Published on 8th July 2026, and removed just days later on 10th July, the Growing threat report is a new low for a once-great organisation founded on the rigorous gathering of evidence and the defence of free expression.

A sister report Like a snowball: the growth and impact of the gender critical movement in the UK, published in May 2026, remains live online and bemoans the normalisation of  “all manifestations of GC belief, including misgendering and talking about trans people with reference to their ‘biological sex’ and trans women as ‘biological males’.”

Amnesty’s public expressions of animosity and unevidenced slurs towards those with gender-critical views not only harm the reputation of gender-critical groups but also create a hostile environment for its own gender-critical staff, and set the organisation in opposition to its own charitable objects. 

Amnesty made a submission in the 2025 case of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers: its proposed interpretation of the Equality Act was rejected by the Supreme Court, which judged that it would undermine the protection of rights, making the legal protections against sex discrimination, sexual-orientation discrimination and gender-reassignment discrimination “incoherent” and “unworkable”.

Rather than admit that its approach took a wrong turn, Amnesty has doubled down.

The Growing threat and Like a snowball reports present gender-critical views as “transphobia” and groups such as the Gay Men’s Network and Beira’s Place rape crisis centre as shady, nefarious and driven by misogyny and homophobia. 

Stephanie Davies-Arai of Transgender Trend received a British Empire Medal for services to children for her work exposing the harms of unevidenced gender medicine. For Women Scotland won the Scottish Herald’s Public Campaign of the Year and the Emma Humphreys Memorial Prize given by the Centre for Women’s Justice. LGB Alliance, Sex Matters and FiLia are registered charities, recognised as pursuing goals in the public interest.

Following Mermaids’ failed attempt to have LGB Alliance struck off the charity register, the Charity Commission explicitly warned: 

“Demonising and undermining those who think differently is not acceptable behaviour from any charity on our register.”

The affected organisations are not letting the matter drop with a quiet deletion. Amnesty’s postbag is full of letters and its board members are facing calls to:

• provide the specific evidential basis relied upon for these classifications, or admit that none exists
• withdraw both reports in their entirety
• issue a public apologies to the individual groups smeared, as well as to its own gender-critical staff and supporters
• commit to comprehensive training for staff and trustees on UK equality and discrimination law.

It is time for Amnesty’s leadership to look honestly at legal reality, respect the pluralism of human rights advocacy, and engage in constructive dialogue rather than defamation.

What the letters said

Children of Transitioners and Trans Widows’ Voices said:

“The inclusion of small, grassroots victim-support organisations such as ours within a report describing an ‘anti-rights movement’ risks serious reputational harm, may deter vulnerable women and children from seeking support, and creates the impression that the experiences and human rights of the people we support have been discounted.”

For Women Scotland said:

“On page 2 of your report, however, you claim that the ruling has contributed to a “significant decline in protections for LGBT+ rights” with no reference to the fact that the Judges considered lesbian, gay and bisexual rights as well as the rights of those covered by gender reassignment and concluded that a certificated sex interpretation would be hugely damaging to these groups.”

Gay Men’s Network said:

“We consider that your report is a deeply silly and malicious piece of low politics designed to ‘evidence launder’ a list of undesirable gay and lesbian organisations and actors such that it can be quoted by those who seek, (like you) to control gay and lesbian free speech and open discourse.”

LGB Alliance said:

“Having lost the argument at the UK Supreme Court, Amnesty has now taken the extraordinary step of branding LGB Alliance (along with For Women Scotland and numerous other organisations) part of an ‘anti-rights’ movement. It somehow neglected to add the Supreme Court.”

Sex Matters said: 

“Allowing individual staff, campaigning teams or activists to use Amnesty’s name to launch campaigns that are not based on a solid understanding of human rights and the Equality Act is a reckless approach to governance and reputational, regulatory and legal risk, and a diversion from your mission.”

JK Rowling said:

“Beira’s Place hasn’t sent anything. Yet.”

Read all the letters

• Beira’s Place statement
• Beira’s Place letter
• CAN-SG
• Children of Transitioners and Trans Widows’ Voices
• FiLiA
• For Women Scotland
• Gay Men’s Network
• Genspect
• Keep Prisons Single Sex
• Labour Women’s Declaration
• Legal Feminist
• Lesbian Strength
• LGB Alliance
• LGB Alliance Cymru
• Liberal Voice for Women
• Merched Cymru
• Murray Blackburn Mackenzie
• Protect and Teach
• Safe Schools Alliance
• ScotPAG
• SEEN in Health
• SEEN in Journalism
• SEEN in Publishing
• Sex Matters
• Third Sector SEEN
• Thoughtful Therapists 
• Transgender Trend
• Women’s Rights Network

The post Amnesty faces backlash appeared first on Sex Matters.

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.

The post Sex, gender and free speech on campus appeared first on Sex Matters.

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 – see ‘Related content’ below.

The post Small claims explained appeared first on Sex Matters.

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). This may happen because you take gender-critical positions publicly, because you are known to the person committing the discrimination or because you have manifested your protected belief by complaining about the organisation’s policy of allowing people to use single-sex spaces based on gender identity, or about a person of the wrong sex in a single-sex space. 

The Supreme Court judgment of April 2025 had already made clear that when it comes to single-sex provision, “single sex” must mean what it says. But many organisations delayed fixing legally flawed self-ID policies, citing the excuse that they were waiting for the updated code. Now that it has been published, that feeble excuse no longer exists. When you complain, you can point to sections of the new code which spell out that discrimination on grounds of gender-critical belief is unlawful, and that trans-identifying people must not be granted permission to use opposite-sex spaces.

Quoting the code 

Here are the most relevant sections of the new code to cite when a service provider discriminates on the basis of gender-critical belief (emphasis added).

4.91 Less favourable treatment which is either because a person holds a religious or other protected belief, or because they have expressed such a belief, will normally constitute unlawful direct discrimination. This is the case even if the service provider, body exercising public functions or association, or a third party, objects to the belief or expression of the belief. 

The code makes clear that discriminating against someone because of a negative stereotype of people who share their belief is direct discrimination. This includes the stereotype that it is “transphobic” to hold or express “gender critical” beliefs: 

4.100 Examples of stereotypes in relation to religion or belief are that persons who hold or manifest certain gender-critical beliefs necessarily have negative attitudes towards trans people…. The judgment explains that: ‘it may be that some persons who hold / manifest such beliefs have such animus, but it is stereotyping to assume that all do.’ 

Service providers cannot lawfully permit trans-identifying people to use spaces or services for the opposite sex:

13.130 If a service provider… admits trans people to a service intended for the opposite sex, then it can no longer rely on the [single-sex and separate-sex exceptions]. This means that if a service is provided only to women and trans women or only to men and trans men, it is not a separate-sex or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010. 

13.131 A service like this is very likely to amount to unlawful sex discrimination against the people of the opposite sex who are not allowed to use it. A service which is provided to women and trans women could also be unlawful sex discrimination or lead to unlawful harassment against women who use the service. Similar considerations would apply to a service provided for men and trans men. 

13.107 …It is likely to be reasonable for a woman to object to the presence of a man if she will be getting undressed or in a vulnerable situation when she is using the service. 

