Latest news with #GenderRecognitionAct2004
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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meant it was law straight away, and said it would refer Stonewall to the Charity Commission unless the advice was withdrawn.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.' 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.' 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.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
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.'
The Hindu
27-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Gender and space: on trans people's basic rights
In the backdrop of a rising trend of decimation of rights for people who do not fit into the binary of male and female, led by the U.S. administration, a recent U.K. Supreme Court ruling has further polarised the gender debate. In an 88-page judgment, five judges unanimously ruled that only biological women and not transwomen meet the definition of a woman under Britain's Equality Act 2010. In its limited scope of deliberation, it provided a 'statutory interpretation' that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Act refer only to a biological woman and the biological sex. A transwoman who has undergone a gender reassignment and has a gender recognition certificate as a woman for all purposes would lose the right to be treated as a biological woman. While the appellants in the case, For Women Scotland, funded in part by gender-critical writer J.K. Rowling, celebrated the verdict saying they had been vindicated, trans supporters and campaigners felt it was a setback for trans inclusion. There has been a considerable change in the resolve of the original respondents, The Scottish Ministers, too with the resignation of Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon in 2023. She had led the fight to change gender laws so that those with gender recognition certificates could be entitled to the same protections as biological women. But there was a backlash against gender recognition reforms after a trans woman, who had raped two women while she was a man, was initially sent to an all-female prison. The ruling made the point that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 gives legal recognition to the rights of transgender people on marriage, pensions, retirement and social security, and that the equality law protects them against discrimination. Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the U.K.'s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), said the court's 'clarity' means only 'biological women could use single-sex changing rooms and women's toilets, or participate in women-only sporting events and teams, or be placed in women's wards in hospitals'. But as the judges counselled against reading the judgment as a triumph for one or more groups in society at the expense of another, the EHRC should also ensure that unisex or neutral spaces are earmarked for trans people when it issues new guidelines. That holds true for all institutions, offices, hospitals and schools, planning restrictions. The ruling will have an impact on the sporting arena where athletics, cycling and aquatics have already banned transgender women from participating in women's events. As the experience with India's Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019 shows, any changes in the legal framework must factor in the trans people's basic rights or else they will face more strictures.
Irish Times
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Michael McDowell: There is no ‘right' to subvert women's freedom to have their own events and spaces
The decision by the UK's supreme court on the meaning of the term 'woman' for the purposes of its Equality Act created a small but noisy reaction among trans activists. The court held that 'the concept of sex is binary' – that is, there is a male and a female sex. This outcome is reassuring for many people who have become increasingly alarmed and bewildered by the claims of trans ideologists that gender is, somehow, entirely separate from sex and is a social and psychological construct rather than observable reality. In Ireland, the Oireachtas enacted the Gender Recognition Act 2015 with an understanding that sex was not divorced from gender and that a person issued with a gender recognition certificate would if he was previously considered a man thereafter be regarded as a woman or if previously considered a woman thereafter be considered a man. The Irish legislation was unusually deficient, in my view, in that it required no form of corroboration whatever from those applying to have their gender legally changed. UK law only recognises male and female genders. The UK's Gender Recognition Act 2004 gave people with gender dysphoria legal recognition based on objective evidence of dysphoria. READ MORE Trans activists took satisfaction from their legislative achievement in Ireland, which eschewed any need for objective corroboration by people applying for gender recognition certificates. However, the Irish act, which was entirely binary in effect and analysis, was insufficient to satisfy the ideological aims of the trans activist community, however large it may be. By exertion of well-placed influence, they pressed forward with plans to replace the term 'women who are pregnant' with 'people who are pregnant' in social legislation. Official publications were urged to use non-sexual language to describe many aspects of womanhood. The HSE has used the term 'chestfeeding' in official documentation. Perhaps the high tide of the trans ideological wave came in 2022 with the evidence tendered by the government-appointed leader of Seanad Éireann, Regina Doherty , (now an MEP) that there were at least nine genders in existence , without limiting that number. To the best of my knowledge, neither she nor any of her colleagues in government ever attempted to enumerate these other genders, despite many requests that they should do so. She told The Irish Times that she feared that Ireland might have 'a summer of discontent' ahead of us, suggesting that a campaign to reverse the binary Gender Recognition Act 2015 might be launched by a 'very small but growing campaign'. And so the trans ideological train rolled on until it ran straight into the buffers in the form of massive rejection in the Family and Care referendums in March last year . Quite apart from the gross ineptitude and dishonesty deployed by the government at the time and its state-funded NGO allies in proposing those constitutional amendments, there was at the heart of the people's decision an antipathy towards removal from the Constitution of recognition for the value and status of motherhood itself. For many people, the significance of sex understood as a binary concept is reality – not an emotional or intellectual construct. Even the term 'same-sex attraction' means something. Among many gay and lesbian Irish people, whether married or not, there is a fundamental unease about their equal rights – as vindicated most recently in the marriage equality referendum – being handcuffed to an ideology which seeks to superimpose imagined genders over those of male and female. It is now years since I wrote here about our capacity to deal with gender dysphoria on a kind and a reasonable basis socially and legally, without abandoning the fundamental social and legal realities of sexuality, masculinity, femininity and motherhood. The mantra 'trans rights are human rights' is chanted in pursuit of trans ideological goals. For most people, the idea that a 6ft 3in man who may or may not have obtained a gender recognition certificate has a 'right' to participate in, say, women's rugby competitions is bizarre. Single-sex sports exist to reflect physical capacities and realities; they do not create such realities or infringe the rights of others who seek to avoid or deny such realities. There is no 'right' to subvert the freedom of women to have facilities and events confined to their own sex. There is nothing inhuman about asserting the contrary. The idea that a person convicted of rape and sexual assault against women as a man should have the right to be incarcerated as though a woman is so patently counterintuitive as to have done serious damage to Nicola Sturgeon 's Scottish government. David Cullinane TD was forced into an abject and humiliating apology and retraction of his initial statement that the UK decision was 'common sense' . While Sinn Féin is free to enforce party discipline over its members, the knee-jerk response to trans ideology and rejection of what most people would consider as common sense is part of a wider and more ingrained capacity for political, historical and social self-delusion.
