Stonewall charity status under threat unless it respects trans ruling
Stonewall will be referred to the Charity Commission on Monday unless it withdraws 'wrong and dangerous' advice on the meaning of last month's Supreme Court ruling on women's rights.
Sex Matters, the women's rights group, say the controversial LGBT charity has encouraged 'organisations to act unlawfully' by suggesting they delay any changes to female facilities such as toilets and changing rooms.
On Thursday, Stonewall accused the Football Association of rushing into banning trans women, who are biologically male, from the female game.
And they said the Supreme Court's historic judgment – that the definition of a woman was based on biological sex – had not yet become law.
In a letter to Simon Blake, the chief executive of Stonewall, Sex Matters said the ruling meant it was law straight away, and said it would refer Stonewall to the Charity Commission unless the advice was withdrawn.
Maya Forstater, the chief executive of Sex Matters, wrote: 'Stonewall remains an influential institution, which has the legitimacy of charitable status.
'It should not be encouraging employers, service providers, sports governing bodies or individuals to ignore or flout the law.'
On Thursday, the FA decided to follow the Scottish FA in restricting the membership of women's teams to biological women.
Stonewall published a statement saying: 'The FA and Scottish FA's decision to ban trans women from women's football has been made too soon, before the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling have been worked through by lawyers and politicians or become law.
'This is widely acknowledged to be an incredibly complicated ruling and its wide-ranging impact is still being worked through by the legal fraternity.
'All organisations should be waiting to see how and in what way statutory guidance is changed, before making any changes to their policies.'
Ms Forstater warned in her letter that Sex Matters would write to the Charity Commission on Monday unless Stonewall retracted the statement 'by means of a public statement and an email to current and past members of the Stonewall Diversity Champions and other related schemes'.
She went on: 'This advice is wrong and dangerous. The Equality Act has been law since 2010, and the Sex Discrimination Act before that since 1975.
'Before the Supreme Court judgment, there was some uncertainty about how it interacts with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in relation to the protected characteristics of sex and sexual orientation. This uncertainty has now been resolved by the Supreme Court.
'The judgment is comprehensive, but is not at all complicated…
'Employers, service providers, charities and other duty-bearers under the Act have an ongoing obligation to comply with all relevant laws. There is no justification for waiting, and no ambiguity about what must be done.
'No further commentary or guidance is required, and by telling organisations to wait before acting, Stonewall is encouraging them to act unlawfully.'
Stonewall 'contravening charitable objects'
Ms Forstater claimed that Stonewall's actions were in direct contravention of its charitable objects, which are to promote human rights, promote equality and diversity, and promote the 'sound administration of law'.
'By telling organisations that the Supreme Court's ruling is not law and that they should wait for changes to the statutory guidance before complying, Stonewall is acting irresponsibly and in direct contravention of its charitable objects,' she said.
'Please act promptly to undo the damage caused by your irresponsible statement, insofar as is possible, by retracting it forthwith and publicising your retraction on all the same channels used to promote it.
'Please also replace the retracted statement with one that is clear and accurate, accompanied by a recommendation that all organisations act swiftly to come into compliance.'
Martina Navratilova, the nine-times Wimbledon singles champion, said: 'Stonewall is stonewalling the UK supreme court. Good to know they know the law so well.'
Charity 'taking legal advice'
A spokesman for Stonewall said: 'We are taking time, and legal advice, to fully understand the implications of Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC's interim update and get 'clarity' on the next steps including the timeline of the consultation and on the parliamentary process for a new statutory code of practice.
'We are highlighting that organisations don't need to take any action yet, or change their policies, because no new statutory guidance has been issued. The widespread implications of the ruling are still being considered and there will be a consultation process and a subsequent parliamentary process before any changes to statutory guidance are issued.
