexts.”

Given that Whitehall and the GEO (now OEO) have been driving this misinterpretation of the law for the past ten years, it is hard to have any confidence that they now intend to admit their mistake and sort it out.

This leaves the civil service open to more six-figure payouts.

What next? 

The statement agreed by the Permanent Secretaries of DCMS and DSIT says they are committed to upholding their duty of impartiality “in line with the recently issued non-partisan Guidance on Diversity and Inclusion and Impartiality for Civil Servants”. Among other things, this guidance says:

• Civil servants must always be guided by the core values of objectivity and impartiality when carrying out work in diversity and inclusion.
• The civil service value of “unity” means cohesion, mutual tolerance, and respect for the validity of other’s beliefs. It does not mean homogeneity or conformity of belief or views, and there is not an expectation to think as one. 
• It is appropriate to use sex-specific language where such language communicates the desired policy outcome. “This may include, for example, references to the needs of men and women respectively, or areas of policy where biological sex is a relevant or pertinent concept.”

The two department heads say they are working together to develop a new gender-reassignment policy that will comply with the Equality Act 2010 and will “balance rights” in relation to the protected characteristics of sex, religion and belief, and gender reassignment. The statement (dated December 2024) said that they expected the long-awaited central model policy to be out before the end of that year (there is still no sign of it).

It is time for clarity. The Cabinet Office and Sir Chris Wormald, as head of the civil service, need to throw out misleading advice received from a:gender and Stonewall and develop a single, simple, clear central policy that will protect all staff from unlawful discrimination and harassment.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is also seeking to finalise a new statutory code of practice for service providers that steps back from its previous approach, which wrongly suggested people who identify as transgender have a right to use opposite-sex facilities. 

Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 require that toilets and washing facilities are provided in “separate rooms… for men and women” unless they are fully enclosed unisex rooms. This is a simple requirement and not the start of a negotiation. Man and woman are not self-declared categories. 

Allowing male staff into facilities that are signposted for females is likely to result in unlawful harassment and discrimination against women, as the case Earl Shilton Town Council v Ms K Miller: [2023] EAT 5 found.

Building Code T was officially adopted in 2024 under the Building Regulations 2010. It states:

“Single-sex toilet means toilet facilities intended for the exclusive use of persons of the same sex, and with washbasins and hand-drying facilities in either the toilet room or cubicle, or in a separate area intended for use only by persons of that sex.”

and

“All toilet accommodation should have clear and appropriate signage.”

To avoid creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for female staff (in breach of Section 26 of the Equality Act), employers in the civil service and elsewhere need to say a firm, clear No to male employees who want to trespass on spaces provided for the privacy and dignity of their female colleagues, and vice versa for female employees who want to intrude on male-only spaces.

The new policy across the civil service must be clear that sex-based rules hold whatever staff are wearing, whatever pronouns they prefer to be called by, whatever they believe, whatever medication they take and however long they may have been allowed to break sex-based rules previously. It must not bend under pressure to chase awards from organisations like Stonewall, or in response to emotional blackmail about suicide or smears of “transphobia”.

The post Civil service must return to impartiality and protection for all appeared first on Sex Matters.

Sex Matters is encouraging people to respond to the EHRC’s consultation on its revised Statutory Code of Practice for service providers (deadline Friday 3rd January). This covers the provision of single-sex services, sports and associations.

Our action page explains how to respond.

Confusion over these services is longstanding. Since the Equality Act was passed, the government, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the Government Equalities Office (now the Office for Equality and Opportunity) and Stonewall have all been suggesting that “man” and “woman” are categories based on gender self-identification: telling organisations that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment gives people the right to use opposite-sex facilities and services, and that they may be excluded only on a case-by-case basis. 

The root cause of this misunderstanding is in current statutory code of practice from the EHRC (published in 2011) which says:

“If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present.”

EHRC Code of Practice, 2011

This was always wrong in law, just like the idea that those who questioned it were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. In recent years these misunderstandings of the law have been overturned by the Forstater judgment and the first For Women Scotland case.

