Helen, Maya and Fiona outside the High Court on 16th June before the hearing

The High Court has ruled against Sex Matters in our case against the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and British Transport Police (BTP) over their “consensual” searching policies.

It isn’t over yet.

We think that the judgment is wrong in law and we are applying for permission to appeal.

It’s been a long road to get here and we aren’t giving up.

The answer to whether male officers should be allowed to strip-search women, or female officers asked to strip-search male detainees, should be clear, simple and obvious. Whatever their pronouns, whatever they like to wear, whatever hormones or cosmetic surgery they may have had, it should be No.

Women have rights. But those in charge have again and again put trans-identifying men’s feelings and desires above the safety, dignity and autonomy of women.

In 2004 the House of Lords (which was then the Supreme Court) ruled in the case of A v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police that a man who “has done everything that she possibly could do to align her physical identity with her psychological identity” should be allowed to forcibly strip-search women. Lady Hale said that it would not be “rational” for women to object.

In 2012 the LGBTQ+ lead for the Association of Chief Police Officers wrote to all chief constables sharing advice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission which drew on that case and said that what mattered for lawful searching was a person’s “legal gender”. In 2019 the next LGBTQ+ lead wrote to all chief constables encouraging them to permit officers to search detainees “without proof of their legal sex status”.

In July 2021 Standing for Women produced the first report challenging this practice. The NPCC doubled down. It got “independent legal advice” and issued guidance that trans officers be permitted to strip-search and even intimately search suspects of the opposite sex. ​The policy was adopted and implemented by the majority of police forces across the country.

By January 2024 the tide of public opinion had turned, so that when Women’s Rights Network (WRN) produced a report in January 2024 calling this “state sanctioned sexual assault” the government and police chiefs paid attention. The policy was withdrawn. But the policing minister said that gender-recognition certificates should allow cross-sex searching. Together with WRN and Fair Play For Women, we wrote to him and explained that this is not the law, and it is not fair or safe for women.

The NPCC doubled down again. In April 2024 it told us it was going to be consulting on new searching guidance and that it had an independent barrister advising on the law. This turned out to be trans-identifying male barrister Robin Moira White, who had advised on the policy the NPCC had just had to withdraw. I wrote to Chief Constable Gavin Stephens, pointing out that White is an activist in gender-identity politics. I sent screenshots of White comparing gender-critical women to Nazis and calling Sex Matters a “hate group” and the Minister for Women and Equalities “evil”.

The NPCC just doubled down some more. Gavin Stephens said: “The NPCC has considered at great length who is best placed to provide legal advice and given the subject matter.”

In November 2024, when British Transport Police issued its new policy based on the NPCC approach, we started down the road to legal action. After the FWS judgment the NPCC, BTP and other police forces withdrew their faulty policies, but didn’t say Sorry. Instead they developed new policies to let trans-identifying detainees request that an officer of the opposite sex would search them “consensually”.

When we raised concerns about female officers being put under pressure to strip-search trans-identifying men, the NPCC and BTP said that officers who refused to search trans-identifying detainees of the opposite sex would not face career detriment.

We know from experience that sometimes you have to continue up the court system to find judges willing to see past the years of exceptional practice and declare that ordinary truth and ordinary laws apply to everyone. It is infuriating. But we will keep going.

Why we’re continuing this legal fight

Read more about why we think this judgment is wrong in law, why we are seeking permission to appeal and why this case matters for female police officers, detainees and the rule of law.

Media coverage

Our searching case was referenced by The Telegraph (Hayley Dixon), who reported earlier in the week that Staffordshire Police force is treating trans-identifying male detainees as women, in defiance of the Supreme Court judgment.

Helen commented on the case in a wide-ranging interview with Alex Phillips on Talk TV, in which she also discussed transactivists’ threats and aggression and the failure of public institutions to tackle this intimidation.

Breaking news

As we were preparing to send this week’s memo, news broke that Bayswater Support Group, Keira Bell and James Esses have been refused permission to bring a judicial review seeking to halt the puberty-blocker trial.

The High Court’s decision is both devastating and inexplicable. These drugs have been blocked for use in gender treatment in both the NHS and private practice because of increasing evidence that they cause serious, permanent harm to vulnerable children. And yet a trial so badly designed that it cannot possibly produce any useful scientific data has irresponsibly been given the go-ahead.

Interrupting children’s development into healthy, fully functional adults is a human-rights abuse. Doing it with no more substantial goal than finding out whether it cheers them up briefly, as the planned trial does, is ethically monstrous.

The history of medicine is littered with tragic stories of researchers and doctors convinced by faulty theories doing terrible harm in the name of healthcare. Years later, public inquiries declare that “lessons must be learned”, but that is little comfort to the people whose bodies have been irreversibly harmed.

No more excuses: guidance on single-sex spaces comes into force

The EHRC code of practice finally comes into force on 5th August. In this week’s podcast, Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater discuss what it will mean for single-sex services, charities and associations. They make some predictions for the coming autumn, when organisations will no longer be able to claim they’re “waiting for guidance”, new school safeguarding policy will come into force and legal battles on conversion practices and the planned puberty-blocker trial will only become more fierce.

What the Supreme Court ruling means for charities

Can a single-sex charity become “trans-inclusive”? Our new briefing explains what charity law, freedom of association and safeguarding principles, taken together with last year’s Supreme Court judgment, mean for charities like the Women’s Institute and Girlguiding, and for single-sex associations more generally.

In other news

Helen’s debate with Northern Irish columnist Allison Morris on BBC Radio Ulster about the Féile an Phobail festival cancelling the event of Women’s Rights Network Northern Ireland resulted in considerable criticism of Morris for her inaccurate claims and misrepresentation of WRN’s positions.

The Liberal Democrats have been accused of softening their stance on sex-based rights after taking more than £200,000 in donations from Simon Ruddick, who has a trans-identifying child, as reported by The Times (Geraldine Scott). Helen said that it’s impossible to know whether the noticeable change in the party line is linked to donations from any individual, but that its timing is remarkably aligned with donations from someone who has a significant personal interest in transactivism.

Coverage of the fallout from Amnesty International UK’s report continued, with The Times (Marc Horne) reporting that the charity’s chief executive has agreed to meet Maya in the autumn, following Sex Matters being named in the now-withdrawn report.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at 5pm, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

Maya on a visit to Belfast in 2024

One of the things we say to each other inside Sex Matters is that you know you’re over the target when you start catching flak. And this week it has been relentless.

Fiona is due to speak in Belfast on 4th August at a panel arranged by Women’s Rights Network Northern Ireland as part of the Féile an Phobail arts festival. On Monday the names of the four women on the panel were announced, and transactivists began to whip up an online campaign against them. The mob called for the charity to cancel WRN NI’s panel, and shamefully it did so.

This is belief discrimination and it is unlawful.

I’ve written to Féile spelling out the law and asking it to reinstate the event and apologise to WRN NI, Sex Matters, Fiona and the other speakers. Otherwise we will see them in court.

On Friday Gordon Lyons, the Northern Irish communities minister, weighed in saying that if the charity refuses to follow the law then it should lose public funding. This is quite right.

The reason that Féile and so many other charities commit unlawful discrimination so recklessly is that sensible voices among their staff and on their boards who might notice the legal risk have been silenced. In large parts of the voluntary sector – and the public sector and academia – people who dare to express facts as commonplace and evidence-based as the fact that men are statistically more dangerous to other people than women are, and that doesn’t change if those men call themselves women or non-binary, have been demonised.

This week For Women Scotland published a meticulous analysis of how public money has been used to embed the position often labelled “trans rights”, which can fairly be summarised as the demand that people and institutions ignore what they know about the dangers men pose when those men say they aren’t men.

Also this week, policy analysts Murray Blackburn Mackenzie mapped out Amnesty International’s role in this process. For almost a decade, Amnesty has used its good reputation to lend credibility to those who describe recognising facts that are necessary for safeguarding as “hateful” and “anti-rights”. It has repeatedly been shown to be wrong about human rights and the law, but it refuses to budge.

Now Amnesty is claiming that the Growing threat report it withdrew after widespread criticism was an isolated incident rather than indicative of any wider pattern. In response to my email asking for a meeting, Amnesty UK’s chief executive, Kerry Moscogiuri, said she could find time in September or October. Perhaps by then she will have worked out her organisation’s position.

While Amnesty has realised that it went too far in naming the target organisations to be cancelled, the Good Law Project (which claims to be “like a charity”, although it is controlled by one man, unregulated and owned by a trust based in Jersey) is less cautious. It has leapt into the role vacated by Amnesty and launched a campaign against Sex Matters, accusing us of running a “campaign of hate” and “spewing abuse online and in the media”. It says it has submitted 46 examples of this to the Charity Commission, but has been coy about the evidence for this claim.

From the few examples GLP has published, it seems that what it counts as “hate” is any clear articulation of the fact that men are statistically more dangerous than women, and that this doesn’t change if those men call themselves women or non-binary.

For those who regard this fact as taboo, what is “hateful” about saying it isn’t how you say it, but that you say it at all. In fact, if you say it politely, reasonably, calmly and with evidence, in ways that can be heard by politicians, journalists and employers, that makes it worse. If you say it while being a middle-aged woman, that is worst of all.

As Helen Joyce said in a speech GLP described as hateful (which you should watch if you haven’t already):

“When a lie is embedded in a system, over time it propagates throughout that system, and then everyone working within it has to try to protect the lie by staying well away from it. It’s worse than a loophole, which over time tends to get bigger – it’s a loophole you have to avert your eyes from and avoid mentioning.”

Helen gave the example of Sonia Appleby, the safeguarding lead at the now-closed GIDS clinic at the Tavistock in London, who successfully took the clinic to the employment tribunal after being disciplined for raising safeguarding concerns. It was two words she said that got her into trouble: Jimmy Savile.

Three are three lesson we should all take from Jimmy Savile, and from Wayne Couzens, the grooming gangs and every other institutional abuse scandal that has happened in plain sight:

1. Men are statistically more dangerous than women, and this doesn’t change no matter who they are or what positions they hold. This includes but is not limited to male celebrities, scout leaders, teachers, religious leaders, therapists, charity workers, dads, cousins, uncles, transwomen, non-binary people, LGBTQ+ allies, police officers, members of ethnic minorities, gym coaches, Hollywood moguls and politicians.

2. Situations where individuals or groups of men are excluded from the ordinary rules, scrutiny and safeguards that apply to other men are likely to attract men who are particularly dangerous.

3. Organisations where these facts cannot be stated are institutionally corrupt.

The discomfort you feel about saying this is real and justified. It means you are over the target and about to come under fire.

46 reasons to keep going

Here is some of our work defending safeguarding, human rights and women’s rights, which GLP describes as “hateful”. We invite you to judge for yourself:

• Fiona on GB News discussing the High Court ruling on Sex Matters v City of London

• Helen on sex, gender identity and human rights

• Letter to the Minister for Women and Equalities about the EHRC code of practice.

Media coverage

BBC News (Robbie Meredith) broke the news of the Féile cancellation, quoting Maya saying the festival was discriminating against WRN NI and Sex Matters. The News Letter (David Thompson) reported on our letter warning of legal action if the event was not reinstated. Maya joined BBC Radio Ulster’s The Nolan Show with Robin Moira White, a trans-identifying male barrister, to discuss the festival’s decision.

In the Daily Mail, David Churchill highlighted an Amnesty report published in May, which Maya said showed a longstanding pattern of misrepresenting those who recognise the importance of the two sexes, and Noor Qurashi reported that the Charity Commission had opened a regulatory compliance case into Amnesty.

The Telegraph (Ruby Cline) and the Daily Mail (Will Hallowell) focused on JK Rowling’s offer to support legal action for organisations Amnesty had branded “anti-rights”. The Times (Marc Horne) quoted Maya saying Amnesty should have reported itself to the Charity Commission after promoting an interpretation of equality law that the Supreme Court later found to be unworkable.

In The Scotsman, Jenny Lindsay’s column teased out the lessons of the Amnesty report for other institutions captured by gender ideology. International coverage included the Washington Post (Andrew Doyle) and the National Post (Amy Hamm).

Keeping children safe in education

In this week’s episode, Maya and Helen discuss the updated version of Keeping children safe in education (KCSIE), which places guidance for schools on dealing with trans issues within the statutory safeguarding framework.

The most important change is the addition of three clear safeguarding principles that constrain how schools can respond to requests for “social transition”.

Schools in England are updating their policies and training in time for September, when the KCSIE update comes into force. You can help them get this right by sending a school you know our updated whole-school model policy on sex-based rules.

Send a school our model policy

In other news

The Telegraph (Madeleine Ross) broke the story that the Cabinet Office has refused to publish its new model policy for trans-identifying civil servants. The story was followed up by GB News (Dan McDonald). Maya said the previous policy had done untold harm by embedding unlawful practices across the public sector and that its replacement should be developed with utmost transparency.

In the Daily Mail Sam Merriman revealed what was in the policy. Maya welcomed its protection of single-sex facilities but warned that it remains shockingly biased on pronouns and misgendering, and that threatening to punish staff for recognising biological sex is unjustified and discriminatory. Maya was also interviewed by Julia Hartley-Brewer on Talk TV about the leaked guidance.

The Daily Mail (Nicholas Pyke and Janet Murray) published an investigation based on Through the looking glass, a report by SEEN in Publishing exposing gender ideology in children’s books and schools. Helen was quoted saying that young children are especially vulnerable to believing the false idea that changing clothes or appearance can change their sex.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at 5pm, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

Last week I was in Birmingham at the global summit run by the International Working Group on Women and Sport, which is held every four years in a different location. Several hundred women and some men spent three days discussing participation and representation of women in all levels of sport and everything sport-related, including coaching, media and management.

On the first morning, a panel host I’d never heard of called Michelle Moore said in her introduction: “When I talk about women I include trans and DSD athletes in that, just to make that clear.” There was a smattering of loud applause.

Two of the most powerful people in sport, Kirsty Coventry, the President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and Lord Coe, chair of World Athletics, separately addressed the conference and both mentioned the importance of protecting the female category. Coe said: “Gender cannot trump biology.”

That should have given attendees courage, but the mood was more “don’t ask, don’t tell”. When I told people about the work of Sex Matters, a few said they agreed. Others said, variously, that it was complicated, that of course transwomen should not be in elite sport but… and that trans people have difficult lives so…. The implication was that women should make room for trans-identifying men, regardless of the impact on women. This was a hall full of sports specialists, who know about sex differences in sport and sexism in sport. They were supposedly advocating for women. But still they couldn’t put women first. They couldn’t even name the elephant in the room.

Someone who was at the previous event, in New Zealand in 2022, told me that transgender inclusion had been a major agenda item, with a big push to make everything more trans-inclusive. This time it was not mentioned, although I had lobbied the organisers for months to get it onto the agenda.