Service providers may be legally liable for gender-critical belief discrimination committed by staff:

3.50 Service providers… need to take steps to ensure that discrimination, harassment and victimisation is not occurring.

3.51 A service provider… will be liable for unlawful acts committed by their employees unless they have taken reasonable steps to prevent such acts.

Prejudiced and proud

That gender-critical beliefs are protected under the characteristic of “religion or belief” in the Equality Act was established in 2021 in the precedent-setting case of Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and others. This means that subjecting someone to discrimination, harassment or victimisation for holding or manifesting gender-critical beliefs is unlawful, just as it would be if the person held some other protected belief such as, say, humanism or Judaism. But after years of gender-critical beliefs being widely presented as bigoted and “transphobic”, many people think otherwise. 

Being targeted by someone prejudiced, based on negative stereotypes about people who share your belief, is deeply upsetting. But the good news is that compared with other forms of unlawful discrimination, the evidence may be easy to gather. Unlike other forms of discrimination, discrimination against gender-critical people is often overt, even proud. The person or organisation involved may see it as a virtue (and might even wrongly think that the Equality Act requires them to exclude you). They may be willing to tell you in front of witnesses or in writing why they acted as they did.

When belief discrimination happens at work, the victim must take a case to the employment tribunal. 

For a case to do with services the correct jurisdiction is the county court. If the facts are complicated or disputed it is always worth talking to a lawyer, but if they are straightforward you may be able to use the small claims process to take action effectively. 

Here is our guide to how to take what is colloquially known as a “small claim” for belief discrimination against a service provider.

The post Fighting bigotry in service provision appeared first on Sex Matters.

There are four main types of unlawful discrimination: direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) explains what these are, and the protections offered by the Equality Act against discrimination on the basis of any of the nine “protected characteristics”. 

This guide focuses on discrimination in the provision of goods and services on grounds of “gender critical” belief – that is, the ordinary understanding that there are two sexes, that people’s sex cannot change and that recognising and talking about people’s sex is important in a range of situations.

It is not about how to complain if a service provider doesn’t offer single-sex services or spaces, either because it has a “trans inclusion” policy or because it has replaced single-sex spaces by “gender neutral” (that is, mixed sex) ones. This may also be unlawful, but it will be harder to establish. Here, we are specifically focusing on discrimination on the basis of belief – which may perhaps be revealed to a service provider by you complaining about the lack of single-sex provision.

Here are examples of the four types of gender-critical belief discrimination:

• You are refused service in a pub because you are wearing an Adult Human Female t-shirt. This is direct discrimination on grounds of gender-critical belief.
• You go into a club and see a sign on the wall saying “TERFs not welcome here”. This is direct discrimination against gender-critical people. It is also harassment because it creates an intimidating or hostile environment for gender-critical people. 
• You go into a female changing room at the gym and find a man there who has been granted access. You are told he is allowed to be there because he identifies as female. This policy is harassment (related to sex) by the service provider. It is also likely to be indirect discrimination, on the basis that it puts women at a particular disadvantage and cannot be objectively justified.
• If you make a complaint that you believe something is discriminatory (for example you complain that a “trans-inclusive” changing-room policy is discriminatory or that being required to share a changing room is harassment related to sex), that is what is known as a “protected act”. If you are subjected to a detriment because you made that allegation – for example your membership of a club is terminated – that is victimisation.

1. Time limits 

For bringing a discrimination claim for goods and services, the time limit is usually six months minus one day from when the discrimination occurred (for example if you were refused service at a pub, this would be the date that happened). Even if you are hoping to settle out of court, are awaiting the results of a data subject access request or have made a complaint that is still being considered, this time limit is important. 

Where the claim relates to a series of discriminatory incidents, the court may accept that together they count as a “continuing act”, and the time limit will then run from the date of the last act. If in doubt, claim as quickly as you can, as once the time limit runs out the service provider has no incentive to settle with you. 

If the court agrees it is just and equitable, it may be possible to bring a claim out of time.

2. Prepare to make a claim

Write or record a note of what happened as soon as you can, including all the details you can remember. Email this to yourself or a friend so that it has a date stamp. If you have evidence that shows the impact on you, for example if you incurred extra expenses or saw a doctor about stress, include this.

Before you start gathering evidence, consider who is the correct defendant. It will be important to write to the right organisation, and to get this right on the claim form if you end up bringing a claim. (If the service provider has no funds or assets, it may not be worth bringing a claim.)

Then collect all your evidence. This could include receipts, contracts, emails, photographs or videos, screenshots of anything that took place on social media, any notes you made at the time or notes from phone calls afterwards, and any statements from witnesses you are in touch with. Make a note of any dates. 

Rename any computer files such as emails, screenshots and photos to describe the contents, such as “receipt for drinks 21st Jan 2026”. This will help you keep track of the documents and help the other party to understand the evidence you send them. If there are a lot of documents, make a “master document” listing them in date order with a timeline of events. 

If you are considering legal proceedings, you have a duty to preserve all documents relevant to the issues, including any that are unfavourable to your case, as you may need to share these during the litigation as part of a process called disclosure. Failing to disclose documents when ordered to do so, or destroying relevant documents, can have serious consequences. “Documents” includes emails, WhatsApp messages, voice notes and so on, as well as formal documents. 

It may be worth making a data subject access request for any personal data held about you by the organisation involved. That might include, for example, emails or other messages discussing you or relating to any complaint you have made. Find out how to do this at the Information Commissioner’s Office.

3. Decide what compensation to ask for

You can ask to be compensated for any financial loss you have suffered. You will need to provide evidence of that loss (for example in the form of receipts), and you may also need to show that you took reasonable steps to mitigate the loss.

Whether or not you have suffered a financial loss, you can ask for compensation for “injury to feelings”. The court decides this case by case, based on ranges known as the “Vento bands”. An award for refusal of a service is likely to be in the lower Vento band, but it will depend on the specifics of the case. The court will typically take into account the seriousness, the duration, the impact on you including the degree of hurt and distress, and how any complaint was dealt with. Read the EHRC’s guidance and examples.

If the service provider’s behaviour has been particularly high-handed, insulting or oppressive, the court will occasionally award “aggravated damages” to compensate for the additional injury. Examples might include trivialising wrongdoing, oppressive conduct of litigation and unjustified allegations against the person bringing the claim.

The award is intended to compensate you rather than to punish the organisation, so in considering how much to claim, focus on the impact on you. Bear in mind that if you ask for an amount that cannot be justified, the service provider may simply refuse to settle and wait to see if you go to court. 

4. Write to the service provider

Once you have got your evidence together and decided what compensation to ask for, write a “letter before action” to the service provider. In this you will set out what happened, how you would like it to be resolved and what you would require to settle the case. You can adapt the template below (based on a claim in respect of belief discrimination) for the specifics of your case.

Your letter should express your intention to go to court unless the service provider settles. What you require for settlement will usually include financial compensation. If a booking or membership has been cancelled and you would like it reinstated, you should state this. You might also want to ask for an apology and assurance that the service provider will change its policy or train staff so that such discrimination is not repeated. 

Make sure your letter is honest and concise. Don’t exaggerate. Ask a friend to read it and let you know if there are any gaps or things they do not understand. 

Include the evidence you have gathered with the letter. Send it as soon as possible and well before the six-month time limit is up, to allow two or three weeks for the service provider to respond.

