If someone had told me a few years ago that I would be writing about women’s freedom to assert their rights to single-sex spaces, services, and sports, and that it would be one of the most controversial subjects I’d ever tackle, I would have thought they were crazy. I couldn’t have imagined that in a mature democracy, expressing the view that sex remains an important factor in society would result in people losing their livelihoods, being expelled from educational institutions, or even being issued with unlawful police warnings. It’s a moderate and widely shared view that aligns with the current legal position in the UK. However, due to the bullying tactics of campaigners who believe gender identity should always override biological sex, along with the lack of leadership in many major institutions, this is the situation we find ourselves in today.
The most recent example of this madness is the unsuccessful attempt by the trans charity Mermaids to have LGB Alliance stripped of its charitable status. This legal battle has been ongoing for years and has cost both sides hundreds of thousands of pounds. The two charities hold opposing views on sex and gender, as well as the appropriate healthcare for children questioning their gender.
Mermaids is an established charity that has received significant funding, including a grant of £500,000 from the national lottery fund in 2019. They have been advocating for the availability of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to younger children experiencing gender dysphoria. On the other hand, LGB Alliance is a new charity focused on “gender critical” perspectives within the gay rights movement. They argue that gender identity cannot replace biological sex in society and highlight concerns about gender non-conforming young people being pushed into irreversible medical transitions.
Differences of opinion are not uncommon in the charity sector. Anti-abortion charities coexist alongside pro-choice organizations, for example. This diversity of perspectives is essential in a democratic society, as it would be dangerous for the state to dictate which views can be expressed through charitable activity. However, gender ideology campaigners are often quick to label anyone who disagrees with them as bigoted. Susie Green, the former CEO of Mermaids, mischaracterized LGB Alliance as a “hate group” with the aim of denigrating trans people. This accusation disregards the fact that concerns about puberty blockers are shared by many in the medical establishment, leading to restrictions in various countries.
The intolerance for dissent within the gender debate has led Mermaids and its supporters to launch a crowdfunder with the goal of having the courts overturn LGB Alliance’s charitable status. To do so, Mermaids had to demonstrate that they were sufficiently affected by the decision, a legal requirement known as “standing.” Without this test, anyone with sufficient funds could tie up charities they disagree with in expensive legal processes. Mermaids argued that LGB Alliance’s charitable status allowed them to criticize Mermaids effectively and made them a competitor for charitable funding. However, the courts ruled decisively against Mermaids, stating that they have no legal right to be free from criticism and no legal right to funding.
While LGB Alliance’s social media activity before becoming a charity is not without fault, the Charity Commission addressed this issue with them. LGB Alliance acknowledged lapses in judgment and revised its social media policy, showcasing the proper functioning of charity regulation. This does not justify Mermaids’ attempt to have them struck off.
The courts have often served as a necessary backstop in the gender debate, with many individuals successfully challenging organizations for unlawfully discriminating against them based on their belief that biological sex matters. Numerous cases are currently in progress, alleging discrimination by social work regulators, universities, rape crisis services, and publishers. However, it is disheartening that leadership from major institutions is lacking, leaving these issues to be resolved through costly and emotionally draining legal action. LGB Alliance may have won the legal battle against Mermaids, but it cost them £250,000 and hindered their ability to provide planned services, such as a helpline for young people.
The upside of the legal scrutiny is that it has subjected the positions of gender ideology campaigners to more thorough examination than they previously experienced in parliament or civil society. In court, Mermaids’ chair made the astonishing claim that they do not provide advice on medical matters, despite evidence suggesting otherwise. Another witness for Mermaids argued that anyone can identify as a lesbian, regardless of their biological sex. In other court cases, witnesses from Stonewall effectively claimed that distinguishing between gender identity and sex is transphobic.
Employers and public bodies should not need judges to enforce the respect for mainstream opinions. However, the fact that the NHS Confederation recently published guidance encouraging hospitals to unlawfully discriminate against women requesting single-sex care demonstrates the extent of ideological capture and cowardice present. Sadly, it is likely that more costly and exhausting legal action will be necessary. It is an abdication of leadership to leave these issues to the courts.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
