Latest news with #biologicalsex
Daily Mail
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Moment squirming Gavin Newsom says the quiet part out loud about trans kids... it's as humiliating as it is shameless
For more than four hours the supremely self-assured governor of California held court, waxing lyrical about his policies, beliefs and vision. Then came the simple yes or no question which stumped him. Should eight-year-old children be given medical treatments to change their biological sex?
Telegraph
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Parliament is still stacked with gender ideologues
Let's be clear: by 'transphobes' Roca doesn't mean violent thugs who want to crucify cross dressers. He means you. He means the average British voter who believes that biological sex exists. The parents alarmed that teachers are telling their daughters they are 'born in the wrong body' if they like playing with trucks. The people campaigning to stop male sex offenders from being housed in female prisons. The detransitioners left scarred by medical experiments masquerading as care. He means the Supreme Court justices who recently reaffirmed that, under equality law, sex means biology, a decision he decried as 'depressing.' To Roca, all of them – all of us – are unhinged. But what's truly depressing is that Parliament is still stacked with unabashed gender goons like Roca, who confuse sneering for superiority and ideology for intellect. The Labour Party has become a refuge for some of the most absurd and extreme statements ever uttered into a microphone. Dawn Butler once bafflingly informed a Pink News audience that 'babies are born without a sex' and that ' 90 per cent of giraffes are gay.' Stella Creasy earnestly believes that being a feminist means affirming 'women with penises.' And Labour's health minister Ashley Dalton once tweeted that people should be able to identify as llamas if they wish. Then there's Jess Phillips, self-identifying 'gobby feminist' and safeguarding minister, who stayed mute as gender-critical MPs were hounded from public life, and who's said precisely nothing about the scandal engulfing the Tavistock Clinic. Where was her safeguarding when young women like Keira Bell were led down a path of irreversible medicalisation on the NHS? But what's most infuriating about Roca's smug sermon is his deluded belief that all that's needed is 'robust conversation' to 'bring people around' to his view that gender identity ought to outweigh the reality of biological sex. For a decade, gender lobbyists like Stonewall shut down debate, smeared dissenters as bigots, and undermined the democratic process by influencing public policy behind closed doors. When we wanted dialogue, they called it hate. Women trying to arrange discussions about now shelved proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act faced bomb threats and intimidation from activists, and arrest and interrogation from Stonewall trained police forces. Thanks to their work, common sense has resurfaced, and it is sweeping through the nation. The public can see clearly who the real 'swivel-eyed' loons are: those who lock male rapists in women's prisons, who drug confused children, and earnestly believe you can be born in the wrong body.
Telegraph
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The Supreme Court's trans ruling is the new Brexit. Its opponents won't accept that they've lost
More than two months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that sex-based rights are exactly that. Sex-based, the five judges declared, means based on biological sex. This was the court's interpretation of the 2010 Equality Act. As such, legal protections afforded to women under the act are restricted to those born female. In short – trans women are not legally women. The justices' clear ruling – which promises to have wide-ranging implications for single-sex spaces and services – is proof that biology matters. And it was a relief to many who have argued for the dignity, privacy and safety of women. It means lesbians, who have found their dating apps and events inundated with men claiming to be women, will be able to meet up without biological males being present. It also means that in prisons and hospitals and refuges, vulnerable women will not have to share their spaces with such men. And it restores some sanity to a discussion that has been propelled by militant activists who insist that their fetishes and delusions are radical, doing no favours to those trans people who do just want to get on with their lives. Open up social media and you still find hordes of men insisting they are biological women. These people are beyond rational argument, and will carry on shrieking and punching down. This was to be expected. What is shocking, though, are the number of public bodies that are refusing to act on the court's ruling. The law is not optional. The provision of single-sex spaces is something that most organisations are able to facilitate – be that toilets or changing rooms. If they are concerned that their provision for trans people would be insufficient, they can simply provide gender-neutral spaces, too. The reduction of the principle of this legislation to endless discussion about loos, is part of the institutional denial that's at play. The BMA, the Fire Brigades Union, Equity, the UCU (University and College Lecturers), teachers, NHS unions and civil servants are just some of those refusing to accept that however much you chant 'trans women are women', the law has said this is not the case. Among those losing patience with those refusing to accept the ruling is the Prime Minister, who said he had 'accepted' and 'welcomed the ruling'. 'Everything else flows from that as far as I'm concerned… All guidance of whatever kind needs to be consistent with the ruling and we need to get to that position as soon as possible,' Sir Keir Starmer told reporters on Sunday. In other words, get on with it. But that is not what is happening, as the trans rights lobbyists continue to mislead people about what equality law is. This is the result of often well-meaning or bewildered folk having gone along with whatever groups like Stonewall fed them about trans ideology. (And it must also be said that Starmer's current position is a long way from where he and his Labour party were a few years ago). Now, we find ourselves in a situation reminiscent of Brexit, when there was a refusal by swaths of the pro-EU camp to accept the result of the referendum. Valuable resources were wasted by those who felt they could overturn the result by having a second vote. Even as someone who backed Remain, this always seemed to me a complete waste of time. Looking back, Brexit disrupted a complacent, liberal consensus. Neighbours told me at the time that they knew of nobody who would vote Leave, which of course was precisely the problem. Similarly, the arguments around women asserting their rights have also come as news to those who only get their information via The Guardian /BBC axis where the crimes of men – even rape – are attributed to women. Those pushing for trans rights have benefited from the public NOT being properly informed about what is going on. Middle-aged men arguing for children to be sterilised, medicalised and denied puberty through drugs, is not only creepy but, as the evidence examined by Dr Hilary Cass has shown us, actually harmful. Even some of America's 'progressive' media outlets – such as The New York Times – are having to gently reveal facts documenting how 'gender-affirming care' is hurting children. Nonetheless, a completely unthinking trans activist hegemony has been so deeply embedded in our major institutions that nurses demanding to get changed in private is some sort of insurgency. Madness. The Supreme Court ruling restores some balance. But other parts of society must catch up and get over their befuddlement. Ofcom – an unelected quango which, we ought to remember, refused to censure the BBC for referring to Scarlet Blake, a biological man who murdered a stranger and had livestreamed the killing of a cat, as a woman – has this week come under fire for saying broadcasters must give airtime to claims that biological men are women when covering trans issues. We don't do this with climate change denial any more. Why do it with biology? The reality is that some went so far down this particular rabbit hole that they now have no idea how to climb back out. To state that men are not women, an obvious truth, is not to discriminate against a 'uniquely marginalised' group. It is a return to reality that protects women's rights. The trans rights grift is over – the sooner everybody realises as much, the better.