Use our template email

Our template letter is based on a claim in respect of belief discrimination.

5. Reaching an agreement

Ideally, the service provider will respond and either accept your claim or make a counter-offer, and you will be able to come to an agreement. This will usually specify the compensation and any other agreed terms that the service provider is offering if you waive your claim and agree to take no further legal action.

If the service provider responds with a counter-offer, consider whether to negotiate further. Negotiations conducted with a view to trying to reach agreement are known as “without prejudice”, meaning they are confidential and not in most cases disclosable to a court. This allows you to negotiate and hopefully reach a compromise acceptable to both sides. 

The service provider may seek to include other terms, for example that you do not discuss what happened publicly, or do not mention the provider by name or state the amount of any compensation. Consider whether to negotiate further: for example you may be prepared to keep the amount of compensation confidential, but want the right to talk about the case or tell people that your case was settled (particularly if the facts are already in the public domain, as you will need to respond to people who ask). Confidentiality provisions should not prevent you from reporting to a regulator or law-enforcement agency or getting medical support or legal advice.

Bear in mind that if you do not settle and instead go to court, the court will not order an apology or order training (unlike in employment cases, where the Employment Tribunal can make recommendations). On the other hand, if the court agrees that you were discriminated against, it will make a declaration to that effect which will be public.

6. If you cannot reach an agreement

If the service provider ignores your letter or you are unable to agree on a settlement, you can take a case to the county court. This can be done quite easily and quickly online (read the government guidance). If your claim is worth less than £10,000 it will be managed on what is known as the “small claims track”, which is intended to be less formal. 

To lodge a claim, you will have to pay a court fee, which varies depending on how much money you are asking for. For the smallest claims it is £35; for larger claims of up to £10,000 it is several hundred pounds; and for very large claims that involve serious monetary loss rather than injury to feelings it is much larger again. 

When you tell the service provider that you have lodged a claim, it may try again to reach a settlement. If this happens, you may decide to ask for it to pay the court fee as well. If you are still unable to settle, you may be able to enter mediation. 

If all else fails, you will need to go to court: the process can take several months to a year from start to finish.

If (eventually) you win, the judge will decide what compensation, if any, to award and the court will order the service provider to pay you. If the provider ignores the court order, the court will seek to collect the payment on your behalf.

Lots of good general advice on how to pursue a small claim is available online, for example at Advice Now and Making a small claim – Citizens Advice. You could also ask your local Citizens Advice Centre.

If you get as far as lodging a claim with the county court (England and Wales) or sheriff court (Scotland), you will need to send the EHRC information about your claim.

7. Costs

Normally in a small claim each party bears their own costs, and so apart from fixed costs such as the court fee and witness or expert costs, you will not be able to recover legal fees or other costs. Equally you are unlikely to be liable for the service provider’s costs even if you lose. 

In rare cases, if a party has behaved unreasonably in the litigation costs may be awarded to one party; for example, if the other party lied, failed to comply with a decision of the court in a way that increased the first party’s costs or unreasonably refused an offer to settle during the litigation and the other party reserved the right to mention this in costs.

Tell us

We cannot provide individual legal advice, but if you try this, do tell us if it works for you (or if it doesn’t).

The post Belief discrimination – take a “small claim” appeared first on Sex Matters.

Both Tim Davie, the BBC’s director-general, and Deborah Turness, chief executive of BBC News, resigned almost a week later – but BBC news teams reporting on the resignations have so far glossed over the role that transgender issues played. And the reply that Shah wrote to the committee does not acknowledge either the harm the BBC has done to its own reputation or the wider damage caused to its audiences by its long-term failures in reporting on sex and gender issues.

In the letter, Shah addresses in detail concerns about the broadcaster’s coverage of Trump and Gaza, but dismisses the disturbing findings and evidence reported by Prescott on the BBC’s coverage of trans issues, claiming that “much of the coverage met the BBC’s standards of impartiality and accuracy”. That defence ignores the stories that the BBC chose not to report on, and dismisses the damage done by years of misinformation about puberty blockers and medical transition.

The letter seems to show that the BBC is still in denial about the extent of its failures. Is the transactivist mindset so baked into the institution now that it is impossible for senior leadership, let alone journalists, to think objectively? Or is it too much to admit that the BBC has been complicit in promoting an ideology that has irreparably harmed vulnerable children, and set women’s and gay rights back decades?

Sex Matters wrote to the BBC’s board last week after the dossier was leaked, calling on its members to return the national broadcaster to its commitment to “pursuing the truth with no agenda”. 

The revelation that the BBC has been suppressing news about the dark side of gender ideology and instead serving up a diet of sunny promotional stories had come as no surprise. The alleged role of the “LGBTQ desk” as the graveyard for critical coverage of trans ideology, and of BBC internal staff networks as minders of other journalists’ stories, was well known. 

The dossier quoted David Grossman, the editorial guidelines and standards committee’s senior editorial adviser, who had warned that the BBC’s approach suggested that “the concept of gender identity is an established fact rather than contested”.

The culture and expectations at the BBC have been made clear by the proliferation of Progress Pride lanyards, management allowing trans-identifying males to use the women’s toilets, and a one-sided approach to complaints.

The dossier highlighted:

• stories raising concerns about the quality or safety of care given to gender-questioning children and adults receiving “little or no coverage”
• reporting that failed to reflect the experience of detransitioners
• more stories about the waiting times for people to receive care than examination of the quality of that care 
• a surprisingly high number of stories about drag queens 
• no coverage of the WPATH files leak which raised concerns about the quality of care given to gender-distressed children. 
• scant coverage of campaigning by, and the concerns of, gender-critical women
• failure to to cover the story of the Darlington nurses 
• no coverage on the issue of male police and prison officers being allowed to conduct strip searches on women and girls.

A significant reset is needed, which will take bravery and seriousness from the top. In our letter – as reported in The Telegraph today – we call on the BBC board to do five things: 

1. Root out the oppressive influence of transgender ideology in the organisation.
2. Replace activist language with normal language.
3. Stop normalising transgender ideology in BBC output.
4. Ensure that all BBC journalists can tell the unvarnished truth without fear. 
5. Retrain staff on core facts.

The post When will the BBC face up to the truth? appeared first on Sex Matters.

Looking back at 2018

In 2018 vice-chancellor Adam Tickell led Sussex University to set up an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Unit and join the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme. He promised that the university would “take bold action to transform the campus into one that is experienced as inclusive by all our communities”. 

Meanwhile, concerns about the then government’s plan to reform the Gender Recognition Act towards gender self-ID were growing. Sussex University philosophy professor Kathleen Stock was becoming concerned about both the topic and the lack of academic engagement with it.