Eventually, as the programme was being finalised, Dr Emma Hilton was invited to be on the panel for a workshop called “Tested to compete: the science, the politics and the price”. This was about sex testing in sport, though that was not obvious from the name; it could have been about anti-doping.

Emma explained where male advantage comes from, and the other three speakers argued that there is no evidence it exists. The researcher said that more research is needed; the sociologist said transwomen are women.

A woman in the workshop audience asked how “we” can oppose the new IOC policy, which restricts the female category to those who pass a sex screen – this means undergoing a once-in-a-lifetime cheek swab to show they are female. A speaker said: “We must fight it together.” No one said that maybe protecting the female category is a good thing. Neither Emma nor I had the opportunity to comment.

I went to the conference to advocate for male-free sport for women and girls. Some people I spoke to there quietly agreed, but overall the subject was still treated as taboo. More than one woman told me that the Sport England staffers are afraid of us. It’s hard to know what they’re afraid of.

I asked a couple of senior people from Sport England about their transgender guidance but didn’t get a straight answer. I can’t help thinking that anyone who was confident of their position would be willing and able to speak to me about it. These people were not.

I think this shows that everyone knows that it is not fair to allow male participants in a female category, but despite the clarity from the IOC they can’t speak the truth. Maybe they have spent so long pretending it’s complicated that they can’t believe it never was. Perhaps they can’t let go of the image of themselves as virtuous people who advocate for the most marginalised – and that doesn’t mean women and girls.

There can be no doubt that we are winning the argument: in global sports policy from the IOC down, in the US and UK Supreme Courts, and in public opinion. Who’d have thought the last people to get the message would be those advocating for women and girls? When you’ve denied the obvious for years and called it “the right side of history”, how do you find your way back to reality? We still have work to do.

The action we need to see is spelled out in our new sport report, Getting back on track, which I handed out to anyone who showed an interest. I’ve come back from the event with new contacts and as determined as ever to keep pressing for those in authority to restore fair policies.

Podcast

The Amnesty report

The charity is in trouble for defaming gender-critical organisations

A major row has erupted after Amnesty International UK published — and then quickly withdrew — a report labeling more than 100 organisations as “anti-rights”, including women’s rights groups, charities, support services, and campaigning organisations. Maya Forstater and Fiona McAnena talk about the parlous state of democratic debate on human rights, when organisations are branded as threats simply for advocating sex-based rights. Amnesty is now facing demands for answers, calls for apologies and potential legal action.

Amnesty must answer

Amnesty is facing growing pressure after publishing a report branding organisations defending sex-based rights as “anti-rights”. This week, we joined 40 organisations targeted by Amnesty International in calling on the Charity Commission to uphold the Equality Act and end the culture of intolerance towards gender-critical views.

Find out more

Amnesty faces backlash

The Charity Commission must act

Media coverage

Amnesty International UK came under heavy criticism for branding Sex Matters and other organisations defending sex-based rights as part of an “anti-rights movement”. The Times (Alex Massie) and The Telegraph (Suzanne Moore) argued that the groups named had instead challenged unlawful claims and helped secure clarity that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. Helen discussed the report on GB News’s Free Speech Nation with Josh Howie. Amnesty’s hasty retraction of the report was covered by The Telegraph (Jacob Freedland), GB News (Dan McDonald) and the Scottish Daily Mail (Dan Barker, print only).

The Telegraph (Jacob Freedland) reported on the joint letter from Sex Matters and others calling to the Charity Commission. The Times (Aaliyah Ahmed) and the Daily Mail (Dan Barker and Tom Gordon) confirmed that the commission is assessing concerns about Amnesty International and that its charitable trust has submitted a serious incident report. The Times (Aaliyah Ahmed) also drew attention to a second report portraying gender-critical people as opposed to LGBT rights. Maya said this showed a longstanding pattern of misrepresenting and denigrating those who recognise the biological and legal importance of the two sexes.

In other news

The Telegraph (Sabrina Miller) reported that the Green Party is considering adopting a policy to oppose sex-based exclusions in sport and support “trans-inclusive” sporting projects. Fiona said that, in practice, this means allowing men into the female category and denying women and girls fair competition, and that the party is once again prioritising the feelings of trans-identifying men over women’s rights.

The Telegraph (Janet Murray) revealed, with follow-up coverage in the Daily Mail (Shaun Wooller), that South East Coast Ambulance Service issued a policy allowing trans-identifying staff to use single-sex facilities according to gender identity since the Supreme Court ruling. Fiona said the trust was breaking the law by denying female paramedics privacy from men.

Calls for the Scottish Government to introduce a broader ban on conversion practices than proposed in England and Wales were covered by the Scottish Daily Express (Ben Borland). The article referred to our warning that the draft Conversion Practices Bill could lead to parents, teachers and therapists being investigated by police for lawful, loving actions such as telling a child they will not pay for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

The Telegraph (Daniel Martin) wrote about the EHRC’s long-delayed code of practice for service providers, which has finally been laid before Parliament.. Maya welcomed the fact that organisations can no longer use the lack of guidance as an excuse for failing to bring their policies in line with the law.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at 5pm, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.

Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

Dr Emma Hilton (chair), Maya Forstater (chief executive) and board members Anya Palmer, Professor Michael Biggs, Simon Knapp and Rebecca Bull at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations offices

Last week Sex Matters’ board (who are my collective bosses and have fiduciary duty for the charity and responsibility for making sure it stays on mission) met to talk governance. As for every charity, it is the board’s role to approve strategy in line with our charitable purposes, scrutinise and agree the budget, think about risk, ensure there are policies and systems in place to manage it, and support the team and me to deliver our strategy.

As a young organisation in an extremely challenging environment, we have had to do a lot of learning about the nuts and bolts of being an organisation while also working at top speed. The expression “building the plane as we are flying it” is one we often use.

The board thanked Charlotte Cadden, who has been elected as a Conservative Councillor in Bolton and will therefore be stepping down. Charlotte has been a huge asset to Sex Matters, bringing to the board her calm, curious and pragmatic style, and frontline experience from her role as a police officer for 30 years in Greater Manchester Police.

The trustees agreed on Dr Emma Hilton as permanent chair. Emma has been on Sex Matters’ board since the organisation was founded. She is an expert on biology and sports and is frequently consulted for her expertise. Since December 2025 she has been interim chair, and she is principled, open, careful and collaborative in that role. It has been a pleasure working with her over the past six months and I look forward to continuing to work with her.

The board also welcomed Simon Knapp, our new treasurer.

In the coming weeks Sex Matters will be seeking new applicants to join the board of trustees. The board would particularly like to hear from you if you have experience as a charity trustee or chief executive, or as a non-executive director on the board of a mission-driven business or social enterprise (read Sex Matters’ annual report and look out for a separate email with details of how to apply).

This weekend I am looking forward to speaking at the Women’s Rights Network national conference in London. I am on a panel with Professor Jo Phoenix, Akua Reindorf KC and Susan Smith of For Women Scotland. Our session is on Women and the law: Is the social contract between women and the state broken? Unfortunately Naomi Cunningham, who was supposed to be on the same panel, can’t make it as she is tied up with the ongoing Tempest v DEFRA tribunal concerning the gender-critical SEEN civil-service network.

Among the other speakers are Julie Bindel, Rosie Duffield, Tracy Edwards MBE, Maeve Halligan, Dr Emma Hilton, Cathy Larkman and Connie Shaw. Down the road will be the CAN-SG conference Rethinking youth gender medicine, which runs on to Monday. Among the expert speakers are Professor Alice Sullivan, Zhenya Abbruzzese, Dr David Bell, Sex Matters board member Professor Michael Biggs, Stephanie Davies-Arai of Transgender Trend, Dr Anna Hutchinson and Dr Stella O’Malley of Genspect.

Helen Joyce will be at the CAN-SG conference both days; Fiona McAnena is splitting her time between the two events. We are looking forward to seeing so many brilliant friends, and making new ones. Do come up and say hello if you’re attending.

Sex Matters is one of a band of organisations in the UK and internationally that have bootstrapped themselves into existence in order to combat the harm and injustice caused by gender ideology. We have gone about it in different ways, with different strategies, focusing on different aspects: medicine, children, LGB people, free speech, feminism, the law, the civil service, sport and more.

Sex Matters is a single-issue, non-partisan human-rights charity. We campaign for clarity about sex in law and policy in the UK. We do this because sex matters for fairness and safety for women, for children to grow up secure in their bodies and for institutions to work for us all. We think it is important for people to be able to talk about the two sexes so they can argue about what the social contract should be (that’s what being “worthy of respect in a democratic society” is about). My job is to lead in shaping our strategy and building a team that can deliver it. Thank you for your support: we couldn’t do without it.

Conversion Practices Bill targets parents

Draft bill threatens families, free speech and religious rights

In this week’s episode, Helen Joyce speaks to Dennis Kavanagh, director at the Gay Men’s Network and non-practising barrister, about the legal minefield that is the draft Conversion Practices Bill.

Dennis examines the low threshold for criminality in Clause 1 of the bill, which states that “any conduct” can be a conversion practice and risks putting parenting on trial and breaching human rights.

Helen and Dennis speak about the potential for transactivists to use the bill to suppress discussion of trans ideology and the harms of gender-affirming care.

Victory in the US Supreme Court

Those fighting to protect sport for women and girls in the USA won a major victory on 30th June when the Supreme Court declared, in a robust and thorough judgment, that state laws restricting female sport to those born female are lawful. The verdict on this point was unanimous: 9–0. A separate legal argument on whether transgender identity should be nominated for special consideration (by being granted “equal protection” status under the constitution) was rejected 6–3.

Sex Matters provided input – “amicus curiae” briefs are the US equivalent of intervening in the case.

Find out more

• Our written explainer on the cases

• Podcast – Helen and Fiona discuss the case when it was heard in January

• Sex Matters on the significance of the interpretation of sex in the Equality Act

• Dr Emma Hilton, Sex Matters chair, on sex testing in sport.

Media coverage

Helen joined Julia Hartley-Brewer on Talk TV to discuss the news.

Debunking fantastical claims about conversion therapy

The government launched its draft conversion-therapy bill saying it has found evidence that 75,000–93,000 people each year experience abusive conversion practices each year in England and Wales.

It suggests this can be stopped at minimal cost (45 minutes of familiarisation for each police officer, social worker and other public-sector worker who needs to know about the new law), and that the ban would prevent tens of thousands of cases of clinical depression.

Every piece of this reasoning (which starts with taking seriously a Stonewall survey that found there are some 25,000 gay exorcisms each year) is fantastical.

In 2022 the Government Equalities Office established a national conversion-therapy helpline which ran for three years at a cost of £360,000. It has released no details of how many (or few) calls it received. A report published by LGBT charity Galop, which operated the service, appears to suggest that no more than a handful of callers reported conversion practices each year.

Find out more

• Read our blog post on the £360,000 helpline that didn’t ring

• Read our report examining the lack of evidence

• Watch Baroness Cash, shadow minister for equalities, raise our analysis in the House of Lords.

Media coverage

The Telegraph (Daniel Martin) quoted analysis by Sex Matters showing that most of the cases presented by LGBT charity Galop to back its claim that a law against conversion practices is needed concerned actions that are either already criminal or else concern private and family life, such as a parent refusing to use a child’s “preferred pronouns”.

In other news

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has told army chiefs to assess whether trans-identifying soldiers can use opposite-sex facilities on a “case-by-case basis” while a new policy is being developed following the Supreme Court ruling. The Sunday Telegraph (Sabrina Miller) quoted Maya as saying that the MoD is exposing female service personnel to an officially endorsed policy of harassment and discrimination by allowing male soldiers into women’s showers.

West London NHS Trust has told patients that they can use single-sex facilities based on their “legal gender”, meaning that hospitals will still allow men to use female-only wards and toilets more than a year after the Supreme Court ruling. The Telegraph (Michael Searles) quoted Fiona as saying that the term “legal gender” has no basis in law or medicine.

Two much-anticipated reports into NHS maternity failings by Baroness Amos and Donna Ockenden came under criticism this week by referring to “birthing people” rather than “women”. The Daily Mail (Shaun Wooller) and Daily Express (Hanna Geissler) quoted Fiona as saying that shoehorning “birthing people” into both reports, presumably so as not to offend the trans lobby, shows shameful disregard for the mothers and babies let down by NHS trusts across the UK.

A GCSE revision guide by Pearson instructs Spanish language students using phrases about how they “follow/admire” someone who “fights/fought for transgender rights”. The Telegraph (Albert Tait) quoted Helen as saying that this example reveals how extensive and subtle the indoctrination of children in schools is.

Queen Camilla’s meeting with JK Rowling was criticised by transactivists. Maya was interviewed by Nana Akua on GB News and Helen was interviewed by Mark Dolan on Talk TV.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at 5pm, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

Lobby day on 10th March to protest about the puberty-blocker trial. Photo: Belinda Jiao

Following For Women Scotland’s latest legal win, this week the Scottish Government finally accepted that forcing female prisoners to share accommodation with transgender males was unlawful and indefensible, and Scottish women’s prisons are once more women-only.

But meanwhile the government in Westminster has published a “conversion practices” bill for England and Wales that threatens parents with jail if they don’t affirm a child who declares a transgender identity. We also heard this week that the puberty-blocker trial is moving again (subject to legal challenge).

The previous week we had met Olivia Bailey, the minister who is leading on this topic, and told her both in person and in writing afterwards that the proposed law would harm those it sets out to protect. She said that there would be safeguards to protect exploratory therapy. But the bill only conceives of exploration based on the idea that some people are “born in the wrong body”, and that the way to resolve that is to try to live as the opposite sex, perhaps with extreme medical intervention, and certainly without consideration that other people have rights.

Like many of you, I am deeply disappointed that Baroness Cass is supporting the puberty-blocker trial. It’s hard to overstate the importance and influence of the review she led, which laid bare the scandal of the lack of evidence underpinning “gender-affirmative” treatment. But the report had limitations, most seriously – as we said at the time – its failure to tackle the school-to-clinic pipeline and its endorsement of the idea of a puberty-blocker trial.

We met Baroness Cass twice when she was undertaking her review, and we said to her what we said to Olivia Bailey last week, and will keep saying: transitioning children is not consistent with safeguarding or preparing them for a healthy adult life in a world which recognises that sex is real and immutable.

For 15 years the NHS has subjected children to ideologically driven, evidence-free treatment based on the belief that others can be forced to accept them as the opposite sex. This was a promise doctors had no business making.

It is completely unethical to damage the health of more children in pursuit of this fantasy, or to expose parents, teachers and others to threats of investigation and even jail for resisting it.

Neither the puberty-blocker trial nor the conversion-therapy bill makes any sense. They are solutions looking for a problem. What they are trying to solve is the conundrum that adult transsexualism requires others to engage in extreme societal accommodation. The Supreme Court has already said No to that.

