Latest news with #transissues
Yahoo
22-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Harry Potter star Miriam Margolyes speaks out about JK Rowling's trans stance
Harry Potter star Miriam Margolyes has told Sky News she believes JK Rowling is "wrong about some things" when it comes to her stance on trans issues - but says it is also wrong for the author to be left out of "celebrations" for her famous books. Margolyes, who played Professor Sprout in the film series, said it was "fair enough" to criticise Rowling, who has been outspoken in her gender critical views. However, the 84-year-old actress said the backlash against the writer had become "unkind", and highlighted her absence from certain celebrations of the Harry Potter story. In 2022, Rowling did not appear in a 25th anniversary TV reunion featuring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint, who starred in all of the films. All three stars have spoken out in support of the trans community. Speaking to Sky News presenter Wilfred Frost, Margolyes said: "I think everybody can be criticised, I think that's fair enough, but everybody's so horrid and nasty and unkind and I don't like that. "I don't want people to be unkind about trans... I mean, I'm a gay woman myself and you have to just put up with it. I don't know if [Rowling's] been badly treated but I think it was wrong that she wasn't invited to the celebrations for Harry Potter. You know, she created the whole thing. "She may be wrong about some things. And women's bodies are tremendously important - I love my body, even though it's fat and misshapen, and I wouldn't be a man for anything. But trans - who cares? Let's be kind, let's be inclusive. I think there's an awful lot of nonsense talked about it." Between 1997 and 2007, Rowling published seven Harry Potter books - which were turned into eight films between 2001 and 2011. The movies generated more than $7.7bn at the global box office. The author will be involved in the upcoming Harry Potter series. Margolyes said she does not know Rowling and has never met her, but praised her work and highlighted her series of crime novels, written under the pen name Robert Galbraith. "I salute her as a very great writer and I think I like the detective stories best," she told Frost. Read more: The actress spoke to Sky News as the patron of the Charles Dickens Museum, which this year celebrates its 100th anniversary. The museum is based at 48 Doughty Street, central London, where Dickens lived for two years and wrote works including Nicholas Nickleby and Oliver Twist. "A life was lived here," she said. "A great writer, and he belongs to all of us. And that's why I want people to come to this museum and enjoy it." During the interview, Margolyes also made her thoughts clear on artificial intelligence - an issue that many creatives are concerned about. "I loathe AI and everything connected with it," she said. "That is not about everybody sharing, it's about people stealing and lying, which is what goes on a great deal these days. No, AI is a very bad thing and I won't have anything to do with it - and I'm pretty sure that Mr Dickens would not like it either."
Sky News
22-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Sky News
Harry Potter star Miriam Margolyes speaks out about JK Rowling's trans stance
Harry Potter star Miriam Margolyes has told Sky News she believes JK Rowling is "wrong about some things" when it comes to her stance on trans issues - but says it is also wrong for the author to be left out of "celebrations" for her famous books. Margolyes, who played Professor Sprout in the film series, said it was "fair enough" to criticise Rowling, who has been outspoken in her gender critical views. However, the 84-year-old actress said the backlash against the writer had become "unkind", and highlighted her absence from certain celebrations of the Harry Potter story. In 2022, Rowling did not appear in a 25th anniversary TV reunion featuring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint, who starred in all of the films. All three stars have spoken out in support of the trans community. Speaking to Sky News presenter Wilfred Frost, Margolyes said: "I think everybody can be criticised, I think that's fair enough, but everybody's so horrid and nasty and unkind and I don't like that. "I don't want people to be unkind about trans... I mean, I'm a gay woman myself and you have to just put up with it. I don't know if [Rowling's] been badly treated but I think it was wrong that she wasn't invited to the celebrations for Harry Potter. You know, she created the whole thing. "She may be wrong about some things. And women's bodies are tremendously important - I love my body, even though it's fat and misshapen, and I wouldn't be a man for anything. But trans - who cares? Let's be kind, let's be inclusive. I think there's an awful lot of nonsense talked about it." Between 1997 and 2007, Rowling published seven Harry Potter books - which were turned into eight films between 2001 and 2011. The movies generated more than $7.7bn at the global box office. The author will be involved in the upcoming Harry Potter series. Margolyes said she does not know Rowling and has never met her, but praised her work and highlighted her series of crime novels, written under the pen name Robert Galbraith. "I salute her as a very great writer and I think I like the detective stories best," she told Frost. The actress spoke to Sky News as the patron of the Charles Dickens Museum, which this year celebrates its 100th anniversary. The museum is based at 48 Doughty Street, central London, where Dickens lived for two years and wrote works including Nicholas Nickleby and Oliver Twist. "A life was lived here," she said. "A great writer, and he belongs to all of us. And that's why I want people to come to this museum and enjoy it." During the interview, Margolyes also made her thoughts clear on artificial intelligence - an issue that many creatives are concerned about. "I loathe AI and everything connected with it," she said. "That is not about everybody sharing, it's about people stealing and lying, which is what goes on a great deal these days. No, AI is a very bad thing and I won't have anything to do with it - and I'm pretty sure that Mr Dickens would not like it either."