Stock speaks up

On 7th May 2018 Stock wrote her first public words on the topic in a personal blog post: 

“Something is afoot in academic philosophy. Beyond the academy, there’s a huge and impassioned discussion going on, around the apparent conflict between women-who-are-not-transwomen’s rights and interests, and transwomen’s rights and interests. And yet nearly all academic philosophers — including, surprisingly, feminist philosophers — are ignoring it.”¹

She followed this with a second blog post on 13th May 2018 calling on fellow academics to stop treating “gender-critical” views as “transphobic” and to recognise that the position that sex matters is worthy of respectful examination.²

Her resolve to keep thinking and writing on the topic was strengthened when she began to receive emails from academics around the country saying that they shared her concern but were scared to say anything. As one wrote:

“I really don’t have a settled view on any of the many issues here, but the lack of conversation and the hounding and bullying of anyone who expresses a thought (not even opinion!) that isn’t popular… all that is depressing and distressing. Predictably enough, I won’t be saying any of that in a public post, because I’m a precariously employed person and a lot of folk who might make significant decisions about my future career prospects have very strong opinions. A little cowardly, but also prudent, sadly.”³

University commits to Stonewall scheme

In June 2018 Tickell launched a new equality, diversity and inclusion strategy,⁴ which included the goal of getting Sussex University into the Stonewall “Top 100” and securing Advance HE’s Athena Swan⁵ status across the university by 2025. The university began preparing to submit its first application to the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index, and reported that it had “started work with Stonewall and the LGBT+ Staff Network by reviewing relevant policies to ensure they are LGBT inclusive”.⁶

Stonewall and Advance HE were not simply promoting freedom from unlawful discrimination and harassment for trans people: they were seeking to stamp out “transphobia” from academic institutions, which Stonewall defined as “the fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including the denial/refusal to accept their gender identity”. 

This attempt to establish denial of the idea of gender identity as prohibited, hateful speech put them on a direct collision course with other people’s rights.

Debate on gender self-ID

On 3rd July 2018 Theresa May’s government opened a 16-week consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act “to make it easier for transgender people to change their legal gender on their birth certificate”.⁷ There could be little doubt that the intention was to press ahead with self-ID. Announcing the consultation in Parliament, minister Penny Mordaunt said: “Trans women are women. Trans men are men. And that is the starting point for the GRA consultation. And it will be its finishing point too.”⁸

Stock kept on being relentlessly reasonable in questioning this proposal and encouraging others to engage. On 5th July 2018 she gave an interview to Brighton newspaper The Argus.⁹ On 6th July 2018 The Economist published an article by her alongside viewpoints from all sides of the debate.¹⁰ On 16th July she spoke at a Woman’s Place UK meeting in Brighton.

In this talk she described a climate of fear in academia and named Stonewall as a cause: 

“By ‘trans activists’ I mean: organisations like Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, and so on: socially prominent, politically powerful, and rich. They have a simplified core political message. They aggressively push the mantra ‘trans women are women’, by which they apparently mean ‘literally women, in every possible sense’, and they promote self-ID.”¹¹

The bill was not long in coming. Stock drew the ire of Pink News,¹² students organised Facebook groups against her,¹³ and there was a protest on campus at the launch of the university’s strategic framework with placards naming her.

By 13th July 2018 Tickell was prompted to ask “those with different views and understandings to please show kindness to each other.”¹⁴

In September The Times carried a story about a Facebook group in which transactivist academics compiled a list of gender-critical colleagues and discussed how to oust them from their jobs by filing complaints. Members of the group claimed that Stock’s presence made the philosophy department at Sussex an “unsafe environment”.¹⁵

On 1st October 2018 The Conversation published an article by Stock.¹⁶ On 10th October she spoke at a Woman’s Place UK meeting at the House of Lords and highlighted the problem with Stonewall’s definition of transphobia.

“That makes anyone who denies that a transwoman is a woman, for whatever reason, transphobic — far outstripping what any reasonable law would prohibit.”¹⁷

On 16th October a group of gender-critical academics wrote a letter to The Guardian. Stock was the lead signatory.

“Many of our universities have close links with trans advocacy organisations who provide “training” of academics and management, and who, it is reasonable to suppose, influence university policy through these links. Definitions used by these organisations of what counts as “transphobic” can be dangerously all-encompassing and go well beyond what a reasonable law would describe. They would not withstand academic analysis, and yet their effect is to curtail academic freedom and facilitate the censoring of academic work.”¹⁸

University adopts hurried policy

One of the things that wins an institution points in the Stonewall Index is marking special days and weeks in the calendar. Transgender Awareness Week was 12th to 18th November 2018, followed by Transgender Day of Remembrance on 20th November.

In a message posted on 8th November, an anonymous administrator of the ‘Sussex Philosophy Students in Solidarity with Trans Students’ Facebook group boasted that “some of us are trying to hold people in positions of authority accountable” for Stock’s views.

On 12th November, it was proposed to the university that it adopt a Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement in time to announce it on Trans Day of Remembrance. Sussex University later told Stonewall that the process that resulted in this proposal was led by “the confidential membership of the Trans and Nonbinary Staff Network” and “its Chair who reports suggestions directly to the EDI unit”.¹⁹ 

A draft was presented to the university’s executive group the following day. It was based on a template from the Equality Challenge Unit (now called Advance HE) and included expansive provisions against “transphobia”, exactly what Stock had been warning about.²⁰

The senior decision-makers who made up the executive group thought the policy was insufficiently well developed and asked for it to be sent to the EDI committee before returning for more detailed discussion. They told the promoter of the policy: 

“If you feel we need to make a statement next Tuesday, this should be along the lines of ‘the University is supporting Trans Awareness Week and has committed to starting a conversation around the development of its Trans Equality Policy Statement’.” 

But the following day the executive group changed its mind. 

Instead of starting a conversation about what should be in a trans equality policy (which might have included Stock and others who shared her concerns), the group agreed to adopt the policy it had rejected the day before. 

This decision was taken at a meeting with a single agenda item. No separate minute was recorded.

It is not clear who or what brought about this handbrake turn, but it appears likely that whatever pressure the executive group was under came from people who wanted to send a clear signal that views like those expressed by Stock would not be tolerated. 

The Trans and Non Binary Equality Policy Statement agreed on in 2018 is a little over a page long. It includes the following statements:

• The curriculum shall not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people, and any materials within relevant courses and modules will positively represent trans people and trans lives.
• Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying (name-calling/ derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures.
• Transphobic propaganda, in the form of written materials, graffiti, music or speeches, will not be tolerated. We undertake to remove any such propaganda whenever it appears on the premises.²¹

Culture of fear

Stock has said that because of the policy, she was afraid to include the issue in her academic work. She said she:

“tried to raise the matter with superiors but to no avail… Over time, my teaching about sex and gender in feminist philosophy grew increasingly cautious, and most of my criticism of the sudden sanctification of gender identity took place elsewhere.”²²

Meanwhile the university ploughed on with trying to climb the Stonewall ladder. In June 2020 it published an action plan based on feedback from Stonewall and “in consultation with the LGBTQ+ Staff Network and the Trans and non-Binary Staff Network”. It told Stonewall that the university’s equality analysis process:

“ensures that policies are developed in discussion with employees with protected characteristics, guaranteeing that actual consultation takes place and that the voices of those affected by policies are heard early in the process of development. For example, the EDI unit sent the Guidance on Transitioning At Work draft document to the Trans and Nonbinary Staff Network for development.”²³

No one else’s views seem to have mattered.

It pledged to engage leadership at the highest level and to publish the annual messages of “commitment to LGBT+ inclusion”.