The puberty-blocker trial is going to court, and the conversion-therapy bill is going to Parliament (for pre-legislative scrutiny). We will be working in both arenas to attack the indefensible.

Find out more

Baroness Cass is wrong about the puberty-blocker trial

Draft conversion-practices bill threatens parents with jail time

Media coverage

In The Telegraph (Daniel Martin) and GB News (Alice Tomlinson), Maya was quoted as saying that this is a dangerous proposal which will harm the people it purports to protect, and that it is reckless for the government to push on with this when it’s well known that many young people who adopt a transgender identity as children or teenagers grow up to be gay instead.

Sex, gender and free speech on campus

Trans ideology in British universities

In this week’s episode, Helen Joyce and Fiona McAnena discuss the current climate of free speech and gender ideology within British universities.

Helen reflects on her recent talk to students at Durham Union – you can read her account of the event on her Substack.

Read our recent report, Getting back on track, which explains how the legislative framework can enable and protect sport at a university level.

In other news

The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is moving ahead with the widely condemned puberty-blocker trial following an unsuccessful legal challenge. It was covered in the Daily Mail (Shaun Wooller), The Times (Eleanor Hayward), The Sun (Sam Blanchard) and The Telegraph (Laura Donnelly). Helen was quoted as saying that gender ideology has broken yet another institution, as the MHRA’s mission is supposedly to “put patients first” in everything it does, yet it is signing off on a trial that does the opposite.

Later in the week, Baroness Cass backed the puberty-blocker trial in an interview with BBC News in which she said the trial will help “reduce harm”. The Telegraph (Michael Searles) quoted Maya as saying that it was grossly irresponsible of Cass to put children at grave risk by making misleading and unevidenced remarks in support of a trial of puberty blockers.

Work with Sex Matters!

Sex Matters is seeking a proactive and detail-focused administrative assistant to join our team on an initial one-year contract, with the possibility of extension. This role is remote and full-time, but we are open to considering applicants looking to work four or five days.

We’re looking for an individual with strong organisational skills, excellent attention to detail and experience in an administrative, operations or support role. You’ll be comfortable working with digital systems, databases and spreadsheets, handling confidential information appropriately and communicating professionally with supporters, colleagues and external contacts.

Closing date: 30th June 2026

Find out more

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at 5pm, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

On Wednesday 10th June, it was five years since I won my employment appeal tribunal, with a judgment that gender-critical beliefs are “worthy of respect in a democratic society”. It was also five years since we launched the Sex Matters memo to update people who helped our fledgling organisation get off the ground. Thank you to everyone who has supported us.

I marked the anniversary with an interview (and cake!) with Mr Menno. We talked about why a belief-discrimination case was the right test case to bring, the change it created, how Sex Matters started and how the Gender Wars might end. So much has happened during those five years, in part because of the legal precedent but much more because of the public and political actions enabled by the growing freedom to speak. But at the top of institutions, wilful inertia remains the rule.

Menno and I talked about the phone call in which the boss of the Center for Global Development, Masood Ahmed, told me I had lost my job. “We recognise sex-slash-gender,” he told me. “That’s not the law,” I replied. “In the UK, sex is a protected characteristic.” Losing my job simply for stating a personal characteristic that is supposed to attract legal protection was bewildering at first – and then maddening.

It’s now beyond doubt that sex means sex in the Equality Act. But it remains bewildering and maddening that leaders of powerful institutions have failed even to acknowledge that their legal misunderstandings were a serious mistake. More than that, many are still trying to find ways around the law, meaning that we are still having to keep saying: “That’s not the law.”

The latest victory was the excellent news that For Women Scotland has won its challenge against the Scottish Government’s cruel policy of placing trans-identifying male prisoners alongside female prisoners in women’s jails. The court said this policy was never lawful, and that the Scottish Government could not simply keep going in the hope that individual prisoners won’t bring discrimination claims.

To quote from the ruling: “service-providers and those who exercise public functions must make sure that the ways in which they carry out those responsibilities are lawful.” This applies whether you’re a private company like Marks & Spencer, which claims to have single-sex changing rooms but in reality doesn’t, or whether you’re a public body or indeed a national government.

But even as we were celebrating this win, we also heard that the MHRA is pushing ahead for a dangerous, unnecessary medical trial of puberty blockers for gender-confused children. James Esses, Keira Bell and the Bayswater Group of parents will be seeking an emergency injunction.

On 16th June Sex Matters was back in court for our own judicial review, which is against the National Police Chiefs’ Council and British Transport Police. Like For Women Scotland in the Scottish prisons case, we were arguing against a public authority that seeks to operate outside the law. Our case is against official guidance for police forces that they can sidestep the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), the law that governs how they detain suspects and collect evidence. PACE is absolutely clear that strip-searching must be carried out by an officer of the same sex as the detainee. And yet the NPCC and BTP claim that in certain circumstances that essential legal safeguard can be ignored.

Left to right: Helen Joyce, Maya Forstater and Fiona McAnena outside the Royal Courts of Justice on 16th June 2026 (Picture: Belinda Jiao)

It is an essential characteristic of democracies that they do not operate shadow regimes outside what the law specifies. The power to search individuals and collect evidence that might be used to deprive them of their liberty is among the state’s most coercive, and should be especially carefully controlled. As the judge said in the case of campaigner Harry Miller, who successfully fought against the recording of a non-crime hate incident against his name because of some rather banal tweets: “In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.”

The policy we are challenging was put in place after the Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland. It tries to find a way around the law by saying opposite-sex searches can be carried out “consensually”. We were in court with Cathy Larkman, who is a retired police superintendent and the policing lead for the Women’s Rights Network, and with Rachel Fletcher, the chair of the Police SEEN network of serving officers who have bravely spoken up.

Cathy Larkman of WRN (left) and Rachel Fletcher of Police SEEN

Cathy and I had provided witness statements. Cathy’s drew on her more than 30 years of experience as a police officer. Mine included material from interviews with serving officers. Some were women who told us how humiliating it would be for them to search male detainees – including men who have committed violent and sexual crimes against women. Some were men who told us how wrong it would be for them to strip-search confused teenage girls on the basis that they “identify” as boys.

It is bewildering and maddening that we are still having to bring cases like this against public bodies, fighting policies and guidance produced by public servants and allowed to stand by ministers, all of them too cowardly to do their job of following the law and protecting our democracy, but still willing to draw their salaries from it. But as long as they continue to flout the law, we will keep going.

Thank you to everyone who supported me in my case and all these other important cases. Thank you too to everyone who has supported Sex Matters in our work, and who has found a way to use their voice. You changed everything!

Find out more

Maya’s employment appeal tribunal

Media coverage

Our judicial review against NPCC and BTP was covered in the news by Police Oracle, Policing Insight and Danny Halpin for PA Media, whose story was published by regional news outlets across the UK including Nation Cymru. Counsel for Sex Matters, Tim Owen KC, was quoted as saying that the law governing police searching expressly stated that all searches beyond outer clothing must be carried out by someone of the same sex as the detainee, and a shadow “consensual” searching regime was simply unlawful.

Donate to our legal challenge

Abusive strip-searching rules: our legal challenge

Why we’ve taken police chiefs to court, with guest Cathy Larkman

In this week’s podcast Helen Joyce talks to Cathy Larkman, policing lead at Women’s Rights Network, about our judicial review against the National Police Chiefs’ Council over its abusive strip-searching policy.

Cathy, who served as a police officer for more than 30 years, finishing her career as a superintendent, speaks from experience about how female police officers will come under pressure to search male detainees, including rapists, cross-dressing fetishists and men who simply enjoy threatening and humiliating women.

Read about our case.

Read State sanctioned sexual assault, Cathy’s report for the Women’s Rights Network.

Can you spare two minutes to email your MP?

Nearly 150 MPs have signed Labour MP Stella Creasy’s motion calling for Parliament to reject the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft code of practice. But they seem not to understand that the code doesn’t make law; it just explains how to follow the law.

More than 1,200 Sex Matters supporters have already written to their MPs. Could you spare a couple of minutes to do this? Use our simple online tool to challenge them if they signed or offer your support if they didn’t.

Take action now!

In other news

The Association of Green Councillors has issued guidance to the Green Party’s councillors which wrongly states that trans-identifying men do not have to be excluded from single-sex spaces, as reported by The Telegraph (Genevieve Holl-Allen). Fiona was quoted as saying that Green Party councillors who act on this disinformation could put their local authority at risk of legal action, and will also be letting down all those who want single-sex spaces and services.

Outrage over Lush’s decision to launch a Pride Month window display featuring a cartoon tiger with mastectomy scars was covered by The Telegraph (Gabriella Swerling). Helen said that the campaign was deeply disturbing and offensive, and that the grim fact that thousands of girls and young women have had healthy breasts cut off in an effort to look like men is a tragedy.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

Helen Joyce and Dr Emma Hilton, chair of Sex Matters, with former police officer Cathy Larkman

Like everyone who opposes trans ideology, I would imagine, I sometimes still boggle at its depraved consequences. Among these have been policies saying that if a male police officer identifies as a woman, or has a piece of paper from the government saying he is a woman, then he is a suitable person to carry out a strip-search on a female detainee. That was the policy of nearly every police force in the UK until the Supreme Court judgment of April 2025, despite it being obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense and compassion that a woman’s already traumatic experience of being strip-searched would be made a thousand times worse if the person doing it was a man. How he identifies is irrelevant.

We have all repeated the facts a thousand times by now. Nearly all sexual criminals are men. Nearly all their victims are women. “Trans women” – men who say they are women – aren’t magically less prone to such crimes than other men; indeed prison figures suggest that they may be more prone. Some are motivated to cross-dress by a fetish; policies that treat them as women are sexually exciting for them. And of course allowing trans-identifying male officers to strip-search women would enable serious human-rights abuses against vulnerable women. That proponents of doing so claimed to be motivated by human rights was sickening.

In late 2024 Sex Matters started a legal challenge against British Transport Police over an opposite-sex searching policy, which was settled after the Supreme Court judgment led to it being withdrawn. And yet so determined are the gender ideologues to enable opposite-sex strip-searching that they have tried again, this time with guidance written by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, a talking shop that produces model policies for police forces. This says that a detainee who declares a trans identity can “request” to be searched by someone of the opposite sex. If such a person can be found, the cross-sex search can proceed on the basis of “consent”.

Perhaps this guidance seems less awful than saying trans-identifying men can search women (that is a low bar). But it is still an outrage. Valid consent cannot possibly be obtained from someone who is under arrest. The NPCC’s claim that officers who refuse to carry out opposite-sex searches will experience no detriment to their careers is wilfully naive.

You don’t have to be overly cynical to see that the opportunity to expose themselves in front of female officers will be seized upon by many male detainees, whether because they find exposing themselves arousing, because they like humiliating and frightening women or because they dislike the police and want to cause as much trouble as they can.

We think the killer legal argument is that the guidance is in direct contravention of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which sets out in great detail how police searching must be carried out. PACE leaves no wiggle room for opposite-sex searching – none at all.

And so Sex Matters has taken a new challenge against this NPCC guidance. I will be attending the hearing in the High Court on Tuesday 16th June, together with my colleagues Maya Forstater and Fiona McAnena, retired officer Cathy Larkman of Women’s Rights Network and a representative of the Police SEEN network.

We have set up a crowdfunder and published our court papers, which include witness statements from Cathy and Maya. Cathy’s is filled with insights from her more than 30 years as a serving officer; Maya’s includes dozens of quotes from serving police officers explaining why opposite-sex searching is so harmful and dangerous.

I carried out some of the research cited in Maya’s statement, in particular the interviews of those officers. Like most people, I have never been arrested or spent any time in a custody suite; hearing about this particularly fraught part of their job increased my respect and admiration for them and made me even more enraged that police leaders are so determined to push through this dangerous and disgusting policy.

I urge you to read what they had to say – and, if you agree that cross-sex strip-searching must not be allowed under any circumstances, please consider supporting our legal case.

Helen Joyce

Donate now

Find out more:

• The story of the case so far

• Our legal submissions

• Trans-identifying males who have committed sex crimes

• Our crowdfunder

Media coverage:

Both The Telegraph (Daniel Martin) and the Daily Mail (Sam Merriman) covered our judicial review of the NPCC guidance. They quoted current and retired police officers who told us that female officers will feel under immense pressure to carry out searches on male detainees despite not wanting to, and their fear that a man directed to manipulate his private parts by a female officer could experience this as arousing.

Child gender medicine: CAN-SG conference

In this week’s episode of the Sex Matters podcast, Fiona McAnena talks to Dr Louise Irvine, co-chair of the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender (CAN-SG), about Rethinking Youth Gender Medicine, on Sunday 5th and Monday 6th July in London. The conference will feature world experts discussing the social and clinical care of gender-distressed children and young people. Whether you’re a clinician, educator, parent, researcher, or simply concerned about child safeguarding and ideology distorting medical practice, this is a conversation you won’t want to miss.

CAN-SG has offered Sex Matters’ supporters an exclusive discount: use the code SM25 for 25 percent off all ticket prices. Further discounts are available for people on low incomes, and students can attend the full two days for just £20.

Our challenge to City’s unlawful ponds policy

The City of London committees involved with the ponds on Hampstead Heath have voted to continue with a “trans inclusive” approach which allows men who say they are women to use the women-only pool, showers and changing rooms. Our legal hearing is scheduled for November.

Read more…

Media coverage:

Author Amanda Craig wroet in The Telegraph about an encounter with a naked man at the Ladies’ Pond several years ago that led to her visiting the facility much less frequently. Maya discussed the story with Nana Akua on GB News, while Victoria Smith wrote for UnHerd that the City of London Corporation’s decision to retain a trans-inclusive policy rather than following the law on single-sex spaces was an insult to women.

Work with Sex Matters

We’re looking for a proactive and detail-focused administrative assistant to join our team, remotely and full-time (four or five days). The role is varied and rewarding: you’ll be supporting our day-to-day operations, supporter engagement, financial administration and campaign delivery. Could this be you?

Find out more

EHRC code: write to your MP

More than 120 MPs have signed Labour MP Stella Creasy’s motion calling for Parliament to reject the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft code of practice. But they seem not to understand that the code doesn’t make law; it just explains how to follow the law.

Nearly a thousand Sex Matters supporters have already written to their MPs. Could you spare a couple of minutes to do this? Use our simple online tool to challenge them if they signed or offer your support if they didn’t.

Take action now!

Media coverage:

Among those who have signed the motion are two Labour MPs from Hertfordshire, Josh Dean and Chris Hinchliff. Bishop’s Stortford Independent (Sinead Corr) quoted Helen as saying that either the signatories really don’t understand the difference between law and statutory guidance, or they are knowingly indulging in pointless virtue signalling, and that neither possibility is impressive.

