Latest news with #MayaForstater
Telegraph
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
MPs ‘openly hostile' to critics of gender ideology
Feminist campaigners have accused MPs of being 'openly hostile' to people who believe there are only two biological sexes. Earlier this month, members of the women and equalities select committee rejected Sir Keir Starmer's pick to be chairman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), claiming she did not have the necessary experience. But Sex Matters, the women's rights group, has written to the committee to accuse them of blatant bias against people who do not agree with gender ideology. The group accused the MPs of being too close to trans rights activists behind 'witch hunts' of prominent gender-critical women. MPs on the committee interviewed Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson earlier this month, during which she championed the right of women who oppose gender ideology to speak out. The Government has since insisted it will still appoint Dr Stephenson, despite the complaints. 'MPs ill-informed about the law' In the letter, Maya Forstater, the chief executive of Sex Matters, said MPs had 'hectored' her. 'The committee's questions relating to sex-based rights and trans rights were, but for a few exceptions, openly hostile to those who hold gender-critical beliefs, ill-informed about the law and unsupportive of the EHRC doing its job of ensuring understanding and enforcement of the Equality Act,' she said. Dr Stephenson, the director of the Women's Budget Group, is the Government's pick to lead the EHRC when Baroness Falkner, the incumbent, steps down later this year. But supporters of trans rights have criticised the choice, accusing her of having attended women's rights conferences at which gender-critical views were aired. She was challenged at a joint meeting of the Commons' equalities committee and the Lords' human rights committee over her decision to sign a letter calling for open, non-violent discussion on gender issues – a letter some activists have described as transphobic. In her letter, Ms Forstater said many members of the committee appeared to oppose the Supreme Court judgmen t that the word sex in the Equality Act meant biological sex. 'Your questions and the letter lent heavily on correspondence received from people and organisations hostile to Dr Stephenson and to the Equality Act as clarified by the Supreme Court,' she said. 'These mass letters form part of a well-established pattern of attempted 'cancellation': smearing, mobbing, intimidation, discrimination, harassment, and no-platforming of gender-critical women, and those who recognise their rights.' She said those who had been targeted included Prof Kathleen Stock at Sussex University, Dr Hilary Cass for her evidence-based review of child gender medicine, author JK Rowling and Rosie Duffield, a former Labour MP. 'There have been hundreds of documented instances of such witch hunts against women standing up for sex-based rights and dozens of employment claims and tribunals,' she said. 'The EHRC current chairman has been targeted since the EHRC began a course correction in order to bring its approach into line with the Equality Act.' MPs accused of making untrue statements The letter accused MPs of expressing 'approval' for those advocating discrimination against gender-critical women. 'During the meeting its members subjected Dr Stephenson to questions which, had they been asked of a candidate in a regular job interview, could have led to a successful claim of unlawful belief discrimination,' it said. 'In their questioning committee members referred approvingly to letters they had received which advocated for discrimination against people with gender-critical beliefs.' Ms Forstater also accused MPs on the committee of misunderstanding equality law and making untrue assertions. Others also appeared to suggest the EHRC should not implement the Supreme Court's judgment. 'The EHRC should engage with a wide range of interest groups, including those that are disappointed at the Supreme Court's ruling,' the letter said. 'But it cannot do its job and appease people who do not accept the definition of man and woman in law, and it should not try to.'