In 2020 the university signed up to a public “trans rights are human rights” campaign led by Stonewall,²⁴ supporting its political call for gender self-ID. In April 2021 the university established an LGBT+ Equality and Inclusion Self-Assessment Team to develop and oversee the delivery of an LGBT+ Equality and Inclusion Action Plan using the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index to “identify where further action is needed”. It said that it would arrange listening sessions “to hear the voices of LGBTQI+ staff and allies”.²⁵

Stock, a lesbian who disagreed with Stonewall, faced social isolation, investigations, public letters with mass signatures solicited online and an internal email campaign.

In May 2021 the Reindorf Review commissioned by Essex University was published. It exposed how accusations of transphobia are deployed to curtail academic freedom, and highlighted unlawful university policies developed through processes captured by internal and external lobby groups, and the culture of fear experienced by staff and students who disagree with gender-identity ideology.

In June 2021 the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that gender-critical beliefs were “worthy of respect in a democratic society” and protected by the Equality Act.

But the campaign against Stock intensified, and the university’s response continued to be inadequate. She filed a complaint to the university for its failure to support her.

According to a report in The Times, at the beginning of the new academic year in 2021 a student started “dropping into Whatsapp groups” and inviting others to get involved in a campaign to oust Stock. Around 15 students formed the group “Anti Terf Sussex” and began planning “Anti Stock Action”.²⁶

On 7th October they let off flares and pasted up posters around the university demanding that Stock be sacked.

The posters accused Stock of “transphobia” and of making students unsafe, and demanded that she be fired. 

Finally, on 8th October, the vice-chancellor went on the BBC’s Today programme to defend the “untrammelled right [of his academic staff] to say and believe what they think.”²⁷ 

It was too little, too late.

On Saturday 16th October nearly 100 people took over an open day at the University of Sussex to protest against her employment.²⁸ They yelled slogans including “Stock out!”, “Get Kathleen off our campus!” and “No Terfs here!”²⁹

The university released a statement saying: “Over the past two weeks, the University of Sussex has vigorously and unequivocally defended Professor Kathleen Stock’s right to exercise her academic freedom and lawful freedom of speech.”³⁰

Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, commented.³¹ Several open letters of support were organised: one by philosophers,³² one by legal academics³³ and one by the new organisation Sex Matters.³⁴

The OfS contacted the university on 22nd October 2021 seeking further information.

Stock went off sick because of the intimidation, and then resigned.³⁵

In a statement in the House of Lords on 16th November the education minister said that she had been informed by the Office for Students (OfS) that it had opened an investigation into whether the University of Sussex has met its obligations on academic freedom and freedom of speech.³⁶ 

OfS finds Sussex University has breached higher-education regulations

Three and a half years later the OfS has released its findings and fined Sussex University £585,000.³⁷

It found that the university had been breaching Conditions E1 and E2 of the OfS’s regulatory framework by adopting the trans and non-binary equality policy, and in the state of its decision-making.³⁸

Condition E1 protects academic freedom and freedom of speech.

“Academic staff at an English higher education provider have freedom within the law: 

• to question and test received wisdom; and 
• to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at the provider. 

The governing body takes such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured within the provider.”

The OfS found that the Trans and Non Binary Equality Policy Statement based on the Advance HE template resulted in the restriction of lawful speech, including in course materials and curricula, and created a wider chilling effect leading to self-censorship.

Condition E2 requires that:

“The provider must have in place adequate and effective management and governance arrangements to: 

 (i) Operate in accordance with its governing documents.”

The OfS report describes the rushed process by which the policy was adopted during that week in 2018. It also found that:

• The Prevent Steering Group approved and adopted the 2021 version of the university’s Freedom of Speech Code of Practice despite that group not having delegated authority to do so. 
• The 2023 version of the External Speakers’ Procedure was approved by the university’s executive group despite that group not having delegated authority to do so. 
• The executive group also approved the 2022 and 2023 versions of the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement, despite that group not having delegated authority to do so. 

The OfS says this meant that: 

“Decisions were made by individuals or groups that had not been identified by the university as appropriate decision-makers and there is a risk that this may have led to decision-making of a degraded quality, and as a result, decisions may not have been made in the best interests of students and staff, and in accordance with the university’s legal and regulatory obligations.” 

The baseline penalty for these breaches, aggravated by the fact that they were longstanding and not reported, was over £3.6 million. This was reduced to £585,000 to reflect that this was the first time the OfS has found breaches by a university in relation to freedom of speech and academic freedom.

The OfS also said that although it does not come within the area it regulates, the university may not have complied with its legal duties relating to freedom of speech under Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986; Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and the Equality Act 2010 in relation to indirect discrimination and the public-sector equality duty. 

Alison Johns, Chief Executive of Advance HE, has now written to VCs of member universities acknowledging that “certain policy statements cited in the findings originated, in part, from a template developed by the Equality Challenge Unit”. She says that the template does not reflect the institution’s current approach or guidance on free speech, protected beliefs and good relations, and encourages members to review their trans inclusion policies and web pages and remove “any legacy language” cited by the OfS.³⁹

Why didn’t Sussex stop?

Why was Sussex so unwilling to drop the faulty policy it had adopted so rashly and start again, involving a wider range of stakeholders, recognising that other people had an interest, and taking legal advice with a view to protecting people with all protected characteristics equally in compliance with the law? 

The answer seems to be that on this subject senior managers were exerting no leadership, and the only focused goal was gaining Stonewall 100 status by 2025.

At the end of 2019 the EDI deputy pro-vice-chancellor who had led on the initial strategy left and the university went through three interim appointments over the next three years. 

In June 2021 Tickell announced his intention to step down as vice-chancellor. He moved on to be vice-chancellor of Birmingham University. 

In October 2021 Sussex hired David Ruebain as its new pro-vice-chancellor of culture, equality and inclusion. The role was elevated to the executive group at the highest level of the institution. Earlier in his career Ruebain had been CEO of the ECU (the organisation where Sussex University’s bad policy had originated).⁴⁰

Professor Sasha Roseneil started her tenure as vice-chancellor at the beginning of August 2022. 

None of these people was willing to demonstrate the leadership and judgement they were paid for, and which were needed to take on and face down the “confidential trans network”. The treatment meted out to Stock, Falkner⁴¹ and JK Rowling made clear what would happen if they did. 

On 16th August 2022 the university released a slightly updated version of the policy.

• The requirement to represent trans people and trans lives positively in modules and courses was removed.
• The stereotyping statement was amended to read: “The curriculum shall not rely on or seek to reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people.”

It added the words “Approved by the University Executive Group”.⁴²

On 17th January 2023 there were further updates:

• A safeguard was added stating that “nothing in this Policy Statement should be taken to justify sanctioning academic staff for questioning or testing received wisdom or putting forward new ideas including controversial or unpopular opinions within the law and nor should this Policy Statement be taken to justify disproportionate restrictions on freedom of speech.”
• The provision on “transphobic propaganda” was removed and incorporated as “any abusive, bullying or harassing material” under the provision on transphobic abuse, harassment and bullying.
• A definition of “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying” was added, saying that it “mean[s] unwanted behaviours and communications that could reasonably be expected to cause distress or fear among trans people”.⁴³

A further updated version was released in May 2024.⁴⁴ The OfS considered the 2022 and 2023 versions and said that while there were improvements, the policies continued to prohibit lawful speech and have a chilling effect (it has not yet considered the 2024 version). 

