Broadcasters must air views that trans women are women, says Ofcom
The media regulator warned GB News in a letter seen by The Telegraph that it could not treat the controversy as settled, despite the landmark Supreme Court victory for women's rights campaigners in April 2025.
The Supreme Court ruled that under the Equality Act, the word 'woman' means a biological woman rather than a person's self-identified gender.
As a result, women-only spaces have a legal right to be protected. However, Ofcom has said that the judges' ruling does not mean the matter is 'settled'.
In the past, the regulator has said that it considers it 'settled' that climate change is real and a man-made phenomenon.
Therefore, in situations discussing climate change, broadcasters do not have to provide an opposing view such as a climate change sceptic.
GB News wrote to Ofcom asking it to confirm that the ruling had settled the matter of the definition of a woman by saying it was defined by biological sex and not gender identity.
The station also asked the regulator to confirm that television companies would be able to refer to people such as sports stars solely by their biological pronoun.
But Ofcom said the Supreme Court only ruled on the definition of a woman in terms of the Equality Act and not on its meaning in other contexts.
Believe sex can change
The decision suggests broadcasters will continue to have to present both sides of the debate: those who believe there are only two sexes and those who believe a person's gender identity can change their actual sex.
Ofcom's response also suggests that broadcasters should use a person's preferred pronoun.
In its letter, GB News wrote: 'We would be grateful if Ofcom could confirm that in light of the Supreme Court judgment, it is now a settled matter that the terms 'man', 'woman' and 'sex' can only be understood to mean biological sex, biological woman and biological man and, as a consequence, it is also a settled matter that a 'trans woman' is not a biological female, and a 'trans man' is not a biological male.'
It added: 'Following the Supreme Court judgment we are of the view that (provided there is no deliberate intention to cause harm or offence), contributors should generally be able to use biological pronouns.'
In its reply, Ofcom said that it could not agree with the broadcaster's 'dogmatic' pronouncements.
It said it did not follow the premise that assumes 'the judgment should also be understood to have effectively 'settled' wider debate about the appropriate meaning, usage and effect of such terms in all contexts outside the scope of the Equality Act, including in broadcast programmes in which issues relating to sex and gender-based rights are discussed generally'.
It added: 'The judgment does not purport to do so.'
Requires nuanced decision-making
The letter went on to say that Ofcom 'does not consider that it is helpful or appropriate to endorse the dogmatic propositions' made by GB News, adding that it worked on a case-by-case basis because such issues 'require nuanced decision-making'.
'Our assessment will of course also take account of all applicable Convention rights, including the broadcaster's and audience's rights to freedom of expression, as well as the latitude for editorial discretion which uncontroversially accompanies the exercise of those rights on issues of significant public interest.'
A spokesman for the regulator said: 'Ofcom is a post-broadcast regulator.
'In line with the rights of broadcasters and audiences to freedom of expression, our rules allow broadcasters editorial freedom to choose how to cover issues in their programmes subject to the Broadcasting Code.
'Our assessment of whether content complies with the Broadcasting Code is always fact-specific and takes into account all relevant contextual factors, requiring nuanced decision-making, and not a 'one size fits all' approach.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
4 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Keir Starmer must fight for UK drug firms
The life sciences industry is among the brightest jewels in the British economy, generating £100billion a year and employing more than 300,000 people. At its heart is the development and manufacture of pharmaceuticals, notably by AstraZeneca, which spends vast sums on research and is worth £167billion. So, if this hugely successful company were to relocate to the US, it would be a disaster both for the London Stock Exchange and the wider economy. Worryingly, this is not out of the question. AstraZeneca already sells 40 per cent of its drugs to America and, following President Donald Trump 's tariff threat, is ramping up research and production there. While there are no immediate plans to desert the UK, chief executive Pascal Soriot is said to be 'flirting' with the idea. Mr Trump's latest demand that foreign drug companies cut prices to US customers or face penalties may be an added incentive. The Left has always been highly critical of 'Big Pharma', accusing it of profiteering on the backs of NHS patients. Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour planned to create a state-owned drug manufacturer with the power to override the patents which enable firms to make profits from their research. Only last year, Sir Keir Starmer refused to help fund a new vaccine plant in Liverpool – while pouring public money into our ailing steel industry. This Government must understand that failing to nurture AstraZeneca, GSK and others would be a catastrophic mistake. And Sir Keir should realise that while they say they want to remain in the UK, they may yet change their mind. Car lenders off hook Banks and credit providers will have heaved a huge sigh of relief yesterday after the Supreme Court ruled they will not have to pay compensation to millions of motorists who bought cars on finance without being told the dealers were receiving commission on the loan. The Treasury was also delighted with the result. Had it gone the other way, damages could have been comparable to the PPI scandal, which destabilised the financial industry for more than a decade. The court decided that dealers did not have a duty to act solely for buyers and that commissions were not a form of bribery in the legal sense, as had been alleged. However, it was not a total exoneration. Court President Lord Reed also ruled that excessive commission payments were unfair and ordered one buyer who had been charged 25 per cent of the value of the car to be repaid with interest. This opens the way to further claims. Many brokers and dealers were paid behind-the-scenes commission by lenders to sign buyers up to car finance deals, a practice deemed 'unlawful' by the Court of Appeal in October last year - a decision that was successfully appealed by lenders at the Supreme Court The dealers and lenders have escaped their worst fears, but they do not come out well. They have certainly been guilty of sharp practices even if not illegal ones. The Competition and Markets Authority must now force them to clean up their act. OAPs feel the cold In September, Rachel Reeves promised she would 'put more money in pensioners' pockets'. What she didn't say is that she would take even more out. Research shows pensioner households are an average of £800 worse off after a year of Labour thanks to higher bills – mainly owing to the Chancellor's £40billion Budget tax raid. With more taxes coming down the track to fill Labour's ever-widening financial black hole, the cost of living is set to soar further. For all Ms Reeves' promises, the elderly are in for a bitter winter.