In other news

An investigation by NHS Sussex into the rogue WellBN GP practice in Brighton and Hove has resulted in the clinic being ordered to end prescriptions of cross-sex hormones for 78 children. The Telegraph (Michael Searles) quoted Fiona as saying that doctors hellbent on promoting transgender ideology have done untold harm to vulnerable young people,

EHRC chair Mary-Ann Stephenson revealed at a Women and Equalities Committee meeting on Tuesday 9th June that the equalities watchdog needed to relocate after its old office was targeted by transactivists. The Telegraph (Dominic Penna and Daniel Martin) quoted Fiona as saying that it’s disappointing that committee MPs who insist on undermining women’s right to single-sex spaces had nothing to say about vandalism or threats by transactivists.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

Maya speaking in the River Room at the House of Lords

On 4th June we launched our new sport report, Getting back on track: Using the Equality Act to enable and protect sport for women and girls, in the River Room at the House of Lords. We co-hosted the event with the Women’s Sports Union, and guests came from across the sports world, including chairs and chief executives of national governing bodies, sportswomen, journalists, policy-makers and lawyers.

The event was introduced by Baroness Davies of Devonport, aka Sharron Davies MBE.

The report describes the battle for fair sport for women and girls: how the law has been misunderstood and misrepresented by activists demanding access for trans-identifying men to women’s sport, and by a succession of civil servants and sport policy-makers who wrongly presented this as “inclusion”. It explains how protections for women and girls in sport are threaded through the Equality Act, and why female-only sport and recreation aren’t just desirable, they’re necessary.

I have spent years working on sports policy, first at Fair Play For Women and now at Sex Matters. In that time I have had hundreds of conversations with politicians, officials, athletes and funders, and have heard every excuse imaginable for failing to protect the female category for girls and women.

The big message I hope everyone takes from this report is that sports leaders need to stop looking for compromises and get-out clauses to validate a few trans-identifying men and get back to protecting, celebrating and promoting women and girls in sport – not just because that’s what the law says, but because it is the right thing to do.

Fiona

Fiona, Maya and Helen celebrating the launch of Getting back on track with Louie French MP, the shadow minister for culture, media and sport.

Getting back on track: a new report

In this week’s episode, Maya Forstater and Fiona McAnena talk about our new report, Getting back on track: Using the Equality Act to enable and protect sport for women and girls – why we wrote it and what is in it.

They discuss how the law enables separate sport for women and girls in several different ways, how this matters for fairness, safety and opportunity all the way from grassroots participation up to elite competition, and why failing to have a female category may result in legal challenge for indirect sex discrimination and harassment.

Read the report online

Download the PDF

Sex matters in sport: how the Equality Act 2010 provides the legal framework for protecting and providing for women and girls in sport.

Enabling and protecting sport for women and girls: Maya’s speech to the House of Lords as we launched our report.

Housing men in women’s prisons is unlawful

The government has been allowing trans-identifying men to be housed in women’s prisons on a case-by-case basis. Now a legal opinion published by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, by Ben Cooper KC and Myles Grandison, concludes that in light of the 2025 For Women Scotland ruling, this cannot continue.

Read more…

Exclusive offer for memo readers

Get 25 percent off tickets for the Rethinking Youth Gender Medicine conference, Sunday 5th and Monday 6th July in central London.

Taking as their theme the foundational principle of medicine to “first, do no harm”, the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender and the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine are bringing together leading international figures fighting for ethical, evidence-based gender medicine. The programme will cover all aspects of the social and clinical care of children and young people experiencing gender-related distress.

Maya, Fiona and Helen will all be attending for at least part of the conference. We think the medical transition of children and young adults is one of the biggest scandals of our age, and this conference is an important moment in the fightback. With the Cass Review prioritising psychosocial care for gender-distressed youth, legal challenges to the proposed trial of puberty blockers and the possibility that NHS England will halt new cross-sex hormone prescriptions for under-18s, the UK is leading the way in ending the harms.

Yet there is no room for complacency. Serious concerns remain about the social transition of minors, irreversible interventions such as mastectomies for under-25s, inadequate support for detransitioners and plans for a “conversion practices” ban that would criminalise ethical, evidence-based exploratory therapy.

The stellar speaker lineup includes:

• Stephanie Davies-Arai of Transgender Trend on social transition

• Dr Anna Hutchinson on psychotherapy for gender-distressed young people

• Sex Matters trustee Professor Michael Biggs on the history of puberty blockers

• Neuropsychologist Professor Sallie Baxendale on the effect of puberty blockers on the adolescent brain

• Michael Kerr of Detransition Pathways and Dr Stella O’Malley of Genspect on detransition.

Also joining the programme is Maeve Halligan, founding president of the Cambridge University Society of Women, who will speak about the courage required of professionals working with medically transitioning children and young people, and why those responsible for children’s safety must not be cowed into remaining silent about their concerns.

View the conference programme and buy tickets: Use the code SM25 for 25 percent off in-person and livestream tickets. Further discounts available for retired people and those on low incomes. And especially for student readers of the Sex Matters Memo: attend the entire conference for just £20.

In the news

Louis Goss for The Telegraph broke the news that Lloyds Bank has updated its policy on single-sex facilities and told staff to use bathrooms that correspond with their biological sex. The article referred to our recent report, Sex-based rights in the City, which found that leading banks including HSBC and NatWest were continuing to let staff use toilets based on gender identity rather than sex.

Susanna Rustin for The Guardian wrote that the EHRC code of practice protects a range of vital single-sex spaces, not just toilets, and mentioned our criticism of the section of the guidance that says sex should be treated as special-category data.

Greg Heffer wrote for the Daily Mail on the new health secretary James Murray’s admission that he has changed his mind since stating in 2022 that “trans women are women”, and that he now vows to protect single-sex spaces in the NHS on the basis of sex. Maya said he needs to update NHS policies and language, and to rip up Annex B, which says single-sex wards must operate on the basis of “gender identity”.

Daniel Martin for The Telegraph reported that the House of Commons has signposted staff upset by the EHRC code of practice to transactivist organisations for support. Helen said it wasn’t acceptable for House of Commons management to appear to mourn the enforcement of sex-based rights at the same time as MPs are considering the guidance under parliamentary procedure.

The news that City of London councillors have voted in favour of a policy that would enable trans-identifying men to swim at the Ladies’ Pond at Hampstead Heath was covered widely by the media, including Daniel Lavelle for The Guardian, Daniel Martin for The Telegraph, Ellie Doughty for The Times and BBC London. Fiona said that many councillors seem to think UK equality law doesn’t apply to the ponds, and that the councillors had voted to unlawfully discriminate against and harass women.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

I am sure that Sex Matters supporters will not be surprised that following the publication of the long-awaited EHRC guidance the rump of recalcitrant, confused and captured organisations have not meekly agreed to get in line with the law.

At the Hampstead ponds the City of London is still operating its gender-identity based policy, and we have heard from several pond swimmers who were disturbed and upset by the sight of men in skimpy bikinis among the sunbathers during the hot half-term week.

Marks & Spencer is still advertising “men’s” and “women’s” changing rooms on its website, but using ambiguous signage in store and telling customers they can use whatever changing rooms they want.

Stonewall has apparently assured the EHRC that it will follow the Equality Act, but the activist group TransLucent and the trade union Unison say they want to change the law, and charity-sector leaders are telling charities they can afford to “take their time” before coming into compliance.

So there are going to be a lot more legal cases before this is all done.

Is it feasible for a lot of individuals to start legal cases? For most people it is too expensive and difficult – and it’s hard for us to help with a lot of individual cases. But we have been helping people to work out whether have a case that could be funded by the JK Rowling Women’s Fund, and putting together detailed guidance on how to make your own “small claim”.

This week we have published a guide to pursuing a small claim for gender-critical belief discrimination. More about that in the podcast and below.

We have also heard that our case against the City of London will be heard in November, which is not soon enough but will come. We are also working on several more cases, which I will share more news on in the next few weeks.

Maya Forstater

Small claims explained

Fighting bigotry in service provision

In this week’s episode, Helen and Maya talk through what is colloquially known as a “small claim” for belief discrimination against a service provider.

Examples of such discrimination include being refused service in a pub, barred from a gym or forced to leave an event because you are known or suspected to hold gender-critical beliefs (or to be associated with someone who does).

Sex Matters has published a guide on this process, which you can read on our website.

Fighting bigotry in service provision

If you’re refused service in a pub, barred from a gym or forced to leave an event because someone knows you hold gender-critical beliefs, you can take what’s known as a “small claim” for belief discrimination to the county court. We explain the law, show you how to prepare a claim and what to ask for, and guide you through writing your “letter before claim”.

Read more…

In the news

Coverage of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated code of practice for service providers continued this week. Maya appeared on GB News’s Free Speech Nation with Josh Howie, while Fiona was interviewed by Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkTV.

Daniel Martin and Dominic Penna for The Telegraph broke the news that Sex Matters has written to Bridget Phillipson calling for withdrawal of the “asking about sex” section of the EHRC guidance on the basis that it is legally wrong. Maya said that sex is not special-category data, but ordinary personal data that can be used routinely, just like other personal information such as name or age.

Lee Peart for Healthcare Management quoted Maya in its coverage of the guidance as saying that any business, charity or public-service provider that took a wrong turn and started letting men who identify as women use women’s spaces or vice versa must now urgently fix its policies, and that organisations that don’t want to get into legal trouble should seize on this opportunity for a reset.

Gabriella Swerling for The Telegraph had a front-page story on Sunderland Minster posting signage on social media which encourages trans-identifying people to use the bathroom of the opposite sex, in defiance of the guidance. Maya said that any woman using the facilities would probably have a case in claiming harassment against the diocese of Durham, so this just seems like legal action waiting to happen.

In other news, Gordon Rayner for The Telegraph covered the news that the new BBC director-general Matt Brittin is under pressure to deal with ongoing transactivism within the broadcasting corporation. Fiona said that the good work of many BBC journalists is being undermined by misleading output from other teams, and that to regain public trust Brittin needs to weed out transactivists and reassure staff that genuine impartiality will be rewarded, not punished.

Mary Wright and John Glover for the Scottish Daily Express wrote on the findings from campaign group Women Won’t Wheesht that 16 out of 17 Scottish universities, including Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee and St Andrews, are failing to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. Fiona said that these universities are prioritising the feelings of young men who say they are women, and that graduates will enter the workplace thinking that women’s needs take second place to male feelings.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

On Thursday 21st May the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s long-awaited code of practice for services, public functions and associations finally landed. It is largely very good and will be helpful to give businesses, public bodies, charities and associations confidence to follow the law, not the misinformation.

Service providers should get cracking and fix their policies now. “Waiting for the guidance” was always a bad excuse, but in any case now it is gone.

Most importantly, the new code replaces a legally flawed line in the previous version, dating from 2011, about allowing people to use single-sex services “according to the gender role in which they present”, which did untold damage. The new version instead provides detailed explanations of how the single-sex exceptions work based on sex, not gender identity.

It explains that there is no lawful option whereby service providers can admit trans people to a service intended for the opposite sex. If they do this, they are likely to lose the ability to rely on single-sex and separate-sex legal exceptions, opening them to liability for committing sex discrimination against people of the opposite sex who remain excluded, and sex discrimination or harassment against people forced to share an unexpectedly mixed-sex space. This is the argument we are running in our case against the City of London over the gender identity-based admissions policy at the Hampstead ponds.

When the guidance dropped, our team settled down to speed-read, interrupted by sending out press quotes, answering a zillion WhatsApp messages, and recording media interviews and our own podcast to help people understand what is important in the 300-page document. You can watch the podcast on YouTube and read our initial analysis on our website.

Over the next couple of weeks we’ll publish a series of blog posts on what the guidance means in various situations: how it will affect different kinds of individuals and organisations and where there might be loopholes or confusion. To get our posts in your inbox as soon as they’re published, subscribe to our Substack.

Overall, we gave the guidance eight out of ten. While there is lots to be happy about in it, we were dismayed to see that it includes a new section on “asking about sex”, which includes legally incorrect advice presented as a requirement of data-protection law. This advice that sex is “special category” and sensitive data is wrong in law, undermines the rest of the guidance, recreates the problem it set out to solve, and harms women’s rights and safeguarding.

This section should never have been included in the guidance laid before Parliament and should be disregarded. It appears to have been added at the last minute following pressure from the government’s Office for Equality and Opportunity to say that there are “limited circumstances in which it may be legitimate for service providers to ask about a service user’s sex” and telling businesses they need staff training on relevant procedures and protocols. (I wonder which organisations will be lining up to deliver that?!)

This directly contradicts both reality and the Supreme Court’s clear interpretation of the law. There are limited circumstances when service providers can ask or record your sex, in the same way that there are limited (but fairly broad) circumstances when a service provider can ask your name, address, date of birth or whether you would like a vegetarian meal. They don’t need to treat sex as special sensitive data.

Read our update about what is so wrong with this part of the guidance. (If you’d like to get our updates emailed to you as soon as they’re published, subscribe to our Substack.)

We will be writing to the Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson, and to the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Mary-Ann Stephenson, calling for this section to be withdrawn.

Maya Forstater

EHRC guidance finally here!

The new code of practice explained

This week, Maya, Helen and Fiona give their initial take on the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s long-awaited update to the Code of practice for services, public functions and associations, which has been published by the Minister for Women and Equalities and laid before Parliament.

Read the code of practice.

Read our first analysis of the code.

To see our video output:

• find our podcasts on Substack

• follow our YouTube channel

• find us on TikTok.

Will the government solve the sex-data problem in this Parliament?

In the King’s Speech the government announced that it is pressing ahead with a Digital Access to Services Bill that will introduce free, voluntary digital ID, and has said this will not include sex. As the mess in the data section of the EHRC guidance shows, it is crucial to get sex data right. We have published our response to the consultation on digital ID and our equality impact assessment, which shows what a bad idea it is to leave sex out of the plan for digital ID.

Read more…

What is in the new guidance?

The excuse of “waiting for guidance” has finally gone. And the biggest flaw of the 2011 guidance – that it told service providers to operate based on gender self-ID – has been taken out.

Read more…

Sex is not “special category” data

The draft EHRC guidance includes a new section on asking about sex that is wrong about the law. There are five reasons why we will be asking for this section to be withdrawn.

Read more…

In the news

The publication of the EHRC’s updated code of practice was covered widely, including by Alison Holt and Nick Triggle for BBC News, Katie Harris for the Daily Express, Daniel Martin for The Telegraph, Geraldine Scott for The Times, Martin Beckford for the Daily Mail and Lauren Gordon for The Mirror. Maya was quoted extensively, with each outlet taking different lines from her analysis, including that there are no more excuses for organisations to delay updating unlawful policies.