The changes to the section on “transphobic propaganda” and “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying” show the confused genesis and evolution of the policy. 

Provisions against “transphobic propaganda”: how Sussex University’s policy evolved

2018 and 2022 policies say “transphobic propaganda” will be removed:

Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying (name-calling/derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures.

Transphobic propaganda, in the form of written materials, graffiti, music or speeches, will not be tolerated. We undertake to remove any such propaganda whenever it appears on the premises.

In 2023 this is replaced by “any [transphobic] abusive, bullying or harassing material”:

Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying* (e.g. name-calling/derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures. Any abusive, bullying, or harassing material (e.g. written materials, graffiti or recordings) will be removed from University premises.

* We use the term “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying” to mean unwanted behaviours and communications that could reasonably be expected to cause distress or fear among trans people.

In 2024 this is linked to the test for criminal harassment:

Transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying* (e.g. name-calling/derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures. After consideration of its form and contents, material (e.g. written materials, graffiti or recordings) that is found objectively to be abusive, bullying, or harassing will be removed from University premises.

* We use the term “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying” to mean unwanted behaviours and communications that could reasonably be expected to cause distress or fear among trans people. This definition is objective and replicates the definition in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as set out in the Cod [sic] for Crown Prosecutors.
(Emphasis added)

Sussex University’s responsibility is to protect its students and staff from unlawful harassment related to protected characteristics in the Equality Act, not criminal harassment under the Harassment Act 1997 (which would be a police matter). 

Sussex University digs in

Roseneil has not taken the news of the OfS finding well. She has doubled down on defending the policy and the university’s decision-making, accusing the OfS of “decreeing libertarian free-speech absolutism as the fundamental principle for UK universities” and “perpetuating the culture wars”. She says the university will appeal against the fine and seek a judicial review of the decision. 

She describes the policy statement as no big deal because she says it does not have the status of being a “governing document” of the university:

“This is a really small statement, of which we have many dozens, if not hundreds, of similar policies and statements. Whereas the governing documents of the university are its charter and statutes and regulations.”⁴⁵

The idea that this was “a really small statement” is inconsistent with what Sussex University has been saying for the past five years.

The university started this process in 2018, promising to “take bold action” under the guidance of its trans and non-binary network group and Stonewall. This is exactly what it did, year after year. The people in charge of this were senior and paid good money. Each year they reported to the Council, and the Council agreed to the goal of achieving Stonewall status. 

In May 2024 the university celebrated reaching its goal of being ranked 30th in the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index Top 100.⁴⁶ As it completed its way up the ladder towards that goal, every year it assured Stonewall that the policy was supported at the highest level and that the university took a “zero tolerance” approach to “transphobia”. That blinkered determination to prioritise the narrow demands of ideological lobbyists within and outside the university led it to overlook its duty to prevent harassment of staff who dissented from that ideological position, and to uphold academic freedom and free speech on campus for everyone.

1. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Academic philosophy and the UK Gender Recognition Act’. @kathleenstock blog (archived).
2. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘What I believe about sex and gender (and what I don’t)’. @kathleenstock blog (archived).
3. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Anonymised responses from other academics to my articles on sex, gender, and philosophy’. @kathleenstock blog (archived).
4. University Of Sussex (2018). Inclusive Sussex: equality, diversity and inclusion strategy 2018–2025.
5. John Armstrong and Allice Sullivan (2024). ‘A critical analysis of Athena Swan as a policy-scoring scheme’. British Educational Research Journal, volume 51, issue 1.
6. University of Sussex (2018). Equality, diversity and inclusion annual report to council 2017/18.
7. UK Government (2018). ‘Government announces plans to reform process of changing legal gender’. Press release, 3rd July 2018.
8. UK Parliament (2018). ‘Commons: 3 July 2018 (Volume 644)’. Hansard.
9. Jody Doherty-Cove (2018). ‘“Trans women are still males with male genitalia” – university lecturer airs controversial views. The Argus.
10. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Changing the concept of “woman” will cause unintended harms’. The Economist.
11. Kathleen Stock (2018) ‘A Woman’s Place is Turning the Tide’. Woman’s Place UK.
12. Ella Braidwood (2018). ‘University lecturer criticised after declaring “trans women are still males with male genitalia”’. Pink News.
13. Facebook page: ‘Sussex Philosophy Students in Solidarity with Trans Students’.
14. Adam Tickell (2018). ‘A message from the Vice-Chancellor – living our values’. University of Sussex website.
15. Lucy Bannerman (2018). ‘Trans Goldsmiths lecturer Natacha Kennedy behind smear campaign against academics’. The Times.
16. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Why self-identification should not legally make you a woman’. The Conversation.
17. Kathleen Stock (2018). ‘Women’s Place talk: full text House of Lords Oct 10th 2018’. @kathleenstock blog (archived).
18. Kathleen Stock et al (2018). ‘Academics are being harassed over their research into transgender issues’. Letter to The Guardian, 16th October 2018.
19. Stewart (2022). ‘Information about Stonewall Workplace Equality Index (WEI)’. What Do They Know.
20. Equality Challenge Unit (2016). Trans equality policy statement.
21. University of Sussex (2018). Trans and Non Binary Equality Policy Statement.
22. Kathleen Stock (2025). ‘Fortunes are changing in the culture war Sussex University should move on’. UnHerd.
23. University of Sussex (2020). Stonewall Workplace Equality Index Action Plan.
24. Stonewall (2020). ‘Over 100 major companies join together to say trans rights are human rights’.
25. University of Sussex (2021). Equality, diversity and inclusion annual report to council 2020/21.
26. Tom Ball (2021). ‘Inside the “cloak and dagger” campaign against Kathleen Stock’. The Times.
27. Tortoise (2021). ‘The Kathleen Stock case is about much more than trans rights’.
28. Harry Lambert (2021). ‘Kathleen Stock and Sussex University: the war over academic freedom’. The New Statesman.
29. Sam Baker and Jacob Thorburn (2021). ‘Masked mob demand trans row professor is sacked in campus protest after defending anonymous crusade because “they don’t want to be abused online”’. Mail Online.
30. University of Sussex (2021). Post on Twitter @SussexUni, 21st October 2021.
31. Kishwer Falkner (2021). Post on Twitter @EHRCChair, 10th October 2021.
32. UK philosophers (2021). Open letter of solidarity with the University of Sussex.
33. Legal academics (2021). Open Letter to Sussex University from legal academics.
34. Sex Matters (2021). ‘Academics write to the EHRC’.
35. Richard Adams (2021). ‘Sussex professor resigns after transgender rights row’. The Guardian.
36. UK Parliament (2021). ‘Professor Kathleen Stock: Resignation (Volume 816: debated on Tuesday 16 November 2021)’. Hansard.
37. Office for Students (2025). ‘Regulatory case report for University of Sussex: OfS decisions relating to breaches of conditions E1 and E2 and the imposition of monetary penalties’.
38. Office for Students (2022). Securing student success: Regulatory framework for higher education in England.
39. Alison Johns (2025). Letter from Advance HE to university vice-chancellors, 31st March 2025.
40. David Ruebain (accessed March 2025). Profile on LinkedIn.
41. Sex Matters (2024). ‘Timeline of efforts to sabotage the EHRC’s work to protect everyone’s rights’.
42.  University of Sussex (2022). Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement.
43. University of Sussex (2023). Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement.
44. University of Sussex (2024). Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement.
    