The Herald Scotland
18-07-2025
- Health
- The Herald Scotland
NHS Fife publish tribunal statement on Sandie Peggie case
The tribunal, being held in Dundee, centres on Ms Peggie's suspension by NHS Fife after she raised concerns about sharing a female changing room with a transgender colleague, Dr Beth Upton, on Christmas Eve 2023. READ MORE Ms Peggie has since been cleared of misconduct but is pursuing legal action against both the health board and Dr Upton, claiming discrimination based on her gender-critical beliefs. NHS Fife said in its statement that while the case had attracted 'significant and very polarised debate' on social media, 'what began as debate has evolved into much more worrying behaviour, including a threat of physical harm and sexual violence, which has required the involvement of Police Scotland'. The board argued it had been the subject of 'unacceptable personal attacks and trolling' and reiterated its commitment to supporting all staff while defending its actions in court. However, during Friday's hearing, the claimant's barrister, Charlotte Elves, said it was 'a matter of some concern' that the health board appeared to be associating the actions of anonymous individuals online with named parties involved in the legal case. She pointed to paragraph three of the NHS Fife statement, which references the involvement of Sex Matters, noting that the claimant is supported by the group and that its CEO, Maya Forstater, has already given evidence. The group's chair, barrister Naomi Cunningham, is leading Ms Peggie's case. Ms Elves told the tribunal: 'Paragraph four of the statement seems to conclude that this has resulted in more worrying behaviour that has involved Police Scotland. It is a matter of some concern that a party to proceedings seems to link a witness in these proceedings with the conduct of members of the public, including threats of physical violence.' She added: 'This is quite unusual conduct of a party in proceedings and we are concerned that it is irresponsible and unsafe in the context of what we already know.' The tribunal was told that the case is being held in [[Dundee]] rather than Edinburgh due to threats made against members of the claimant's legal team. NHS Fife's senior counsel, Jane Russell KC, responded that she had only just seen the statement and requested more time to consider it. However, she rejected the suggestion that it contained anything defamatory or untrue. 'It is a bit of a stretch to say that paragraph three is leading to paragraph four,' she said. 'There is no way NHS Fife's statement could be seen to directly link the threats to those involved with Sex Matters.' She argued that the context for the statement was important, stating: 'Because this has taken place in public, Fife's witnesses have been exposed to a very unsafe environment. I have received threats, as have witnesses.' Sex Matters, which describes itself as a human rights charity focused on sex-based rights under the Equality Act, condemned the board's intervention. In a statement, Maya Forstater said: 'This is an extraordinary intervention from NHS Fife, even by the board's standards. 'NHS Fife has dug itself into a reputational black hole. If the only way forward the board can see is to lash out, including by criticising Sex Matters, which has at all times acted with propriety and in pursuit of its charitable objects, that suggests desperation.' The health board's statement, published on its website, also attempted to rebut a number of claims circulating on social media and in the press, including the suggestion that it could drop the tribunal proceedings. 'NHS Fife did not initiate the ongoing tribunal proceedings and is instead one of two 'respondents' being sued,' the statement said. 'Only the claimant can choose to withdraw the case.' The board also pushed back on the idea that Ms Peggie's suspension was directly caused by her complaint about a trans colleague's use of the female changing room. 'While the claimant raised concerns about a trans woman's use of a locker room, this was not the reason that NHS Fife's internal investigation was initiated,' it said. 'As made clear during tribunal proceedings, the disciplinary process was initiated due to concerns raised about interactions with a colleague and patient care.' NHS Fife confirmed that it had now concluded its internal disciplinary process — separate from the tribunal — and had issued a public statement earlier this month confirming no misconduct had been found. Read more: Elsewhere in the statement, the board addressed the cost of defending the case, revealing that total legal spending had reached £258,831.31 as of June 30, though only the first £25,000 is being met from NHS Fife's own budget. The remainder is covered by CNORIS, the NHS Scotland-wide indemnity scheme. NHS Fife also defended its attempts to restrict live coverage of the tribunal by the Tribunal Tweets account, saying it had raised concerns with the court about the accuracy of some posts. The account has since been allowed to continue under tribunal supervision. The hearing continues and is expected to conclude on Tuesday July 30, with a written judgment to follow in the months ahead.
Daily Mail
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Women's rights group sue Hampstead Heath Ladies' Pond for £50,000 for still allowing transgender bathers in, despite Supreme Court ruling
A women's rights group is planning to sue the corporation who run Hampstead Heath Ladies' Pond for £50,000 because they allow transgender bathers in. Sex Matters, who advertise themselves as a 'human-rights charity', are gearing up to take legal action against the City of London Corporation over their stance that transgender women can use the ponds in north of the city. It has been the view of the corporation that anyone who identifies as a woman can swim in the Ladies' Pond under its formal guidance since 2019. But critics in the women's rights group say this goes against the Supreme Court ruling, which earlier this year ruled that the legal definition of a woman should be based on their sex at birth under the Equality Act. After the ruling, the organisation said that its policy of trans women using the pond would 'remain in place' as it looked to gather legal advice, prompting the threat of courtroom action from the women's rights group. The City of London Corporation has said that it did not need to comply with the requirement for single-sex spaces in the Equality Act, arguing: 'The Ladies' Pond is not a single sex facility … precisely because trans women are permitted to access the swimming facilities.' Chief Executive of Sex Matters, Maya Forstater, told The Times they were 'amazed' that the corporation held this view, saying it was 'nothing more than linguistic trickery'. She added: 'The corporation claims that, because it chooses to define "women" and "men" according not to biological sex but to who wants to be referred to as "she" or "he", the Supreme Court judgment doesn't apply. In recent years women's rights protesters have held several protests at the ponds including storming the men's pond wearing false beards and moustaches (as seen above) 'Neither Hampstead Heath nor the City of London Corporation are sovereign entities that get to make their own laws. 'We will be taking our next steps in August and think this case will be very significant in testing what can only be described as creative interpretations of equality law following the Supreme Court judgment.' The Kenwood Ladies' Pond Association (KLPA), who represent people using the pond, said after the Supreme Court ruling that the Ladies' Pond is open to 'all women and girls over the age of eight'. They added: 'According to the lifeguards, trans women have been swimming there for many years without incident. 'The Ladies' Pond is well staffed by lifeguards and stewards who are there to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all users.' Members of the KLPA last year also voted to reject a motion that 'only those born female in sex can use the pond'. Close to one million visits are made to the 30 bathing ponds across Hampstead Heath each year for swimming. In recent years women's rights protesters have held several protests at the ponds including storming the men's pond wearing false beards and moustaches.