'Once, and if, there is new statutory guidance, Stonewall will review its own materials to ensure they reflect the latest legal developments. Stonewall's guidance has always reflected the law.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
13 hours ago
- Telegraph
House of Lords removes ‘provocative' Pride flags from canteen
The House of Lords has removed Pride flags from its canteen following a complaint by a peer. At the start of June, the River Restaurant was decked out in the banners to celebrate the beginning of Pride month. However, among the banners used was the ' Progress Pride ' flag, which includes the colours of the trans movement and is seen by many as indicative of support for gender ideology – the idea that sex is a spectrum and that people can change their identity. Baroness Nicholson, a Tory peer, complained to the Lord Speaker, Lord McFall, and officials agreed that they should be taken down as they had not been sanctioned by the authorities. Similar flags were not displayed in the House of Commons canteen. Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at the Sex Matters charity, said the decision to display the flags was 'provocative and inappropriate', and that it was 'reassuring' they had been taken down. 'The baby blue and pink of trans activism, which features in the flag, signals support for a harmful fringe ideology that justifies a wide range of human rights abuses, including puberty blockers for minors, surgeries that leave people sterile, the placement of rapists in women's prisons, and the destruction of single-sex services and spaces,' she said. Critics advocate separating trans and gay rights The Progress Pride flag, designed in 2021, is replacing the traditional rainbow Pride flag in many venues. It includes an extra triangle of colour on the left hand side, made up of stripes including white, pink and light blue – the colours of the trans movement. But many critics say the trans rights movement should be decoupled entirely from the gay rights movement, using the phrase 'LGB without the T'. The flag also includes a yellow triangle with a purple circle to represent 'intersex' people – a classification which is rejected by many. On Wednesday, Lady Nicholson tweeted pictures of the flags in the River Restaurant, which were displayed over the cooked breakfast items on sale, on the social media platform X. When one user replied to say that they supported 'LGB without the T', she tweeted: 'Exactly.' The flags had been removed by Friday lunchtime, following Lady Nicholson's complaint to the Lord Speaker's Office. On Friday, she tweeted: 'The superb River Restaurant in the House of Lords has had the decorations that I pictured removed. 'The food remains as stunning as before. I am most grateful to the Lord Speaker for his swift and thoughtful response to my request. I respect all people in all walks of life always.' Lady Nicholson was a Conservative MP between 1987 and 1995, when she made a high-profile defection to the Liberal Democrats in protest at John Major's policies. She was made a peer in 1997 and later served as a member of the European Parliament for the Lib Dems. She returned to the Tory fold in 2016. During her time in Parliament, she voted in favour of Section 28, which banned the 'promotion of homosexuality' by local authorities, and against gay marriage. 'Do pronouns get you a bigger plate of beans?' A number of users on X responded to her picture of the flags. Sean Ako said: 'As a gay man I find this to be incredibly dehumanising. Can't I have my breakfast in peace without having a flag waved in my face? I don't need to be celebrated first thing in the morning. I need to be caffeinated.' Clean City Bird wrote: 'Honestly, what has the progress flag or same-sex attraction got to do with having breakfast? Do you get a bigger portion if you state your pronouns while they plate your beans?' Margaret Kearney said: 'Think about the flags as you eat breakfast or have tea and toast. For some it could be a turn-off to eat anything. These flags have taken over everything. Thanks Emma for letting us know about this.' A spokesman for the House of Lords said it had not been the Lord Speaker who had personally intervened. 'Informal decorations were put up locally to mark the beginning of Pride month,' he said. 'These were taken down at an appropriate point due to their unofficial nature.'
The Herald Scotland
17 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Justice Jackson warns Supreme Court is sending a 'troubling message'
"It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing," Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be "irreparably harmed" by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the "irreparable harm" factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson said the court `plainly botched' its evaluation of a Trump appeal Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. More Supreme Court wins for Trump In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices - Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices - Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito - dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.
The Independent
17 hours ago
- The Independent
At a glance: The Independent Pride List 2025
The Independent Pride List celebrates LGBT+ pioneers, highlighting achievements in sports, music, politics, and fashion, amidst growing global challenges to LGBT+ rights. Dr Victoria McCloud, Britain's first trans judge, is challenging the UK government at the European Court of Human Rights over the Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of 'woman'. The list of 50 includes figures like Juno Dawson, Bella Ramsey, and Cynthia Erivo, recognised for their activism, acting roles, and advocacy for LGBT+ visibility and rights. Wes Streeting, the UK's Health Secretary, is recognised as the most prominent gay man in Westminster politics. The list also honours individuals like David Hockney, The Vivienne (posthumously), and Yasmin Benoit, celebrating contributions to art, drag performance, and asexuality awareness, respectively.