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump demands UK pharmaceutical giants to lower drug costs sparking fears NHS could pay the price if they refuse
Donald Trump has demanded UK pharmaceutical giants lower prices for America and suggested charging others to make up the difference. He said if they didn't, the US would deploy 'every tool in our arsenal' to protect families from 'continued abusive drug prices', sparking fears the NHS will end up paying more. Mr Trump suggested he would use tariffs to push through higher prices if countries resisted. In May Mr Trump signed an executive order demanding drugmakers cut US medicine prices to match those abroad. Yesterday in a letter to 17 pharma companies he said he expected them to deliver on measures by September 29. He asked them to apply 'most favoured nation' pricing to Medicaid, the US health programme for people on low incomes. Mr Trump also asked drugmakers to offer new medicines at the same price in the US as in other developed countries. He said: 'Our citizens pay massively higher prices than other nations pay for the same exact pill... subsidizing socialism aboard [abroad].' British pharma companies AstraZeneca and GSK were among the recipients. Others included Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Sanofi. The UK Government said it would 'continue to work closely with the US to get the best deal for our pharma industry and deliver mutual benefits for both our countries'.
Sky News
34 minutes ago
- Sky News
One year ago, a furious mob rioted in Rotherham. Locals fear another outbreak of violence
A year has passed, but Paris and Josh still cannot quite believe what they witnessed last August. They live 200m from a hotel on the edge of a quiet residential street. "It looked like a modern-day lynching," Paris says. It's the only way she can describe the sickening scene that unfolded as a furious mob tried to attack asylum seekers being housed in the Holiday Inn Express north of Rotherham. 1:40 After seeing masked men setting fires and storming into the hotel, Paris says she was afraid they were going to see "either someone getting thrown out a window, or someone getting dragged outside". Josh remembers looking out of his bedroom window and thinking: "What is England coming to? What is going on?" "It was like they were going to a festival," Paris says. "They had ski masks on and bags full of alcohol, people were taking the kids, like they had the kids on their shoulders." To protect their car, Josh drove it off his driveway to another street nearby. They then retreated inside and watched six or seven hours of chaos unfold. It was one of the most serious outbursts of rioting during a week last August when disorder spread through towns and cities. Days after the knife attack which left three school girls dead in Southport, years of deep-rooted frustration about immigration boiled over. Twelve months on, the Holiday Inn Express next to Josh and Paris' home has reopened as a regular hotel, but the tension that has been seen around other migrant hotels recently hasn't disappeared. "I still see in groups (online) all this hate being spilled," Josh says. "I think it probably could happen again," Paris adds. "That's the faith I have in the country, really." The courts have handed out lengthy prison sentences to those involved in the disorder, leading to rows about whether they match the crimes people committed. The mayor of South Yorkshire says tensions over immigration remain unresolved and told Sky News he believes migrants, hotel workers or police officers could have been killed last August. "Had they [rioters] been more effective at doing some of the things they were trying to do, we would have seen people dying on the day," Oliver Coppard says. "What it speaks to, in my mind, is the poverty that we see in some of our communities, which feeds a sense of grievance." Mr Coppard - who has responsibility for policing in South Yorkshire - added: "Ultimately what we need in this country is a better approach to cohesion, to community integration so people are supported to live full lives within our communities and a proper and legal approach to asylum. "Those things are incredibly toxic and politics is not doing a good job I think of dealing with those issues." Protests around other migrant hotels in recent weeks show that the grievances of last summer still hang in the air. In Rotherham market we meet 23-year-old scaffolder Josh. "I don't think it has been solved," he says. When I asked him how that makes people feel, he replies: "Angry because it makes people want to riot again." He says he has no issue with people who move to the UK legally to work, but adds it is "unfair" when people arrive on small boats and receive hotel accommodation while their asylum cases are processed. Gabriel, 38, who was born in Rotherham, says he feels people look at him differently since last summer's disorder. "I couldn't see anybody smiling at me like they used to before the riot, they are putting every minority in the same box which is wrong," he says. "There is still a bit of aftermath, anger, rage, upset - in everybody's eyes. "That tension alone is worse than the actual incident because before, I think, it was hidden but now it is out there." A woman who didn't want to be named says: "The backlash is going to happen with the government against the people - the people against the government, it is not right. "The way I see it, we all have to live together ... we bleed the same blood, we breathe the same air." That spirit of conciliation and tolerance is less common than it once was - it is a hallmark of a failed immigration system that has left deep-rooted frustration in communities across the UK.