45. Richard Adams (2025). ‘University of Sussex taking legal action over £585,000 free speech fine’. The Guardian.
46. University of Sussex (2024). ‘University of Sussex named 30th in Stonewall’s Top 100 Employer 2024 list’.

The post What happened at Sussex University?  appeared first on Sex Matters.

The judgment confirmed that robust speech is protected as a “manifestation” of a religious or philosophical belief – the threshold for “objectionable” expression is high, and employers should not not act disproportionately based on subjective activist complaints.

The case concerning Kristie Higgs, an administrator and work-experience manager at a Church of England secondary school, has been running since April 2019. Higgs was fired after the school received a single email complaining about her personal Facebook posts from someone who said they found her views “homophobic and prejudiced … against the lgbt community” and “offensive”.

Sex Matters intervened in the case at the Court of Appeal as it concerned not only justice for Mrs Higgs, but the broader question of how courts and tribunals should approach religious or philosophical belief-discrimination cases concerning the “manifestation” of belief – when other people are offended by someone expressing their protected beliefs. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Church of England Archbishops’ Council and the Free Speech Union also intervened. Kristie Higgs is supported by the Christian Legal Centre.

Higgs, who is also a mother of children in primary school, had shared posts about sex education in primary schools that the tribunal described as “florid”, saying: “They are brainwashing our children!” and “The LGBT crowd with the assistance of the progressive School systems are destroying the minds of normal children by promoting mental illness”. Her employer called her in for a six-hour investigation meeting and then fired her for gross misconduct. 

The Court of Appeal found that this was disproportionate, and unlawful discrimination based on her belief. It overturned the judgment by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that her case should go back to be considered afresh by the Employment Tribunal with guidance to apply a human-rights test to assess whether the school’s actions “were prescribed by law, and were necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”. 

In sending the case back to be reconsidered, Mrs Justice Eady, President of the EAT, had provided guidance to assist the employment tribunal in this case, and more generally to inform employers and employees “as to where they stand on issues arising from the manifestation of religious or other philosophical beliefs”. She had adopted a set of nine “considerations” provided by the Archbishops’ Council, which said that employment tribunals should give regard to the tone and extent of the manifestation and “the extent and nature of the intrusion on the rights of others”.

Sex Matters intervened because we were concerned that this guidance would lead overcautious and frightened employers to shut down gender-critical speech if someone complained that it was “objectionable”,  on the misunderstanding that this means that the person raising the objection had relevant human rights which had been intruded on.

We said the guidance was unwieldy and incapable of being understood by anybody but a specialist lawyer. 

The judgment

The judgment by Lord Justice Underhill (supported by Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Falk) concludes that:

“In my opinion the ET would be bound to find that the Claimant’s dismissal was not objectively justified and accordingly that it constituted unlawful discrimination.”

While Lord Underhill does not remove the EAT’s guidance to consider the context of an employer’s actions, he qualifies it somewhat, saying that it will not be necessary – or always useful – for a tribunal to structure its reasoning by reference to the nine “considerations”.

“All of them are potentially relevant; but in practice, as the EHRC observed, the focus of the issues in any given case will only be on some of them, and there may be some cases where are other considerations – or considerations which do not neatly fit into her formulation – may be relevant.”

Lord Underhill said that “the employer’s rights under the employment contract provide the necessary framework of ‘law’” and the full human-rights proportionality test could be replaced by a more compressed version. 

He also said that the burden is on the employer to prove in the Employment Tribunal that its action can be objectively justified. He said that the word “objectionable”, which has become common currency in belief cases, may be inapt as shorthand for the phrase “to which objection could justifiably be taken” and that the term “inappropriate” might be better. He emphasised that even where reputational harm, or a risk of it, is shown, the interference by the employer must be proportionate.

Agreeing with Lord Underhill, Lady Falk said:

“Speaking for myself, I find ‘inappropriate’ the more helpful term, for two reasons. First, it reduces the risk of the words ‘to which objection could justifiably be taken’ being incorrectly read as permitting regard to be paid to the risk that some readers might wrongly read what is said in a way that a reasonable reader would not. Secondly, it more obviously conveys that the forum and context for what is said is relevant, as well as the content and manner. For example, something that might be unproblematic on a private Facebook page could justify different treatment if communicated in a work setting.”

Sex Matters is grateful to Akua Reindorf KC and Dr Michael Foran of Glasgow University for developing our intervention.

Employers facing offended complaints about personal social-media posts concerning contentious topics should take this judgment as a signal to think twice before jumping into action. They should not automatically assume that if someone shouts “I am offended, my human rights have been breached!” there has been any breach of their human rights.  

The post Kristie Higgs wins belief-discrimination case appeared first on Sex Matters.

The way things were

Meta’s previous policy (look at the 29th February 2024 version) didn’t exactly ban “misgendering” or gender-critical speech, but it left enough ambiguity to make users who didn’t venerate gender identity vulnerable to vexatious complaints. This in itself had a chilling effect. 

The rules were vague and vulnerable to overzealous moderators and algorithms, and to exploitation by individuals seeking to shut down gender-critical speech. 

In June 2024, in the run-up to the UK general election, Sex Matters was notified, out of the blue, that our Instagram account had been “permanently disabled”. So were the accounts of several other groups, including Fair Play For Women, Woman’s Place UK, FiLiA and Our Duty, as well as individuals such as Milli Hill, Birdy Rose, WildWomynWorkshop, Claudia Clare, Women are People Too, Louise Woodward Styles, DittanyRose, Meghan Murphy and GCFeminista. A video made for Sex Matters by gay-rights activists Mr Menno and Malcolm Clark on male violence against women was removed from Facebook for inciting violence against women. 

We wrote to Instagram to appeal our ban. There was no response to our letter but eventually we got our accounts back. 

GLAAD calls for more censorship

While we were struggling with Instagram’s review and appeal processes, American transactivist lobby group GLAAD was lobbying for Meta and other social-media companies to go even further and ban “targetted misgendering and deadnaming”.

Its call was backed by 250+ celebrities, including Ariana Grande, Billy Porter, Cynthia Nixon, Dakota Fanning, Demi Lovato, James Blake, Jameela Jamil, Judd Apatow, Laverne Cox and Jamie Lee Curtis. GLAAD published a report calling for the censorship of social-media content such as calling Rachel Levine, then US Assistant Secretary of State, a man.

Meta’s policy turnaround 

The updated policy Meta published this week is a significant change. It has firmly rejected the call from GLAAD to cosset sexual fetishists and gender ideologues and ban clear sex-based language.