Maya was interviewed by BBC News and Sky News. Helen was interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight, Jeremy Vine on BBC Radio 2 and Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkTV. Fiona was interviewed by Jeremy Kyle on TalkTV.

In other news, Jason Groves for the Daily Mail revealed comments made by Labour leadership hopeful Andy Burnham that men who identify as female should be allowed to use female toilets, and that those who fight for sex-based rights represent a “minority view”. Helen said that any politician who aspires to be prime minister needs a better grasp of what voters want than to think that fringe transactivist views are mainstream.

Helen was interviewed for a feature by Irish Daily Mail journalist Georgina Heffernan, which covered Helen’s personal background and journey to becoming an author on sex-based rights and director at Sex Matters.

Also for the Daily Mail, David Churchill wrote that the NHS could face thousands of discrimination claims from female staff across the UK following the successful employment tribunal of an NHS employee in Leeds. The tribunal found that she had suffered discrimination and harassment because trans-identifying male colleagues were told they could use women’s toilets and changing rooms according to NHS England policy.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

Maya delivering our One year later report to Bridget Phillipson

The Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson, has promised to present the long-awaited code of  practice for services, public functions and associations for approval by Parliament this month. If she is going to meet her deadline, the parliamentary timetable means that in practice she has to do it in just a few days’ time – during the week starting Monday 18th May. Once it is laid before Parliament, it will come into legal effect 40 days later unless a motion is passed to annul it. The last time that happened was in 1979.

The code, when it comes, will provide a detailed explanation of the single-sex and separate-sex exceptions as applied in different kinds of single-sex services, with lots of practical examples. Perhaps its most important function will be to stop duty-bearers repeating endlessly that the reason they haven’t changed unlawful policies in the year-plus since the Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland is that they are “waiting for guidance”.

There was never any reason to wait. The previous version of the code, which dates from 2011, was clearly wrong in saying that “If a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women and men… they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present.” That was already true before the Supreme Court judgment. Service providers really should already have stopped pretending to be confused about this.

In cases such as the Red Lion Pub and Croft v Royal Mail in 2003, Green v Secretary of State in 2013 and the first For Women Scotland case in 2022, courts have confirmed again and again that identifying as transgender doesn’t confer the right to be treated as the opposite sex. The Supreme Court made clear last year that having a gender-recognition certificate doesn’t either. Earlier this year the High Court confirmed that the EHRC’s straightforward explanation of what the Supreme Court judgment means in practice for separate-sex facilities accurately reflected the law.

Most recently, on 13th May, news broke that Faye Russell Caldicott (a pseudonym; she was granted court anonymity) had won her case against NHS England. She was represented by our former chair, Naomi Cunningham – congratulations, Naomi! The judgment is a breakthrough, concluding that a policy of allowing trans-identifying men to use women’s toilets, showers and changing rooms amounts to discrimination and harassment related to sex.

NHS England had defended itself by saying it had applied the law as it understood it based on advice from Stonewall, GIRES and Unison. The judgment brushed that excuse away, saying that “reliance on contemporaneous guidance or good practice advice cannot justify an incorrect interpretation of the law”. It was just the latest confirmation that, whether or not the EHRC’s code of practice is laid next week, organisations that have been delaying fixing faulty policies really need to get on with it.

In other news, my colleague Helen Joyce attended a debate at the Cambridge Union, at which Maeve Halligan, founding president of the Cambridge University Society of Women, spoke in favour of the proposition “This House believes modern LGBTQ+ activism fails its community.” You can watch the entire debate on YouTube; both Maeve and her fellow CUSW founder Serena Worley, who spoke from the floor, performed remarkably.

Maya Forstater

The state of free speech on campus

Equality Act-shaped hole at the heart of Sussex judgment

In this week’s episode, Maya and Helen discuss the recent legal judgments that highlight the importance of strong protections for free speech and academic freedom to people who hold gender-critical views.

As Maya wrote last week in Times Higher Education, at the heart of the High Court judgment in the judicial review brought by the University of Sussex is an Equality Act-shaped hole. The Office for Students’ investigation into its failure to protect academic freedom and free speech on campus had been sparked by the hounding of Professor Kathleen Stock, who had been accused of hate by activists for speaking up about misrepresentations of the Equality Act. The High Court overturned the regulator’s £585,000 fine punishing Sussex for infringing on academic freedom and freedom of speech by adopting a policy in 2018 banning so-called transphobic propaganda from its campus and pledging to discipline those committing “transphobic abuse”.

EHRC code: any moment now...

The EHRC Code of  practice for services, public functions and associations is expected to be presented to Parliament for approval before the end of May.

We have published a short explainer about the code: what it’s for, what happens next and why it matters.

Read more…

Hampstead Ponds: update

You may have seen media reports that the City of London has decided to stick with its policy of permitting people to access the ponds designated for the opposite sex on the basis of their “lived gender”. After the vote in support of the plans at a meeting on 12th May, they must now go before another committee on 4th June.

Meanwhile our legal challenge continues: the court has let us know there will be a hearing this autumn.

Read a case update…

In the news

Ben Lynch for BBC News, The Standard and The Mirror broke the news that City of London councillors have voted not to change the policy of allowing trans-identifying men to access the Ladies’ Pond at Hampstead Heath, which is subject to an ongoing legal challenge by Sex Matters. Susanna Siddell for GB News revealed that the City plans to spend £1m on “privacy” upgrades at the ponds. Legal news site LexisNexis published its analysis.

Writing for Civil Society, Léa Legraien covered Sex Matters’ first annual report. Maya was quoted as saying that much of our work has been about pressing institutions, employers, regulators, schools, sports bodies and public authorities to follow the law.

Sam Merriman for the Daily Mail reported that the King’s Speech included plans for a ban on “conversion practices”. Helen said that the real targets are parents, teachers, therapists and spiritual advisors who don’t subscribe to trans ideology, and don’t think the incoherent, subjective notion of “gender identity” is what makes someone a boy or girl, or a man or woman.

Further coverage of our report on sex-based rights in the City included Emma Ann Hughes for Insurance Post, who focused on insurance provider Admiral’s decision to stick with gender-neutral (mixed-sex) toilets, and Oliver Partridge for GB News.

Fiona was interviewed by Kevin O’Sullivan on TalkTV on the news that Harriet Harman has been appointed as the government’s advisor on women and girls. Shortly after last year’s Supreme Court judgment, Baroness Harman claimed it meant that trans-identifying men could still use women’s spaces.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

The news on 29th April that the High Court had overturned the £585,000 fine imposed by the Office for Students (OfS) on the University of Sussex for breaching free-speech regulations was hugely disappointing.

I have written to the chair and chief executive of the OfS calling on it to appeal the judgment, which Sex Matters believes is wrong in law. Our argument has also been published in an article in Times Higher Education.

In short: there is a huge Equality Act-shaped hole in the middle of the judgment.

The OfS started its investigation in 2021, after Professor Kathleen Stock was hounded out of the university (you can read the whole history here). The OfS said: “It’s important to stress that this case – and the OfS’s investigation – is not about the substance of ongoing debates around sex and gender.”

We say it couldn’t be more wrong.

What happened at the University of Sussex cannot be understood unless you recognise that when activists put pressure on the university to adopt a policy banning “transphobic propaganda” in 2018, what they wanted banned were statements that straightforwardly reflect the definition of sex in the Equality Act. What Stock had been targeted for in the first place was pointing out the problem with what those activists meant by “transphobia”.

A large part of the judgment hinges on arguments about the meaning of the terms “reasonably practicable” and “freedom of speech within the law” when assessing whether or not the university had breached its obligation to “take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured”.

It was here that everyone in court appeared to have a collective attack of amnesia. The judgment reads as if my employment appeal tribunal case, and the cases of Jo Phoenix v Open University, Rachel Meade v Social Work England, Roz Adams v Edinburgh Rape Crisis, Higgs v Farmor’s School and all the rest had never happened. It completely overlooks the detailed legal framework for balancing freedom of belief and speech with protecting people against unlawful harassment.

The answer to what is “reasonably practicable” for a university to do is the same as for any other institution: set policies in line with the Equality Act, train staff on those policies and enforce fair and robust disciplinary processes.

So when campus activists started agitating for the University of Sussex to adopt a sweeping new policy in time for Trans Day of Remembrance, it should have just said: “No thanks, we’ve already got a policy that aligns with the Equality Act and covers all nine protected characteristics.”

Perversely, the university cited the fact that it already had a high-level policy protecting free speech and academic freedom when defending itself in court, even though in practice that high-level policy did not stop the university from adopting the activists’ charters.

A further twist in the tale is that the policy Sussex adopted in 2018 came almost word for word from one written by Equality Challenge Uni (now Advance HE) that was in turn based on one adopted by the Association of Colleges in 2005, which was drafted by Socialist Workers Party activist David Renton. Tribunal-watchers will remember that Renton is now a barrister and was Allison Bailey’s roommate at Garden Court Chambers. He refused to express solidarity when she was discriminated against and harassed for expressing views that are in line with the Equality Act. Instead, after overhearing Allison talking on the phone about why trans-identifying men should not be in women’s prisons, he told a colleague that her view seemed “a million miles away from chambers values”.

In 2023 the University of Essex published a paper by Renton and two academics, titled Universities’ Legal Obligations in the Context of Trans Inclusion, Trans Equality, and ‘Gender Critical Activities on Campus. This claimed: “The decision in Forstater has been widely misunderstood and it is worth emphasising that the Appeal Tribunal in that case accepted that Ms Forstater had a protected opinion, does not mean that the manifestations of that opinion were protected.”

It is shocking how a tiny coterie of motivated and persistent people has managed to corrupt the governance of large, expensive and important institutions by promoting a misreading of the Equality Act. Anyone who wants to save the Equality Act and these institutions needs to drag them back to reality.

Maya Forstater

City firms flout sex-based rules

Our new report exposes widespread non-compliance

In this week’s episode, Maya and Helen discuss our latest report, Sex-based rights in the City, which uncovered the widespread failure of the financial sector to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

Not one of 15 financial institutions contacted replied clearly stating that it provided single-sex toilets, as required by workplace regulations, and restricted access to people of that (biological) sex.

Maya and Helen discuss how we got here, the experiences of those working in the sector and what can be done to bring employers into compliance.

Our new report finds that despite usually taking legal compliance seriously, firms in the financial sector failed to update their policies on access to single-sex spaces in line with the 2025 Supreme Court judgment.

Read more…

In the news

Eleanor Harmsworth for The Telegraph covered Sex Matters’ report on sex-based rights in the financial sector as an exclusive, revealing that none of the 15 companies contacted could confirm that they are compliant with the Supreme Court ruling. The report quotes female staff concerned about this as feeling angry, unvalued and cynical, and points out that on any other topic, a Supreme Court judgment would see City firms rushing to ensure all policies were brought in line with the law.

Maya wrote for Times Higher Education on the High Court judgment in the University of Sussex’s case against the Office for Students. Sussex was successful in overturning the record fine imposed on it for failing to uphold free speech on campus and academic freedom, after an investigation prompted by the hounding of Professor Kathleen Stock. Maya argued that the verdict wrongly overlooked the Equality Act’s role in determining what universities can be expected to do to protect free speech.

Writing for The Telegraph, Cameron Henderson broke the news that education provider Pearson is teaching GCSE pupils that it is “discrimination” and “inequality” to provide toilets only for men and women. Maya said that single-sex facilities ensure safety, dignity and privacy for everyone, as well as preventing discrimination against women, who are harmed more than men are by having to share toilets and changing rooms with the opposite sex.

Helen wrote for The Critic on her experience of both making crime reports and being the subject of them. She contrasts the criminal justice system’s deferential treatment of trans-identifying former police officer Lynsay Watson, who makes serial allegations about gender-critical people and seeks judicial review when police decline to prosecute, with the way allegations of criminal harassment against him are slow-walked or ignored.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

Filing Sex Matters’ first annual return to the Charity Commission and publishing our first annual report has been a milestone for the charity, and for me as chief executive. It is one of the many “first time for everything” experiences the board and I have gone through together, with input from the team. It is part of the board’s statutory responsibility, but together we also wanted to make sure what we produced was useful and interesting for our supporters.

The annual report sets out the charity’s short history, its principles and strategy, the resources we have attracted and how we are using them. If you don’t have time to read the whole thing, you might still enjoy the summary.

We started out around a kitchen table with a rough idea – that “sex matters in life and in law, and it shouldn’t take courage to say so.” Since then, we have experimented furiously to work out how we can most effectively make that vision real, and we will keep doing that.

I’ve never been a chief executive before, so pulling the report and audited accounts together was daunting. But the feedback has been so encouraging. Here is a selection: “We are very proud of you all!”, “What an impressive document”, “Thank you and well done! I’m proud to have been a supporter” and “Thank you for having our backs and being in the frontline of our battles.”

I am grateful to all the trustees, including those who stood down this year, in particular Naomi Cunnigham as chair and Julia Casimo as treasurer, and to Emma Hilton, who replaced Naomi as our chair. Without all their hard work, we would not have got this far.

The annual report has also provoked challenges, mainly by people asking “why aren’t you doing X?” To which my answer is generally: “Because we are doing Y.” My job as chief executive is to make sure the team all know what “Y” is, and why we are doing it, and that they are supported and able to do their jobs. It is the board of trustees who have ultimate responsibility for the charity’s strategic direction, and together with the senior leadership team – me, Fiona McAnena and Helen Joyce – they spend a lot of time thinking about what to do next and how to manage risks and resources.

As you can imagine, a lot goes on behind the scenes. As well as board meetings, we have an annual strategy weekend; this year’s has just taken place.

From left to right: Emma Moore (administrator and help-desk manager), Rebecca Bull (trustee), Helen Joyce (director of advocacy), Michael Biggs (trustee), Emma Hilton (trustee and chair), Maya Forstater (CEO), Fiona McAnena (director of campaigns), Simon Knapp (trustee and treasurer), Anya Palmer (trustee), Charlotte Cadden (trustee).

We welcomed a new board member, Simon Knapp, who is taking over the important role of treasurer.

Simon has worked in senior finance roles across the charity sector and is strongly committed to our mission. (I think there are more people in the voluntary sector like this than you might imagine!)

Last week I also started a short course for new charity CEOs at Bayes Business School, with a cohort of charity CEOs. Some were pleased to meet me, and a few were not. One asked with incredulity how we could be a human-rights charity. I explained that our starting point is that human rights are universal, but this does not mean that transgender people get everything they want: other people have rights too. I gave her a copy of our human-rights framework.

The practical discussions on the course were fascinating and helpful. My big lesson from the first day was that the challenges I face as a CEO are not so different from those faced by other charity CEOs (even the ones who think we are deplorable): sitting between the board and the team and trying to make sure we stay true to our mission, respond to opportunity and hostility, and act effectively.