Telegraph
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Ofcom has just demonstrated its contempt for women, the truth and the law
GB News is being ticked off by Ofcom again – this time for, err, following a ruling by the Supreme Court. In a letter seen by The Telegraph, Ofcom has warned the populist broadcaster that it 'must give airtime to claims that biological men are women when covering trans issues'. When GB News asked whether presenters and journalists could stick to defining women 'by biological sex and not gender identity', as outlined by the Supreme Court, the media regulator responded by criticising its 'dogmatic views', saying that the issue was not 'settled'. Why, when everyone else from Keir Starmer to the NHS has begrudgingly accepted the reality of biological sex, is Ofcom trying to die on the hill of gender identity? What part of its Broadcasting Code, which promises to 'ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality' is met by insisting that GB News use they/them pronouns? This is a serious infringement on free speech in broadcasting. The Supreme Court ruling merely clarified everything any normal, sane person knew already – but it was useful in setting clear legal guidelines to ensure that swimming pools, rape crisis centres and, yes, TV stations, weren't forced to go along with fantasy. Gender identity is a belief, not a fact. One might comply to be polite – but TV stations have no legal or regulatory duty to be polite. Perhaps Ofcom's hatred of GB News is clouding its ability to think straight. After all, it hasn't pulled up other media outlets for reflecting the gear shift in the sex and gender wars. When Martine Croxall heroically corrected the teleprompter live on air on the BBC, changing 'pregnant people' to 'women', she wasn't hounded by the impartiality police. So why should GB News have to keep up the pretence? Melanie Dawes, Ofcom's chief executive, told the culture, media and sport committee back in May that the Supreme Court ruling 'is relevant and may affect how we approach any assessment of a complaint'. Why, then, is GB News asserting that 'trans woman is not a biological female, and a trans man is not a biological male' considered a 'dogmatic' view? However sweet a victory the Supreme Court ruling was for women sick of being sneered at for common sense, it has not stopped the war between trans activism and women's rights – Ofcom's bitter sniping is proof of this. The entirety of the political and cultural class was enthralled with the idea of gender identity, proudly chanting 'trans women are women' at any opportunity. Many of them are in this deep – even some of their own children are involved in the social contagion of trans. These people aren't going to give up the fight overnight because of what a few judges said. Nothing is ever 'settled' in politics – everything is, and should always be, up for debate. The irony is, Ofcom clearly believes that the view on trans is settled – that trans women are women, and biological sex doesn't matter. If it didn't believe this, it wouldn't be going after GB News under the guise of playing fair. The state regulator has proven itself untrustworthy on far too many occasions, and is now lashing out like a teenager who has been told to pull their horns in. It's time to call time on Ofcom.
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.'
Telegraph
27-06-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
The British Medical Association has just shown its contempt for science
The British Medical Association hasn't gone out of its way to court public affection lately – the 11 strikes the BMA has held since 2022 resulted in about 1.5 million cancelled appointments, though they also resulted in an astonishing increase in its members' pay. And it's a safe bet that patients won't be edified to learn that they're now 'energised' at the prospect of yet another strike. But if the doctors' union is disastrously out of touch on strikes, it turns out that it's even more remote from public opinion on the contentious trans issue. The Cass Review recommended an almost complete ban on puberty blockers for children. Well, the man who led the BMA's opposition to the Report, Tom Dolphin, has now been made chairman of the BMA's council, its governing body. The appointment followed what looks like a coup by the 69 member board which ousted the previous incumbent, Professor Philip Banfield. Dr Dolphin tabled an emergency motion last July that led to the union rejecting the Cass report. It announced it would be publishing its own review instead. But alas, nothing has so far appeared. Let's remember that Hilary Cass, the author of the report, found that 'there is no good evidence' that puberty blockers for young people are safe to use and that 'it is unusual for us to give a potentially life-changing treatment to young people and not know what happens to them in adulthood'. And it seems that in fact many doctors agreed. When the BMA council bypassed debate to reject the Cass review after it ran out of time to discuss the motion at the annual meeting, there were four attempts by members to have an open debate on the review. More than 1,500 doctors, the majority of them BMA members, signed a 'Not in Our Name' open letter to the BMA council, criticising the 'very undemocratic' decision to reject Lady Cass's findings. But rather than respond to members' concerns, the BMA council has now elected Tom Dolphin to lead the organisation. It's not out to please, is it? Dr Dolphin's view on this issue can be judged by his position three years ago, when he posted photos of himself getting ready for a Trans Pride march, saying: 'About to set off to let London know that trans rights are human rights!' Mind you, he didn't focus on this when he accepted his new position, observing that the last three years 'has been a period of huge change for the BMA which has seen doctors realise the power that they have as trade union members to change their working lives … for the better. The fight to restore doctors' pay and pensions continues.' More militancy then. You have to ask: are doctors really best led by a man who takes such a radical approach to giving life-altering drugs to children confused about their gender? I'd say it's proof that the BMA isn't an organisation that patients or the Government can take seriously.