New Statesman
23-04-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
Labour's cynical shift on biological sex
It took the UK's highest court to say what many have always known: that 'sex' in the law (under the Equality Act 2010) means biological sex. In its ruling on 16 April, the court set out why – from pregnancy to sport, access to refuges to women-only changing rooms – the Equality Act would be 'unworkable, inconsistent and incoherent' if sex were not confined to biological sex but also included trans people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC). That this was left to the courts at all is an indictment of politicians. The response from Labour has been woeful. It took the Prime Minister six days to say he was 'really pleased' with the 'clarity' brought by the judgement. His spokesperson confirmed that Starmer no longer believed trans women were women. But the PM hasn't condemned the threats made to women during the trans rights activist protests that followed the judgement, at which some carried placards bearing abusive messages, including 'The only good Terf is a [dead] one' and 'Bring back witch burning'. A bust of the women's rights campaigner Millicent Fawcett was daubed with the homophobic slur 'fag rights'. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper (who previously refused to go down the 'rabbit hole' of defining what a woman is), condemned the damage, but had nothing to say of the misogyny on display. The Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson was the first in cabinet to criticise the rhetoric. More embarrassing has been Labour's attempts to rewrite history. A Labour source told the Telegraph the judgement showed why it was 'so important that Keir hauled the Labour Party back to the common-sense position the public take on these sorts of issues'. This was, the source said, 'one of the reasons the country felt Labour was safe to elect'. Really? Wasn't it Starmer who, in 2021, called the then Labour MP Rosie Duffield's statement 'only women have a cervix' 'something that shouldn't be said'. And wasn't it John Healey, now the Defence Secretary, who said during the 2024 election campaign that clarification of the law around sex and gender was a 'distraction' and 'not needed'? On 16 April, Phillipson claimed Labour had 'always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex'. But she said in a June 2024 interview that trans women with a GRC should use female toilets. Why can't politicians admit they got it wrong? Next came responses from the largely left-wing, male commentariat, who have absented themselves from speaking up for women. Some said they hadn't got involved because 'as a man' they weren't directly impacted. Several found the debate so 'toxic' they shied away. Others claimed the judgement is complex or nuanced. It isn't. It's unambiguous and has huge implications for the NHS, sport, schools, prisons and more. The judgement makes clear that trans people, rightly, remain protected from harassment and discrimination under the Equality Act. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 also provides rights and freedoms 'in the context of marriage, pensions, retirement and social security'. Despite claims to the contrary, no one wishes to see trans people erased, or denies they exist. The court simply established that the law does not allow trans women to be treated as if they are biological women. One group, however, would have faced erasure had the court ruled the other way: lesbians. 'For lesbians, this was not merely about safe spaces and same-sex services: it was absolutely foundational to our very existence,' I was told by Sally Wainwright, who helped put together the case for three lesbian organisations granted permission to intervene at the Supreme Court. The judges agreed. Sexual orientation 'is rendered meaningless' if sex is not confined to biological sex, they said. Yet press coverage has largely ignored this, Wainwright said. This was a judgement 'all – and only – about women's rights'. That it has been reported as if it's an attack on trans people signifies the extent to which parts of the press were 'captured', she argued. The 88-page Supreme Court judgement is calm and compassionate, fact-based and devoid of activist language. To get this far required brave women to say what those with power and authority refused to. For Women Scotland (FWS), which brought the case that led to the ruling, is run by three women. Their efforts were not 'bankrolled by billionaires and the far right', as the Labour MP Zarah Sultana claims. Yes, JK Rowling contributed £70,000 to the battle, but the donations of more than 5,000 others raised the bulk of the £232,000 costs. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe British women are rebuilding sanity brick by brick. Maya Forstater secured the right to say that sex is real and immutable and not be punished. Keira Bell took on the care provided to gender-distressed children at the Tavistock. And FWS has now reinforced the long-fought-for rights of women. But attempts have already begun to undermine the judgement, with some questioning its legitimacy and indicating they will refuse to comply. The Supreme Court ruling will require businesses, public bodies and other institutions to change their policies in accordance with the law. How will a government that has thus far been weak on women's rights respond? Despite reports of unease in Labour's ranks, Phillipson spoke definitively on BBC Radio 4's Today on 22 April: 'I can be crystal clear with you that we welcome the ruling.' There is now an opportunity to be rid of the lies and toxicity of the past; to ensure that the rights of both trans people and women are respected. But one thing is certain: if that chance is not taken, women will not stay silent. History shows they can, and will, say 'No'. And they will win. [See more: Medicine's profit motive] Related