• It emphasises up-front that people “use sex-or gender-exclusive language” when discussing “access to spaces often limited by sex or gender, such as access to bathrooms, specific schools, specific military, law enforcement, or teaching roles, and health or support groups”.
• It says it will permit users to “use insulting language in the context of discussing political or religious topics, such as when discussing transgender rights, immigration, or homosexuality”.
• It has removed the prohibition against “statements denying existence” of protected characteristics. These could include simple statements of disbelief in gender identity, such as “trans women are men” or “there is no such thing as a trans child”. People who hold gender-critical beliefs are frequently accused of “denying the existence” of transgender people. In fact, what we are saying is that we do not believe in gender identity. This is not denying the existence of people who do, just as atheists don’t believe in gods but don’t deny the existence of religious people.
• It has removed its prohibition against mocking people on the basis of their protected characteristics. Mockery can be an important part of political speech. 
• It recognises that calling for sex-based segregation or exclusion can be legitimate in areas such as “military, law enforcement, and teaching jobs” as well as “spaces commonly limited by sex or gender, such as restrooms, sports and sports leagues, health and support groups, and specific schools”.
• It explicitly allows “allegations of mental illness or abnormality” in relation to transgenderism. This could include, for example, points that come up in discussion of the Cass Review of child gender services, which demonstrates strong connections between trans identification in children and a variety of mental-health issues.

The way things are

Although the new policy is much improved on paper, practice is still lagging behind.

It should now be safe to post messages like this one by Colette Colfer, a writer and lecturer in world religions and social ethics.

But even though her post came after the new policy was announced, she was immediately suspended from Facebook. 

Mark Zuckerberg says protecting freedom of expression is important. He needs to follow up his words with actions. 

What will the Oversight Board say? 

The other big test of whether this is a genuine turnaround is how the Meta Oversight Board responds.

The board is a self-regulation initiative set up by Meta, with serious resources behind it. Founded on human-rights principles, its aim is to apply Meta’s content standards “in a way that protects freedom of expression and other global human-rights standards”. It is made up of the great and the good: law professors, ex-prime ministers, senior editors and human-rights professionals. It has a careful, formal process for considering issues and cases, and it makes recommendations to Meta that it can’t ignore. 

Last year the Oversight Board asked for public comment on the issue of how Meta deals with gender identity.

Sex Matters sent in a submission. We told Meta that being able to speak truthfully and frankly about men and women is fundamental to freedom of expression. Separate-sex facilities are often necessary for privacy, dignity and safety, as separate-sex sports are for safety and fairness. Separate-sex associations are matters of freedom of association. Women can’t defend their rights and advocate for themselves unless they can say these things clearly in public.

GLAAD also sent in a submission. It said:

“Trans people’s existence and identities are not a subject for others to ‘debate.’ Specious rhetorical constructs seeking to delegitimize who we are (such as right-wing efforts to mischaracterize trans identity as an ideology) are well-known strategies that go hand-in-hand with other types of fear-mongering, scapegoating, and manufacturing of false narratives to legitimize violence and other harms against historically marginalized groups.”

The Oversight Board has yet to publish its findings. 

Yesterday it broadly welcomed Meta’s announcement of the new approach to content moderation, saying:

“The Oversight Board looks forward to helping to shape Meta’s renewed push for free speech in 2025 through our standard case decisions, policy advisory opinions and white papers. As the Board has repeatedly highlighted, it is essential that decisions on content are taken with maximum input from voices outside of Meta, including of the people who use its platforms every day.”

But it hasn’t said anything specific about the big changes concerning the gender debates. The Oversight Board includes people such as Helle Thorning-Schmidt and Alan Rusbridger, former editor-in-chief of The Guardian, who despite their words of approval about the general principle of freedom of expression seem to have no stomach to stand up to organisations like GLAAD, or to the individuals who demand adherence to trans ideology, including celebrities, younger colleagues and sometimes their own children.

Most professionals who work in the human-rights field have been either missing in action or actively involved in shutting down debate.

When JK Rowling published her famous essay on the topic in 2020, the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Foundation condemned her with the familiar deepities that “trans rights are human rights” and “women’s rights are not degraded by the recognition of trans rights”. 

When Maya Forstater won her employment appeal tribunal against the Center for Global Development, demonstrating that gender-critical beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society, 87 of her colleagues wrote a letter proclaiming their disappointment. It said:

“We believe the original verdict was correct when it found that this type of offensive and exclusionary language and action causes harm to trans people and therefore could not be protected under the Equality Act.” 

When Reem Alsalem, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, drew attention to the intimidation and threats experienced by women who express gender-critical opinions, 844 human-rights organisations and professionals signed an open letter condemning her.

When Baroness Falkner, chair of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, acknowledged that there are conflicts of rights she faced the familiar backlash. Stonewall tried to get the UN-linked Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) to censure her and remove the EHRC’s “A” status.

Western human-rights leaders who are willing to speak up when dissidents in foreign countries are persecuted are strangely silent about persecution within their own networks, funding streams and career structures.

Equally Ours, a charity that brings together UK equality and human-rights organisations, tried to write a submission to GANHRI in defence of Baroness Falkner and the EHRC. But it was unable to achieve consensus, and so did not speak up. 

The organisations that tried to get her fired remain within Equally Ours. When Sex Matters asked to join the group so that the conflicts of rights could be discussed, we were told the board had temporarily decided to suspend the admission of new members, but that it would get back to us. That was over 18 months ago. Without taking up our offer to talk through the issues, they found enough consensus to tell the EHRC that “some groups” were putting the UK’s equality and human-rights framework “under threat” by campaigning to clarify the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act so that sex retains its ordinary, biological meaning. 

The question of whether the UK’s legal gender-recognition regime undermines its protections for women’s rights has remained firmly unanswered by respectable professionals whose job it is to think about such things. Instead it has fallen to small, largely unpaid, groups of women (and some men) to research, raise the issue in Parliament and crowdfund and organise a long, complex and costly litigation process to bring the matter before the Supreme Court. It is a rare – and brave – human-rights professional who has deigned to notice this upstart movement, let alone to take it seriously. Yet this is a very serious matter: according to law lecturer Claire Methven O’Brien, by conflating women and the men who want to be women, the UK is in breach of its international human-rights obligations.

The Meta Oversight Board’s own strategic priorities show the intellectually lazy approach taken by almost everyone who works on human rights. It addresses women and trans people under “gender” and states:

“Women, non-binary and trans people are among those who experience obstacles to exercising their rights to freedom of expression on social media. We are exploring the obstacles faced by women and LGBTQIA+ people, including gender-based violence and harassment, and the effects of gender-based distinctions in content policy.”

This fails to recognise that men who identify as trans or non-binary are still men, and do not have the same interests or experiences as women. “LGBTQIA+” conflates lesbians and gay men with cross-dressers, transsexuals and the never-defined “plus”. Many lesbians and gay men object to being bundled under this umbrella.

Meta’s new hateful-conduct statement is as “hateful” and “transphobic” as many of the statements that get people socially cancelled and investigated at work: for instance that it is fine to say that “transwomen” are men; that trans-identifying men shouldn’t be in women’s toilets, changing rooms or sports; that specific trans-identifying individuals such as Rachel Levine and Munroe Bergdorf are men; that it may be impolite to use insulting language or to question the sanity of men who claim to be women, or women who claim to be men, but it should not be forbidden and sometimes needs to be said.

The members of Meta’s Oversight Board will now have to either stand up for the new policy on human-rights grounds or resign. At the very least they, and the rest of the human-rights establishment, will have to talk seriously about a subject they have spent years trying to avoid. 

Those who have kept quiet on the topic, while sympathising with the cancelled, could break their silence by posting what Colette Colfer said. Or if that is too brave they could share this article.

The post Meta pledges to stop censoring gender-critical speech appeared first on Sex Matters.