Back: Hargey Fionntán (Market Development Association), Jennie Lucas (Maggie Oliver Foundation), Katie Nurcombe (Intensive Care Society), Sam Plummer (Youth Connect South West), Christine Fogg (Bayes Business School), Middle: Maya Forstater (Sex Matters), Leonora Sharp (Terapia), Alanna Harris (Canary Wharf Multifaith Chaplaincy), Front: Dan Jones (Settle), Tamara Newman (Committee for Middle East Peace), Elisabeta Pashaj (Downhurst Residential Home), Rukia Augustine (St Albans Food Bank), Kate Heslegrave (St Helena Hospice), James Roberts (Citizens Advice Peterborough), Izzy Ivezic (The Baked Bean Charity).

Many of the worst cases of capture by gender ideology that we at Sex Matters hear about concern charities. Their boards and leadership seem particularly prone to losing sight of their mission and getting confused about the Equality Act. Scope cancelling Janet Murray’s choir from singing at the London Marathon (and then reinstating it with a grudging statement) was just the latest example.

Thinking hard about governance is important for how Sex Matters conducts itself as a charity, but also for understanding how things have gone wrong in so many institutions. One of the most important bits of good governance is identifying and managing conflicts of interests. The Charity Commission has just published new guidance on this important topic. It emphasises that a conflict of interest doesn’t mean something dishonest is going on, and that conflicts are also not always about financial decisions. They can be about personal loyalties and the interests of people or organisations connected to trustees getting tangled up with decision-making.

When charity trustees, public policy-makers, regulators or judges make decisions related to sex and gender, there is too often an undeclared conflict of interest: a trans-identifying family member or friend whom they hold dear, and whose strong personal wishes shape their decisions and the language they use. It is crucial that people who are working for the public good do not confuse this purpose with doing what feels good for the people nearest and dearest to them.

If you work in a charity and are gender-critical, get in touch!

Maya Forstater

Meet the Sex Matters help desk

In this week’s episode, Fiona talks to Emma Moore, who manages our help desk. They discuss common themes, the advice provided to those seeking support and the resources available on our website.

Practical help

This new section of our website makes it easier to find our practical tools and template emails, as well as general advice and tips on What you can do if you have a problem.

Read more…

Hampstead Ponds: the City of London says it is sticking with "trans inclusion"

Sex Matters says: “We’ll see you in court”

The City of London Corporation has published its report on the Hampstead Heath bathing ponds and is planning to take a decision about the final policy to be adopted on 4th June.

We have received an order from the High Court that our case against the City of London will be listed between October and December 2026. We will keep you updated.

Read more…

Don't forget: Consultation on digital identity closes today

The government’s consultation on digital ID closes on 5th May. Here are the instructions on how to take part.

Last week we talked about this on the podcast and our survey got nearly 1,000 responses. Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments. There are diverse views and important concerns. But whatever you think about digital ID, you can tell the government to include sex!

Read more…

In the news

Ben Lynch broke the news that the City of London is recommending that the Ladies’ Pond at Hampstead Heath remains mixed sex, even as Sex Matters’ legal case continues, in a piece that ran in BBC London, MyLondon and Ham & High (print only). Maya said that the City of London’s proposal to continue with its approach of allowing fully intact males into the women’s pond is simply unlawful, and that the City is operating as if Hampstead Heath is outside the law. Alastair Lockhart also covered the story for The Standard.

Justin Bowie for The Courier interviewed Sandie Peggie, who said that she was shocked by bogus quotes in her judgment that were first revealed by the same newspaper to have been incorrectly attributed to Maya’s 2021 tribunal judgment.

Helen’s book Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality (2021) was included in The Times’ list of the 25 best non-fiction books of the 21st century.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

Some of the speakers with Baroness Sarah Ludford (in red jacket)

On Tuesday 21st April I took a stack of Sex Matters One year later booklets to the Houses of Parliament for a meeting of peers and MPs at which women who have been harmed by the failure to protect women-only spaces told their stories. Among them were several women featured in the booklet, including Darlington nurse Bethany Hutchison, gym user Miranda Newsom and mental-health volunteer “D”.

Their stories highlighted the harms done to women when organisations fail to follow the Equality Act and instead follow gender ideology. These are ordinary women trying to do ordinary things where their dignity, privacy and autonomy should be upheld: use the office toilets; get changed for work or at the gym; run a women’s mental-health peer support group. They reveal NHS bodies, local authorities and charities wilfully ignoring the law and subjecting women to punishment for speaking up for their rights. There were tears on the panel and tears in the audience.

By now all MPs will have received the booklet in their pigeonholes. If you haven’t written to your MP about this, now is a good time. Ask them to urge the Minister for Women and Equalities to lay the EHRC guidance before Parliament in May, as she has promised, and to act decisively to ensure that the law as clarified by the Supreme Court is enforced.

Write to your MP: why are we waiting?

Something that would help ensure that organisations understand and follow the law would be a simple, clear way for people to prove their sex when registering for or accessing services. For many years public bodies have allowed people to change their sex on documents such as passports and driving licences, making these worse than useless for this purpose.

Now the government is planning a new form of digital ID that people will be able to have on their phones. Its proposed “solution” to the problem of unreliable sex data is to leave sex off altogether.

This is a mistake. It will leave individuals and service providers floundering and mired in conflict, instead of being able to simply and clearly verify a fact about people that is often needed.

We know there are a range of different views on digital ID itself, and Sex Matters has no institutional position. But whatever your views you can argue that if it goes ahead sex should be included.

A government consultation about it is open until Tuesday 5th May. It is really important that people use this opportunity to tell the government not to leave sex out of digital ID.

READ:
Our update on why digital ID should include sex
(and our briefing on putting sex on digital ID, if you have time)

LISTEN TO:
Our podcast on the topic
(in which Helen Joyce calls me a nerd, the absolute cheek of her)

TAKE ACTION:
Use our guidance to respond to the consultation
(it won’t take more than 10 minutes)

Maya Forstater

Putting sex on digital ID

In this week’s episode, Maya and Helen discuss the new national digital ID (BritCard), which the government has committed to creating by the end of this parliament. But the government does not plan to include sex on the BritCard, saying that this “is not necessary for the intended purpose of the digital ID”.

Maya and Helen explore why failing to include sex as a voluntary field on the BritCard is a cop-out that will leave individuals and service providers floundering and mired in conflict, instead of being able to simply and clearly verify a fact about people which is often needed.

Sex matters in local elections

Too many local authorities have told us that they are “waiting for guidance” on single-services when in fact the law is clear. If there are elections in your area on Thursday 7th May, we have some questions you can ask candidates to find out if your local authority understands and respects the law.

Read more…

Update: the City of London seeks to delay again

As the deadline approached for the City of London Corporation to file its defence for allowing trans-identifying men into the women’s pond and showers on Hampstead Heath, it made a last-ditch attempt to evade this by asking for another delay.

Read more…

In the news

Janet Murray for The Telegraph reported that a Girlguiding group has closed and reopened as a Scout group over the charity’s move to align with the law on single-sex services, with other leaders suggesting that more may follow or affiliate with local Pride groups. Maya said that Girlguiding is learning the hard way that there is no easy path back from pretending that men and boys can be female, and that Pride youth groups are hardly a natural fit for the Girlguiding movement.

Sian Maher for The Scottish Sun reported that the trans-identifying male doctor Dr Beth Upton has been registered by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency as female and is working in two New South Wales hospitals. Helen said that male doctors should never practise as female and medical organisations should never record doctors as the sex they are not, and that doing so sets the scene for patients’ rights to be breached. The news was also reported by Rachel Baxendale for The Australian.

Helen wrote for The Critic on how the fallout from the puberty-blocker trial shows what happens when politicians outsource policy choices that require a backbone. She said that when institutions such as medical regulators fail to do their job, Parliament is supposed to fix the rules that govern them, but many politicians have lost faith in their moral intuition or lost touch with it entirely.

Maya appeared on GB News with Olivia Utley and Cameron Walker to discuss the one-year anniversary of the For Women Scotland Supreme Court ruling. Maya said that there is no excuse for anyone to be ignoring the law.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

For Women Scotland, Sex Matters and the lesbian intervenors outside 10 Downing Street – all photos © Belinda Jiao

This is the speech I made to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Women’s Rights on 15th April 2026

One year ago, the Supreme Court gave us clarity. We couldn’t have got a better, clearer judgment.

Every morning for the past year I have thought: “Thank you For Women Scotland… Thank you Lord Hodge, Lady Simler, Lady Rose…” And thank you to the lesbian intervenors. And to Ben Cooper KC, who made the arguments for Sex Matters in the Supreme Court.

Yet one year later it feels like nothing has changed.

Employers, service providers and the government are still pretending that it is difficult to understand that a man who feels sad about being a man, who puts on women’s clothing and make up, who may or may not get a sexual kick of out of this, who may or may not have parts of his body hormonally or surgically altered, is not a woman.

And women and men who articulate these facts in clear plain language are not bigots, or hateful or saying anything that shouldn’t be said.

But the truth is it is still dangerous to say these things. It is still the safer, smarter option to pretend not to know what everyone knows. We are pushing against the weight of institutions that have been corrupted from the inside out by an ideology that makes the truth unsayable.

So the lack of action following the Supreme Court judgment isn’t that surprising.

The law cannot do magic. A piece of paper cannot change people’s sex. And a Supreme Court judgment, however good and carefully reasoned, cannot immediately change institutions that have turned away from their purpose and systematically set women’s rights to zero.

It is a brilliant, clear judgment, and on 16th April last year some people thought the job was done. But we still have to win this the hard way – we have to win back language, institutions, incentives and hearts and minds. It’s not that people don’t agree with us, it’s that there’s still a climate of fear and the real danger from simply saying what the law has confirmed is right remains. And so many people seem to find it so easy to forget that women are full human beings.

For the anniversary of the judgment, Sex Matters has produced two publications. One is an easy-read version of the EHRC’s short update on single-sex facilities. The other is the One year later booklet, which tells the stories of 14 women and girls. It illustrates the harm that has been done and continues to be done by the misunderstanding of the Equality Act and the weaponisation of the law that is meant to protect women’s rights against women.

Some of the stories you will know, some you won’t. You will know the names of Sandie Peggie, Bethany Hutchison and the other Darlington nurses; other women have had to remain anonymous. There are longer stories on our website, and we will keep adding more stories of harm, until we don’t have to.

We sent the booklet to the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer with a letter from 26 women’s groups. We’ve also put it in the pigeonhole of every MP – including Bridget Phillipson, the Minister for Women and Equalities – and every working peer (we had them all enveloped and ready to go, and then when Phillipson made her announcement on the guidance, we had to rip open 1,200 envelopes and put in a new letter!)

The booklet includes the stories of women like Eleanor Frances, who joined the civil service to serve her country. When she raised concerns about policies she believed were unlawful and undermined civil service objectivity, she wasn’t heard – she was pushed out and her career derailed. The DCMS settled with her for six figures and said it would revise its policy. It hasn’t changed a thing.

And Charlotte Hawkins, an NHS paramedic trainer, who was asked to rewrite maternity guidance to remove clear biological language and replace it with vague terms. She spoke up. A few colleagues from the LGBT network started combing through her Facebook feed for gender-critical posts and she was suspended.

Then there are Bethany Hutchison and the other Darlington nurses, and Sandie Peggie. They simply didn’t want to undress in front of a male colleague in the women’s changing room. They asked for privacy – nothing more. They were called bigots and told to move.

One of the worst stories is from a woman we have called D. She is a service user of a mental-health charity; she qualified as a peer mentor to support other people with similar struggles. She has run a women’s group for several years.

After the Supreme Court judgment her local branch said it was going to change the name of the women’s and men’s groups in order to be inclusive. It told her that because they were only peer-support groups they couldn’t be single sex. It told her this is the law.

She asked us to help. So we wrote to the charity and explained the law. We said that it is perfectly lawful to have women-only groups and that it may well be indirect discrimination against women to let “trans women” into the group.

The charity took more than two months to reply to our letter. Then it came back and said that it was going to stop providing men’s and women’s peer support altogether and just have mixed-sex groups for people who want to talk about women’s mental health and men’s mental health.

Then someone reported D for being a bigot and a transphobe. Now she is being investigated and is barred from the offices of the service that has been a lifeline to her.

And all this happened after the Supreme Court judgment. All this happened because the charity responded to the judgment by trying to get around the spirit and letter of the law.

One thing that is really striking about the case studies in the booklet is that these are salt-of-the-earth women. Many work in frontline public services; others are seeking to do good within their communities. There are very few stories of women like Baroness Falkner who are at the top of their institutions and sticking their necks out. I want to pay tribute to Kishwer Falkner for her bravery and thank her for everything she has done.

In our letter to the minister for women and equalities, we said that her statement that “This government has always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex” is a slap in the face to all the women whose stories we have told. It is a slap in the face to the women that stop me in the street and say thank you, and to the women who are in our inbox every day telling us that organisations are failing to follow the law.

We will keep bringing strategic legal cases, and working to shape public understanding. And we call on the government to show leadership – to lay the guidance, to withdraw the civil-service model policy that puts a legally incorrect definition of “discrimination” at the heart of the decision making, and to fix the data. Women have already waited far too long.

Maya Forstater

READ: The letter from 26 organisations and groups to the Prime Minister: why are women still waiting?

CATCH UP: Our response to Bridget Phillipson’s announcement that the EHRC code will be laid before Parliament in May

USE: The easy-read version of the EHRC’s update

READ MORE: The stories of each of the women in the One year later booklet

Podcast

In this week’s episode, filmed in London, Maya, Fiona and Helen discuss the week’s events marking the anniversary of the For Women Scotland judgment at the Supreme Court.

Celebrating in Parliament Square with supporters

In Parliament Square with Stephanie Davies-Arai of Transgender Trend

In front of the Supreme Court with the Darlington nurses, Jennifer Melle (furthest left) and Sandie Peggie (furthest right)

Thank you to everyone who turned up to mark For Women Scotland’s first anniversary!

Maya Forstater

In the news

Ahead of the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling, the news that the government plans to lay the ERHC code of practice after local elections was covered widely, including by Peter Walker and Libby Brooks for The Guardian, James Melley for BBC News, Martin Beckford for the Daily Mail and Daniel Martin for The Telegraph. Maya said that the government had found another excuse for delaying the guidance and that there appeared to have been negotiations regarding its content between the government and the EHRC. Maya was interviewed on the story by TalkTV by Julia Hartley-Brewer and Ian Collins, and Fiona was interviewed by Carole Walker on Times Radio.

On the eve of the anniversary, Sonia Sodha for The Times mentioned pressure from Sex Matters on the Cabinet Office to withdraw its unlawful model policy regarding trans-identifying employees, which applies across the civil service.