Once you recognise that “man” and “woman” are realities, not social constructs or subjective feelings, it becomes clear that it is not possible to provide a single-sex service while letting in members of both sexes. Furthermore, allowing people into opposite-sex spaces can create a hostile and humiliating environment for all. 

Cases focused on single-sex services are now coming to court, including Brighton Rape Crisis Centre, Darlington Nurses, NHS Fife and NHS England. Sex Matters is also challenging the British Transport Police on its policy that a “single sex search” can involve a man (with a certificate) searching a woman. 

The EHRC is currently updating its Code of practice for services, associations and public authorities (there is a separate code of practice relating to employment), and consulting on it. The deadline for responses is 3rd January 2025. 

It is vitally important that the commission gets replies from both individuals and organisations, including service providers across different sectors. 

The code is intended to: 

• help organisations to understand their responsibilities and avoid complaints and discrimination claims
• help members of the public to understand the law and what they can do if they believe they have been discriminated against, harassed or victimised
• help lawyers and other advisers to advise their clients
• give guidance to the courts on matters designed to ensure or facilitate compliance with the act.

The updated code of practice includes references to some of the cases that have demonstrated that gender self-ID is not the law, and has removed some of the worst advice from the previous version – such as that “​​any exception to the prohibition of discrimination must be applied as restrictively as possible and the denial of a service to a transsexual person should only occur in exceptional circumstances” – but it still promotes the idea of “case-by-case” assessment. 

We think it still falls short of being the clear lawful guidance that is needed. 

What needs improvement? 

Be clear on the protected characteristics

At the core of the Equality Act are the nine protected characteristics. There has been increasing legal clarity about the characteristic of sex in the Equality Act which is not reflected in the new draft. 

The code of practice is currently not at all clear about the meaning of the protected characteristic of sex. It invents new terms like “legal sex” (which it introduces in chapter 13), and it talks about “trans women” and “trans men” without making clear that in the Equality Act the terms “woman” and “man” relate to sex, not self-identified gender. 

It is (at best) vague about the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. It suggests that sex is simply a matter of administrative registration and it is possible for a man to “live as a woman” (and vice versa) and to “transition from one sex to another” without explaining what it means by this. Instead of alluding to the mythical idea of sex change it would be better to describe practical actions such as someone changing their name, dressing like the opposite sex or having cosmetic surgery.

It is negative about the protected characteristic of belief. It uses examples to demonstrate the types of philosophical belief that are not worthy of respect in a democratic society and so not protected by the Equality Act, but doesn’t provide a positive example of gender-critical belief. 

Give examples to help people think about harassment in relation to sex and gender reassignment

In the section on harassment the guidance could give examples which demonstrate some of the lessons from the run of successful belief-discrimination cases, and the issues in the upcoming single-sex services cases.

Currently, organisations are terrified that “misgendering” is harassment, and this prevents them communicating and enforcing clear and lawful sex-based rules.

The code does correctly state that courts are unlikely to find that “unwanted conduct” meets the test for harassment if they see that a service user is hypersensitive. It also says it is relevant to consider whether the alleged harasser is exercising any other rights such as expressing an opinion related to a religious or philosophical belief. It could give an example here. 

It could and should also put these points together and add that if someone finds ordinary language used respectfully to communicate a lawful rule or policy “unwanted” (such as explaining that a space is female-only and noting that they are male) this would also not meet the test for harassment, even if they were deeply offended by it.

It would also be helpful if it were to give an example of sex-based harassment involving single-sex spaces such as a gym having a policy of allowing men who identify as “trans women” into the women’s changing rooms and showers. This creates a hostile and humiliating environment for the women using the space since they rightly perceive the person as male.

Correct the section on sport, which is wrong in law 

We think the section on the sport exception is wrong in law. It says:

13.69 The Act permits service providers and those exercising public functions to restrict participation of a trans person in competitive sports, games, or other activities where an average person of one sex is at a disadvantage compared to an average person of the other sex, due to differences in physical strength, stamina, or physique (s.195(2)).
13.70 Trans persons can only be excluded from competing in the activities described at 13.65 where it is necessary to restrict their participation for reasons of fair competition or the safety of competitors. This could include restricting participation directly, or by implementing policies requiring physiological characteristics, such as certain testosterone levels, which may in practice primarily impact trans persons.
13.71 This means that organisers can prevent trans persons from participating in a single sex sporting activity with persons of the opposite birth sex, if it is necessary to do so because their participation would create a competitive advantage or disadvantage, or would potentially endanger their own safety or that of other participants. Where these factors do not apply, the exception cannot be relied on and any restrictions on their participation will be unlawful.