Leader Live
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Leader Live
Gender critical campaigners demand action from government on toilet access
Sex Matters, which intervened in the For Women Scotland case against which went to the Supreme Court, are threatening a lawsuit against Scottish ministers – with the latest letter demanding action by a deadline of next Wednesday. The Supreme Court's ruling in April said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. Sex Matters say the government must make a statement that all single-sex facilities on its estate must be interpreted as meaning biological sex. Ministers, including John Swinney, say they accept the judgment and have convened a working group to review their policies, as well as having discussions with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The campaign group, led by Maya Forstater, sent its first letter before action in June and another was sent to Scottish Government officials on Wednesday. The latest letter gives the government seven days to respond and says: 'To the extent that the Scottish Government does not immediately stop the unlawful practices set out in this letter we may decide to commence proceedings without further warning.' It notes there are 1,016 toilets across the government's core estate, in a mixture of unisex and separate-sex facilities. The letter calls on the government to make a statement that 'all facilities designated as male or female within the Scottish Government estate are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that gender-neutral options are widely available'. A Scottish Government's official responded to Sex Matters' previous letter, saying they accept the Supreme Court ruling. The letter, dated June 27, said: 'We are now taking action to implement the ruling. 'This includes the establishment of a short life working group to review existing policies, guidance and legislation which may be impacted by the judgment. 'The work of this group is under way and covers all relevant portfolios across government. 'This work is enabling us towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps to implement the ruling.' Commenting on the campaigners' letter, Scottish Conservative MSP Tess White said: 'The SNP Government must stop dragging its heels. 'The Supreme Court ruling was crystal clear, and so was the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's guidance in the wake of it, so there is no excuse for the SNP failing to comply fully with the law now. 'Indeed, their failure to do so is leaving the Scottish Government and its public bodies open to the legal challenge Sex Matters are threatening.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'The Scottish Government has made clear it accepts the Supreme Court ruling and since April has been taking forward the detailed work that is necessary as a consequence of the ruling. That work is ongoing.'
Rhyl Journal
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Rhyl Journal
Gender critical campaigners demand action from government on toilet access
Sex Matters, which intervened in the For Women Scotland case against which went to the Supreme Court, are threatening a lawsuit against Scottish ministers – with the latest letter demanding action by a deadline of next Wednesday. The Supreme Court's ruling in April said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. Sex Matters say the government must make a statement that all single-sex facilities on its estate must be interpreted as meaning biological sex. Ministers, including John Swinney, say they accept the judgment and have convened a working group to review their policies, as well as having discussions with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The campaign group, led by Maya Forstater, sent its first letter before action in June and another was sent to Scottish Government officials on Wednesday. The latest letter gives the government seven days to respond and says: 'To the extent that the Scottish Government does not immediately stop the unlawful practices set out in this letter we may decide to commence proceedings without further warning.' It notes there are 1,016 toilets across the government's core estate, in a mixture of unisex and separate-sex facilities. The letter calls on the government to make a statement that 'all facilities designated as male or female within the Scottish Government estate are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that gender-neutral options are widely available'. A Scottish Government's official responded to Sex Matters' previous letter, saying they accept the Supreme Court ruling. The letter, dated June 27, said: 'We are now taking action to implement the ruling. 'This includes the establishment of a short life working group to review existing policies, guidance and legislation which may be impacted by the judgment. 'The work of this group is under way and covers all relevant portfolios across government. 'This work is enabling us towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps to implement the ruling.' Commenting on the campaigners' letter, Scottish Conservative MSP Tess White said: 'The SNP Government must stop dragging its heels. 'The Supreme Court ruling was crystal clear, and so was the Equalities and Human Rights Commission's guidance in the wake of it, so there is no excuse for the SNP failing to comply fully with the law now. 'Indeed, their failure to do so is leaving the Scottish Government and its public bodies open to the legal challenge Sex Matters are threatening.' The government has been approached for further comment.