Reports on public bodies flouting the law dominated headlines on the day of the anniversary. David Churchill and Martin Beckford for the Daily Mail reported on widespread defiance within the NHS, police, local authorities and schools. Helen said that the failure of public bodies to adopt policies based on biological sex has caused untold harm to women and girls.

Martin Beckford for the Daily Mail and Daniel Martin for The Telegraph reported on research finding that more than a dozen councils across England have put forward motions criticising the Supreme Court ruling. Fiona asked why these councils are wasting time and resources like this.

Helen was interviewed by Georgina Mumford for Spiked TV to mark the anniversary of the ruling.

At the weekend, Maya was interviewed by Nana Akua on GB News on a blistering interview former EHRC chair Baroness Kishwer Falkner gave to Daniel Martin at The Telegraph on her experience of being at the helm of the equalities watchdog for five years.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting’s comments on the complications of implementing single-sex wards were covered by Martin Beckford for the Daily Mail. Maya said that Streeting’s focus on trans-identifying women was pure deflection and that accommodating them cannot be an excuse for delaying the exclusion of men from women-only wards. Helen was interviewed about the story on LBC by Nick Ferrari.

Earlier in the week, Fiona wrote for the Daily Express on the fallout from nurse Jennifer Melle’s case against the NHS for “misgendering”, saying that the NHS needs to cure itself of gender madness before more people are harmed.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

Next week it will be a year since the Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgment that the terms “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex.

Clarifying the law was an incredible achievement, against all odds, for a grassroots group of women organising around their kitchen tables. It was the outcome of years of patient work, visionary courage and sheer bloody-mindedness by Trina Budge, Marion Calder and Susan Smith of For Women Scotland. With that ruling they achieved more in a single day than most people manage in a lifetime.

But while some organisations have got on with it and changed their policies (this week it was the Darts Regulation Authority), too many are still resisting or delaying.

I’m sure you’re as fed up as I am of hearing well-paid senior leaders of government departments, charities and regulators saying they are “waiting for guidance”. And I’m fed up with the government delaying publishing the guidance.

This week, with several other groups, we wrote to Keir Starmer about this delay. Along with the letter, we sent him a new report from Sex Matters that tells the stories of women who have experienced the consequences of the government’s failure to follow the law. It includes the stories of:

• a civil servant pushed out after raising concerns about policy compliance

• NHS staff disciplined for asserting sex-based boundaries

• women excluded from single-sex spaces, or penalised for objecting when those spaces are compromised

• athletes facing unfair competition and sanctioned for speaking out

• volunteers and carers deemed “unsuitable” for expressing mainstream opinions and safeguarding concerns.

We are grateful to everyone who told us their stories, and we will be collecting more.

On Saturday 11th April members of the Sex Matters team and friends will be reading out our letter to the Prime Minister in London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast and Sunderland as part of the #OneYearLater protests. We will be speaking alongside women telling their own stories about how the government’s failure to act is leading to harm.

If you can make it to one of the protests, we hope to see you there. If you would like to help us hand out Sex Matters flyers, make yourself known on the day!

Maya Forstater

Download the booklet

Write to your MP

FWS one year later

In this week’s episode, Maya and Helen talk about our latest publication, One year later, which tells the stories of individual women harmed by the failure to implement the Supreme Court ruling. A year after the landmark judgment, we are still hearing distressing stories of ordinary people being treated terribly simply because they want single-sex spaces, because they spoke up about safeguarding risks caused by ignoring the reality of sex or because they were open about their lack of belief in gender identity.

The law is clear: why are women waiting?

A year after the landmark Supreme Court judgment, we look at the harm caused to women and girls by the government’s failure to enforce it.

Read our new booklet now and share it on social media.

Read more

Write to your MP: why are we waiting?

Organisations are still prevaricating on single-sex spaces and the government is still stalling. Use our template to email your MP today and send them a copy of our new booklet, One year later.

Take action now!

In the news

This week’s roundup includes coverage in the lead-up to Easter.

Kevin Duguid for The Scottish Sun broke the news that murderer Paris Green, a man who says he identifies as female, is being moved to a male prison – a year after he was found to have caused physical harm to a female prison officer. Helen said that Green should never have been in a women’s prison. The news was also covered by Dean Herbert for the Scottish Daily Mail (print only).

Jacinta Taylor for the Mail on Sunday broke the news that the Office for National Statistics will not include a question on gender identity in the 2027 Census test. Fiona welcomed the news and said that the census should simply ask about sex, male or female, and instruct respondents to answer honestly.

Dan Roan for BBC Sport wrote a feature article on the International Olympic Committee’s decision to protect the female category at the Olympic Games on the basis of sex. Fiona warned that several sports in the UK have two-tier policies that provide fairness only for the top women; policies similar to the IOC’s need to be adopted by every governing body. Hadley Freeman for The Sunday Times referred to our Hampstead ponds legal case in her commentary on the story.

Janet Murray for The Telegraph continued her coverage on the implementation of Girlguiding’s new policy of excluding trans-identifying men and boys from being leaders and guides, reporting that there could be the risk of legal action between now and September. Maya said that the previous policy was obviously dangerous as well as unlawful: the organisation must mitigate these risks with interim policies.

Tim Sigsworth for the The Telegraph reported that ITV will portray Queen Elizabeth I as a trans-identifying man in an upcoming historical drama. Maya said that some in the arts sector seem to think that portraying historical female figures such as Joan of Arc as trans-identifying is edgy, but viewers who are already sick of gender ideology may vote by switching off.

The Times reported on the court ruling upholding the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s interim guidance on single-sex facilities following a legal challenge by the Good Law Project, in which Sex Matters intervened.

Helen wrote for her column in The Critic that women who play along with gender ideology are doing what many women have always done in the face of unreasonable male demands: placate and fawn because that’s safer and more profitable than female solidarity.

Writing for The Courier, Sean O’Neil reported that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has said that Professor Jacob George recused himself from the controversial puberty-blocker trial, rather than being recused by the regulator. Maya said that any reasonable person could have concluded that George had been under pressure to quit and that however the recusal played out, the central point is that the MHRA did not follow proper procedures when George came under fire.

The news that the Darts Regulation Authority (DRA) has barred trans-identifying men from the female competition was covered by BBC Sport, Martyn Ziegler for The Times, Ed Griffiths for GB News, and David Churchill for the Daily Mail. A report commissioned by the DRA and authored by Sex Matters chair Emma Hilton in her capacity as a developmental biologist was quoted in media reports. Fiona said that men’s physical advantages in darts may each be small but they all add up.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

I spent 24th March at the Wembley Hilton with hundreds of charity CEOs for the annual conference of the Association of Chief Executive Officers of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO). I didn’t know if I would be welcome. But I am the CEO of a charity, and I have appreciated ACEVO’s practical support, so I put on my best “worthy of respect” face and joined them.

Jane Ide, CEO of ACEVO, told us that charities rank second only to doctors as the most trusted institutions in the UK. As it happens, charities and the healthcare professions are the two sectors that have done the greatest harm by accommodating and promoting the extremist demands of gender ideology.

None of the big-name charity CEOs talked to me, but plenty of others did. Over the course of the day several people came up and said “Thank you”. One asked if I was speaking (“Not this year!”); others listened with obvious surprise when I told them my story and the stories of women like Roz Adams and Sandie Peggie (it’s amazing what you can miss if you read nothing but The Guardian and watch nothing but the BBC). A few looked askance when they spotted me and made a quick getaway.

Many people said: “It’s so nuanced and complicated.” I tried not to lose my patience. It’s actually quite straightforward, I replied. There are two kinds of people: male and female. There are three kinds of spaces: male, female and unisex. Maybe that’s a bit basic for the “it’s nuanced” crowd, but it happens to be true.

In 2023 hundreds of charity CEOs signed the I Stand With Trans declaration. The campaign defined “transphobic behaviour” to include misgendering, deliberate exclusion from physical spaces and propagating the idea of trans as being an ideology.

That campaign, which was a proud declaration to commit unlawful belief discrimination, is now defunct, and the vibe even in the charity sector has shifted. I didn’t hear anyone declare their pronouns from the stage, the toilets hadn’t been performatively made gender-neutral for the event, and none of the speakers (one was Simon Blake, CEO of Stonewall) used their slot to hand-wring about the reset of expectations on trans rights. Instead they talked about international relations, the cost of national insurance, what to do with AI, and large-scale inequalities such as race, class, age and disability.

Most charities seem to have moved on from the briefly fashionable obsession with trans “inclusion”. The latest edition of Charity Times includes an overheated and under-informed article on the Supreme Court judgment, but the layout, all pink and blue ribbons, and the journalist, a signatory to I Stand With Trans, seem behind the times. The latest charity pledge, Third sector against transphobia, has a much less impressive list of signatories. The group promoting it is closed and secretive, as is the one behind Unlock the GATE, the campaign to continue to allow boys into Girlguiding.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance will eventually be put before Parliament, and the Charity Commission might finally produce some guidance of its own. By now it is obvious to anyone with any common sense that a charity, like any other institution, needs to run on reality in order to succeed in its mission.

One of the themes of the day was collective courage. There hasn’t been much from the sector. Adopting trans ideology creates a conflict of interest that is kryptonite for governance. Maybe they will ask me to speak about this next year. I’m not holding my breath.

If you want to hear and be part of something inspiring, I’ve just come across the Unsilenced Project. It’s a collection of oral histories from those affected by the modern trans movement gathered by Suzanne Malyon, a gender-critical campaigner based in Scotland. There are so many stories to be told from this extraordinary time by ordinary people who found the courage to refuse.

Maya Forstater

Boys told to leave Girlguiding

Maya and Helen discuss Girlguiding’s recent decision to reverse its policy of allowing boys who identify as girls to join its groups. They trace the history of the charity’s move towards “inclusive” policies, the failure of the Charity Commission and other regulators to provide the necessary leadership, and the practical safeguarding risks that follow when a supposedly female-only organisation admits boys under the pretence that they are girls.

Protests planned for one year later

On Saturday 11th April, nearly a year after the Supreme Court confirmed that sex means sex in the Equality Act, the grassroots group @acts_grassroots is organising a series of #OneYearLater protests against the government’s inaction at locations across the country. Everyone is welcome – just turn up and make your voice heard.

Read more…

MPs debate the puberty-blocker trial

Fiona McAnena with James Esses, whose petition secured the debate

A Westminster Hall debate on the petition to cancel the puberty-blocker trial was held on Monday 23rd March. We summarise the arguments of the 12 MPs who spoke for the petition and the six who spoke in favour of the trial.

Read more…

In the news

It was a bumper week for news on sex and gender. The International Olympic Committee’s decision to bar male athletes from female events was covered globally. Fiona was quoted in many stories, including those by Lori Ewing and Iain Axon for Reuters, Dan Roan for the BBC Sport and Oliver Brown for The Telegraph. Welcoming the news, she said that women have been cheated of medals and of fairness in sport for years, and that this change must not be solely for elite competition. Sean Ingle for The Guardian quoted Sex Matters’ chair, developmental biologist Dr Emma Hilton, who said that SRY screening is a simple, non-invasive, once-in-a-lifetime check that returns female sport to female athletes.

In broadcast coverage of the story, Helen was interviewed by Peter Cardwell on TalkTV and Fiona by Miriam Cates and Alex Armstrong on GB News, while Sex Matters’ statement was mentioned on BBC Radio 4 and Radio 5.

Girlguiding UK’s announcement that trans-identifying boys will need to leave groups by September was covered by Jessica Murray for The Guardian, Michael Sheils McNamee for BBC News, Sanchez Manning for The Times, Gabriella Swerling for The Telegraph and Eleanor Harding and David Churchill for the Daily Mail. Helen said that Girlguiding had shown no concern for girls’ boundaries and failed to think clearly about what boys confused about their sex really need, which isn’t validation in a falsehood.

Jacob Freedland for The Telegraph broke the news that employment judges have received “awareness” training from transactivist groups. Maya said that training by Scottish Trans raises questions about the influence of gender ideology on the Scottish judiciary.

Will Bolton for The Telegraph and Richard Ashmore for the Daily Express reported that Vivenne Taylor, a trans-identifying man who stalked and threatened the female surgeon who did his gender-reassignment surgery, has been moved to the trans wing at the women’s prison HM Downview. Fiona pointed out that trans-identifying men in Downview have access to women’s facilities and even mix with female prisoners. Helen discussed the story with Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkTV.

Maya wrote for the Daily Express on the Crown Prosecution Service referring to trans-identifying male murderer Aurin Makepeace as female and omitting the fact that Makepeace had met his victim when both were serving sentences in a men’s prison.

Maya was also quoted by Chris Hastings for the Mail on Sunday on Harriet Harman’s dismissive comments on the late Jenni Murray, saying that Murray’s principled stand was an integral part of her feminism rather than, as Harman insultingly insinuated, detracting from it.

Crowdfund to keep men out of the Ladies’ Pond

Thank you to everyone who donated to get us this far. We’ve increased our target to enable the next stage in this case!

Donate now…

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

On Friday 13th March I spoke on a panel about the Equality Act with Susan Smith of For Women Scotland and Akua Reindorf KC, at the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference in York. I talked in simple language about the purpose of the Equality Act and clarity and comprehensiveness of the For Women Scotland judgment.

I started by reading out paragraph 209 of the judgment:

“In short, the core provisions to which we have referred, which refer to sex, man or woman, are not capable of being read fairly and consistently with [changing sex ‘for all purposes’] without defeating their purpose and meaning. The definition of these terms… is not capable of being interpreted on the basis of certificated sex. Rather, sex has its biological meaning throughout this legislation: ‘woman’ always and only means a biological female of any age.... It follows that a biological male of any age cannot fall within this definition; and ‘woman’ does not mean or sometimes mean or include a male of any age who holds a GRC or exclude a female of any age who holds a GRC. To reach any other conclusion would turn the foundational definition of sex on its head and diminish the protection available to individuals and groups against discrimination on the grounds of sex.”

It couldn’t be clearer.

Nearly a year ago, when we all came out of the Supreme Court, we thought that perhaps we could all shut up shop and go home. Organisations that care about the inclusion of women and girls in public life would recognise that defeating the purpose and meaning of the law that protects women and girls against sex discrimination is bad. It’s bad not only because it harms women and girls directly, but also because it corrodes institutions when they systematically say one thing while doing another.

We thought the people who had allowed this harmful confusion about the law to take hold in their institutions would take this opportunity to put things right. Some might even say sorry. But they didn’t. Many hid behind the dog-eared excuse of “waiting for guidance”, and some started actively looking for loopholes.

Last week I wrote to the general counsel of Marks & Spencer’s (you can read more in our blog post: see below). He had written to me telling me that I was mistaken in thinking M&S allows men into women’s changing rooms. He said it simply doesn’t have women’s changing rooms at all. I wrote back with evidence that M&S advertises on its own website store-by-store that it has “fitting rooms(men)” and “fitting rooms(women)”.