We think this is wrong in law. It introduces uncertainty where there is none. The law allows female-only sport competitions. There is no provision in the law that requires an individualised case-by-case assessment of whether a particular male athlete is excluded by a rule that a category is female-only. A straightforward rule can be applied. Nor does the law support the idea that sports are sex-affected a lot or only a little. 

The example the EHRC gives does not appear to relate to competitive sport at all but is of a training session for men and whether it can exclude a woman who identifies as a man. 

“A boxing gym runs a weekly full-contact sparring session for men. A trans man wishes to join the session. The gym declines his request. This may be lawful if the gym can demonstrate that that there would be a genuine health and safety risk if he were allowed to join the session.”

In some sports women are able to compete or train with men. This is called an “open” category. It does not rely on the women claiming to be men. 

A better example would involve a sports competition such as a running race and a trans-identifying male who wishes to compete as a woman. The example could point out that having a female category is lawful and a man who identifies as a woman (a “trans woman”) is not eligible because of not being female. 

On sport it says organisations should consider whether an activity is “primarily competitive or social and recreational” and whether “elite or mass participation” when deciding whether to let men (referring to them as “trans women”) compete with women. It presents this as being “inclusion”. This is going both beyond and around the terms of the Equality Act. The Equality Act does not encourage general “inclusion” (such as adults in children’s services, men in women’s services or able-bodied people in benefits for disabled people): it allows for targeting where it is needed.

The example that it gives of a “women’s fun run” which allows in men who identify as women would lose protection against discrimination claims by other men who want to participate, since it is arbitrary discrimination to allow some men to participate but not others. 

Stop promoting case-by-case assessment 

The section on single-sex services should emphasise that the provision of single-sex and separate-sex services is lawful in many everyday situations. 

The guidance states that “policies should also be applied flexibly and should consider where there are specific circumstances that may justify departure from the policy”. We think this is dangerous and opens the door to the suggestion that men can negotiate their way into women-only spaces. 

The example it gives is: 

“A sports centre may make an exception to their women-only swimming changing room policy to allow a young boy to accompany his mother.” 

This is not an example of an ad-hoc exception to a policy, but a common operational policy such as “Females only over 8 years old. Accompanied infants of either sex under 8 may use these changing rooms.” This is a rule which can be explained clearly to all. The rule “This changing room is female only, but we apply that rule flexibly” is not. 

The guidance tells service providers that they need to go through a complex decision-making process, balancing rights and interest, before deciding whether to exclude a man who identifies as a woman from a woman’s service (or vice versa). We do not think this guidance is workable or lawful.

If a formerly women’s service has a policy of flexibly allowing some men in (because of what they are wearing, or their pronouns, or something else…) then it needs to explain to women that it is not a female-only service. But if it has explained to women that they can expect some men in the service, it has lost its justification for excluding men at all, and it is not a lawful single-sex service. 

The code of practice gives as an example of its case-by-case assessment approach a private nursing home which it says must consider the individual request of a man who wants to reside in the women-only wing of the nursing home. This is not possible. Moving the man into the women’s wing would make it a mixed-sex wing. The women have chosen to be in a women-only wing. The request that the man is making can simply not be accommodated in a “women-only” wing. The women in the home are not props who can be manipulated and lied to.

Unworkable advice makes life difficult for service providers, especially for the front-line workers who are expected to explain and enforce rules in spaces like sports-centre changing rooms. So it’s important to give feedback on the guidance, especially if you can offer examples from your own experience. 

People and organisations must feel confident to say “no” to men trying to argue their way into women’s spaces. This has to start with the Equality and Human Rights Commission giving clear, simple guidance which recognises that you cannot provide a “single-sex service” while having a policy of letting in members of both sexes.

The post EHRC consults on statutory code of practice appeared first on Sex Matters.