Telegraph
30-06-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Ban trans women from female lavatories now, Starmer tells hospitals
Sir Keir Starmer has told hospitals and universities to obey the law and ban transgender women from female lavatories 'as soon as possible'. The Prime Minister said public bodies must stop dragging their feet and comply with April's Supreme Court ruling, which found that trans women are not legally women. The judgment on the meaning of the word sex in the Equality Act means that amenities such as toilets and changing rooms have to be separated by biological sex and not by self-identified gender. But two months on, dozens of NHS trusts and other organisations up and down the country have failed to change their guidance, meaning biological men are still being allowed in women's lavatories and changing rooms. Women's rights groups say this puts female staff at risk because most sexual abuse is carried out by biological men. Now, Sir Keir has lost patience with organisations that are still failing to comply with the law. 'We've accepted the ruling' The Prime Minister said: 'We've accepted the ruling, welcomed the ruling, and everything else flows from that as far as I'm concerned. 'Therefore all guidance of whatever kind needs to be consistent with the ruling and we need to get to that position as soon as possible.' Soon after the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued interim guidance that said that in places such as hospitals, shops and restaurants, 'trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities'. It is now consulting on the details of its guidance, but Baroness Kishwer Falkner, chairman, has said the main thrust of the advice will not change. Despite this, most NHS organisations and universities have said they are waiting for the EHRC guidance before updating their policies. But Sir Keir's comments indicate he has little sympathy with this argument. 'No need to wait for further guidance' Maya Forstater, chief executive of the women's rights charity Sex Matters, said: 'This is an important intervention from the Prime Minister, given the huge number of public bodies failing to implement the Supreme Court judgment and therefore operating outside the law. 'Political leadership is essential if women whose rights are being stolen are not to be forced to turn to the courts, where public bodies will end up losing, at great expense to taxpayers.' She added that the law is clear and there is 'no need to wait for further guidance from the EHRC or anyone else'. A growing number of public bodies are changing their guidance in light of the judgment. The Football Association, for example, has said trans women would be banned from women's sport. The Houses of Parliament announced last week that it had changed its position, saying that visitors should use 'the facilities that correspond to their biological sex'. Trans people were instructed to use gender-neutral lavatories on the estate. However, a large number of public organisations have still not changed their guidance. The ruling is of particular importance for universities, many of which organise sports teams and continue to allow biological men to participate in female sports. 'Not making changes' Leeds University said: 'For the avoidance of doubt, we are not making any changes to how we provide campus facilities. 'We will not do so unless there is clear legal obligation, and we have meaningfully consulted with those most directly impacted. This is about getting things right – not about rushing to respond.' Liverpool University said: 'Any practical implications in applying the ruling to our facilities and activities are not yet clear and along with other universities, we now need to wait for more detailed guidance. 'As such, there are no immediate changes to any university policies.' As for the NHS, a group of eight nurses in Darlington is challenging their health trust's policy over allowing a trans colleague to use the female changing rooms at work. The national body – NHS England – is still to publish guidance on the Supreme Court ruling. The NHS Confederation, which represents trusts, has withdrawn pro-trans guidance but has not yet updated it. Several other regional organisations have indicated their advice will not change, at least for the time being. NHS Sussex said: 'There should be no change in terms of how services are delivered as the NHS nationally considers the judgment. 'Further to this, we understand that the update provided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission has led to concern. NHS Sussex will fully participate in a code of practice consultation when it launches to ensure that the protections of the Equality Act endorsed by the Supreme Court are upheld.'
Telegraph
29-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Broadcasters must air views that trans women are women, says Ofcom
Broadcasters must give airtime to claims that biological men are women when covering trans issues, Ofcom has said. 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.'