We also heard about the King’s Trust (formerly the Prince’s Trust), a charity founded by King Charles in 1976, advertising a boxing and fitness programme for disadvantaged 16–25 year old girls and young women in Bristol, but allowing boys and young men who identify as female to take part. Shockingly, it decided to scrap the programme rather than risk having to tell young men who get a kick out of hitting women and girls that they aren’t welcome.

We’ve heard how the Women’s Institute group in Kentish Town has been refused a booking by the venue it used to meet in now that the charity is explicitly for women only. The venue that turned it away is another charity set up for women. And we’ve heard from women attending a women’s group run by a mental-health charity that they have been told the group is now not female only but for “anyone who wants to discuss women’s mental health”.

We have met the CEO of the Charity Commission and told him all this, and now we will write and tell him again. It is so dispiriting that organisations whose purpose is to help people would rather remove opportunities for women to be safe, to keep fit or to improve their mental health than stand up to those who regard these objectives as secondary to making sure trans-identifying individuals always get what they want.

In more cheering news, we heard at the end of last week that the Court of Appeal agrees that our case on the Hampstead Ponds is arguable. We are seeking to demonstrate that organisations exposing women to discrimination and harassment cannot use these kinds of wordgames as a defence. Thank you to everyone who has donated to our ponds case crowdfunder so far. Hopefully we will be back in court soon.

On Saturday 11th April the grassroots group behind the #199DaysLater protest is organising a series of events across the country to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court judgment, and to protest against inaction. There will be events in London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Sunderland, Plymouth and Belfast and in four international locations. We will be there. We hope you will join us!

Maya Forstater

Women’s pool goes to High Court

Man appeals against exclusion from women’s tournament

This week Fiona and Helen discuss the case of Harriet Haynes, a trans-identifying male pool player who took the England Blackball Pool Federation to court last year because it restricted entry to women’s events to women. After losing in the county court, he has been granted permission to appeal. If the original verdict is upheld, that will set a strong precedent protecting all women’s sporting competitions against legal challenge from aggrieved trans-identifying men.

Read our case briefing.

M&S warned over mixed-sex changing rooms

Sex Matters has written to warn Marks & Spencer that its policy of advertising male and female changing rooms but then operating them as mixed-sex facilities could amount to indirect discrimination and harassment towards women.

Read more…

Hampstead Ponds: judicial review going ahead

We have won our appeal against the High Court’s refusal in February to allow us challenge the City of London’s gender-identity policy at the bathing ponds on Hampstead Heath.

Read more…

Crowdfund to keep men out of the Ladies’ Pond

We’ve increased our target to enable the next stage in this case! Thank you to everyone who donated to get us this far.

Read more…

In the news

The news that Sex Matters won our appeal to proceed with our legal challenge against the gender self-ID policy at Hampstead ponds was covered by BBC News, Sanchez Manning for The Times (print only), Aidan Radnedge for Mail Online, Jess Glass for Ham & High, and Ben Lynch for My London. Maya said that the government’s failure to publish updated guidance following last year’s Supreme Court judgment has provided an excuse to continue flouting the law on single-sex provision.

Daniel Martin for The Telegraph covered Sex Matters’ letter to Marks & Spencer (M&S) warning that its policy of mixed-sex changing rooms could amount to indirect discrimination and harassment towards women. Maya said that it is astonishing that M&S has decided that pretending no-one needs single-sex changing rooms is better than possibly having to say No to a man pretending to be a woman.

Also for The Telegraph, Ben Rumsby broke the news that trans-identifying male pool player Harriet Haynes has been granted permission to appeal against a judgment that he can lawfully be excluded from women’s competitions. Fiona said that men don’t belong in anything that is specifically for women, but it seems some are determined not to hear that clear, simple message.

Sam Merriman for the Daily Mail broke the news that the King’s Trust (formerly Prince’s Trust) decided to cancel a boxing course for disadvantaged girls and young women instead of preventing trans-identifying boys and young men from participating. Helen said that it’s outrageous that a registered charity would rather remove opportunities for young women than tell men who identify as women that their identity doesn’t give them the right to punch women.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate

Fiona with Heather Binning, Venice Allan and Helen Joyce on lobby day
Photo: Belinda Jiao

On Tuesday 10th March the Sex Matters team, together with around 200 women and men, took part in a mass lobby of Parliament to tell MPs that the puberty-blocker trial will harm children and must not go ahead. The action was a joint effort by LGB Alliance, Sex Matters and Women’s Rights Network, co-ordinated at Westminster by Emma Hartley and Venice Allan. The size of this lobby sends a strong message to parliamentarians.

We managed to sit in on some people’s meetings with their MPs. It was heartening to hear them listening and asking questions, and seeing that constituents who care about this are coming from a place of compassion. Even those MPs who didn’t come down to meet their constituents will have registered that someone cared enough to come all the way to Westminster in the hope of meeting them.

Following the lobby day, you can still write to your MP with the message that it is not ethical for clinicians to offer children harmful medical treatments on the promise that they can live their lives in stealth, pretending to be the other sex. This fiction is disastrous for them and harms everyone around them too.

The two asks for MPs are:

• Tell the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that you are not persuaded that the trial is safe or ethical.

• Attend the Westminster Hall debate on Monday 23rd March, when the petition to “cancel the clinical trial into puberty blockers & safeguard vulnerable children” will be debated.

We want MPs to speak up. They may feel that they should “leave it to the experts”, but most people know instinctively that children are too young to be pushed onto a medical pathway with lifelong consequences, and too immature to fully comprehend what this pathway entails.

Whether or not you’ve taken part in this lobby day, you can take action now. Please email your MP, using the WRN’s draft email – customise it if you can so it isn’t easily dismissed.

The topic is bleak but the mood in the pub afterwards was optimistic. Several people told me they were encouraged and energised by taking part. It feels as if awareness of this is growing. In our short speeches, Helen said: “This is democracy in action.” I said that speaking up is better than the alternative. MPs who agree with us can say their constituents are concerned. MPs who disagree cannot say this issue doesn’t come up.

Let’s keep the pressure on – email your MP to ask them: Are you really sure that permitting a medical trial blocking the puberty of physically healthy children is a responsible thing to do?

Fiona McAnena

Cambridge University Society of Women

In this week’s episode of our podcast, Sex Matters’ Nicole Jones speaks to Maeve Halligan, Thea Sewell and Serena Worley, co-founders of the Cambridge University Society of Women (CUSW).

CUSW is the only openly and proudly single-sex society for women at the University of Cambridge. When it launched, it quickly surpassed its crowdfunding goal and became a sign of hope for women across the UK, showing that a new generation of feminists is pushing back against the harms done by trans ideology to women’s rights.

Nicole talks to Maeve, Serena and Thea about what led them to their current views on women’s rights, how they met, why they decided to start the society together and the society’s work.

You can see what CUSW is up to by following it on Substack, X/Twitter and Instagram, and by visiting its website.

New poll shows most people prefer single-sex toilets and changing rooms

Our most recent poll shows most people do not agree that trans-identifying people should be allowed to use the facilities of their choice, and even Labour and Green voters and 18–24 year-olds prefer single-sex facilities in workplaces and public spaces.

Read more…

Blocking puberty is a human-rights abuse – call off this drug trial no

Systematic reviews have found little or no evidence to support the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors who identify as the opposite sex. Yet the NHS has offered life-changing hormone treatments to distressed minors for more than a decade. We report on this medical scandal.

Read more…

Timeline of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for children

This new page tracks the political and regulatory steps leading to the approval of the puberty-blocker trial, and the expert, legal and campaigning challenges against it.

Read more…

In the news

The news that NHS England is pausing the prescription of cross-sex hormones to 16- and 17-year olds following a review which found “weak” evidence of their effectiveness was widely covered by the press. Ellie Crabbe for PA Media broke the story, published in The Independent and many other UK newspapers, with further coverage by Alison Holt for the BBC, Andrew Gregory for The Guardian and Lauren Gordon for The Mirror. Helen said that the pause needs to be made permanent.

Sex Matters’ new polling, which found that more than 8 in 10 people prefer single-sex toilets and changing rooms in public places, was broken in the press by Katie Harris for the Daily Express (print only). Fiona said that this polling demonstrates that any excuse from the government relating to the “complexity” of implementing single-sex facilities is a farce.

Sean O’Neil for The Courier also covered the poll, focusing on the finding that 86% of respondents prefer single-sex changing rooms and showers in the workplace. Fiona said that the public felt most strongly about showers and changing rooms at work, perhaps alerted by high-profile cases such as those of Sandie Peggie and the Darlington nurses.

Aaron Newbury for the Daily Express covered the news that Labour has appointed Lisa Pinney to head the Fair Work Agency, which oversees the enforcement of employment rights. Pinney was on the board of Stonewall during the period when it was advising schools to accommodate trans-identifying children as if they had changed sex. Fiona said Pinney’s past comments on trans-identifying people’s rights being “under attack” were concerning, and that she should focus on the law in her new role and stand up for women’s rights at work.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate now

Sex Matters is five years old and this is our 229th weekly memo!

Thank you to everyone who has supported us since we started. It is your donations that make it possible for Sex Matters to do the work it does, and your acts of integrity and defiance that make it worthwhile.

Sex Matters is a small team trying to shift a big system. Working with others, we aim to help you speak up, use the law and take action in your own life, workplace and organisations.

This week in the podcast, Helen and I talk about the genesis of Sex Matters. It was dreamt up on a trip I made to Edinburgh in 2020 with lawyers Anya Palmer and Rebecca Bull, who went on to become two of our trustees. There we met Nicole Jones, who now works as our head of creative and social media (the picture above is from that trip).

We also discuss Sex Matters’ strategy, which I boil down to three areas where we fight back against the capture of institutions by gender ideology – single-sex services, protecting children and fixing the data – and three ways of working – Plan A, Plan B and Plan C.

Plan A is where we started: from my case and what it represented. It shouldn’t take courage to say that sex is real and sex matters. If we can make it safer and easier for people to speak up at work, they will be able to do their jobs with integrity and take back their organisations.

Plan B is to influence laws and policies. Gender ideology has been imposed from the top down, and we need to address its causes at the top by lobbying government and powerful institutions and by bringing legal cases to make the law clear at the highest level.

Plan C is “We’ll see you in court!” This means showing that organisations will be held accountable. We can’t fight every battle in court, but we can pick strategic cases that demonstrate that the law is clear, that everyone has human rights and that organisations should follow the law and risk real costs if they don’t.

The three approaches are interlinked. But we don’t know which one will work in any situation. Last week we heard that the puberty-blockers trial had been halted. We thought this was Plan B and Plan C working: legal pressure and perhaps politicians stepping up.

It turns out it was Plan A: one brave man stood up and did his job. Professor Jacob George, the chief medical officer at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), refused to “live within the lie”. He raised issues about the safety of the trial and asked to reopen discussions with the research team. Retribution was swift. He has been recused from playing any part in overseeing the trial and had his good name besmirched across the media.

I wrote a letter to the MHRA pointing out that this scandal undermines trust in medical regulation in the UK. It is also unlawful, contrary to the MHRA’s legal duty not to discriminate against or harass employees on the basis of belief.

How did Professor George find his courage? I think it is in no small part because, as a professor at the medical school in Dundee, he will have followed the case of Sandie Peggie closely. He is clearly appalled by what it demonstrated: medical professionals willing to claim publicly that they do not understand the basic facts of life and to bully and harass those who do.

Because one brave nurse stood up on Christmas Eve 2023 and said No to a man undressing in the women’s changing room, a brave doctor stood up at the heart of the medical establishment in 2026 and said No to sterilising yet another cohort of gay, confused and troubled young people.

Because I stood up in 2019, both Professor George and Sandie Peggie knew they had protection against belief discrimination.

And because For Women Scotland fought a battle through the courts to establish that sex in the Equality Act really means sex, we all know that the edifice of institutional gender ideology was built on legally faulty foundations.

Because of your support and your acts of integrity and determination we are able to keep going. It may take another five years, or another ten, to get back to organisations routinely recognising and respecting sex-based rights. But no matter how long it takes, I am sure that working together we will get there.

Maya Forstater

A small charity with outsize influence

Sex Matters turns five!

In this week’s podcast Maya and Helen look back at Sex Matters’ origins. They reflect on how much easier it has become to speak out about sex-based rights at work – although shocking cases continue, such as that of Professor Jacob George, who was recused from oversight of the puberty-blocker trial for lawful, factual views on sex and gender identity.

Case briefing updated

Following the judgment in the case of Bethany Hutchison and others v County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust, we have updated our case briefing. Updates to other case briefings and briefings on cases we have not yet covered will follow.

Read more…

In the news

With news space squeezed by world affairs, the top story on our patch this week was the recusal of Professor Jacob George from the puberty-blocker trial after a handful of his posts on X dating from before he joined the MHRA, one of the regulators involved in oversight of medical research, were dredged up to suggest that his “gender-critical” views made him unsuitable to be involved.

A Sunday Times piece on the story by Ben Spencer and Shaun Lintern that made much of Professor George’s posts and which quoted clinicians associated with an unquestioning approach to “gender affirmation” included a short quote from Helen, pointing out that Professor George’s views are mainstream and that there is no reason for him to be recused from assessing the puberty-blocker trial.

Hayley Dixon for The Telegraph broke the news that Maya wrote to the MHRA on behalf of Sex Matters calling on the regulator to reinstate Professor George to his role in the trial.

Sean O’Neil for The Courier covered Sex Matters’ intervention along with the local angle: Professor George had been based at Dundee University.

Maya’s letter was also quoted by Joan Smith in UnHerd, in an article arguing that the real scandal is the witch hunt and overreaction by organisations to the expression of perfectly normal beliefs.

It’s not too late to come to our lobby day

​Registration has now closed. While you won’t receive information and briefings if you didn’t sign up before registration closed, you can still attend Parliament on 10th March and lobby your MP. We will be there all afternoon, outside the public entrance to the Houses of Parliament and inside, in Westminster Hall. Anyone can go through security and, once inside, can send a message to their MP asking to meet. There will be volunteers in Westminster Hall to help you do this.

The Westminster Hall debate on the puberty-blockers trial has been moved to 23rd March, so we want people to ask their MPs to attend. Even if you can’t come to Westminster on the 10th, you can email your MP about the debate on the 23rd.

If you’d like this memo in your inbox every Friday at teatime, join our mailing list now.

Sign up

Sex Matters survives on your support.
Without it, we simply wouldn’t exist.

Sex Matters can deliver essential research and analysis, help shape the debate, and empower people with clear, published guidance on their rights – but only with your support. Please contribute what you can to keep us going.

Donate