Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Scope is punishing women for wrongthink - Whole choir cancelled from London Marathon because of personal GC views of one person

315 replies

singthing · 24/04/2026 16:18

Choir dropped from London Marathon over founder’s ‘gender-critical views’
Charity cancels singers who raise runners’ spirits owing to Janet Murray’s opposition to gender ideology

A choir has been dropped from the London Marathon over a member’s gender-critical views.

The Singing Striders are frequently booked to stand on the sidelines and raise the spirits of runners, and the group had been invited to support the upcoming marathon by Scope, a leading disability charity.

However, the amateur ensemble was dropped because a single member had been critical of gender ideology.

This is the view that gender is defined by self-identification, rather than biological sex, meaning that those born male can become women.

Janet Murray, the choir founder, was informed that her opposition to this worldview went against Scope’s “commitment to diversity and inclusion”.

Charity bosses also told her “we are concerned about your views because we don’t agree with your views”.

As a writer and journalist, Murray has publicly expressed concerns about the inclusion of biological males in women’s sports and organisations such as Girlguiding.

It is understood that the decision to cancel the choir, which was to perform for no fee, came after Scope received two anonymous complaints about these opinions.

The charity has since defended its stance as it is “committed to the equality and inclusion of trans and non-binary disabled people”.

Janet Murray, the writer
Murray says it is ironic that Scope should bring politics into a space that was simply about supporting charity runners Credit: Belinda Jiao
Ms Murray told The Telegraph: “When cancel culture finds its way into something as joyful as a choir singing for marathon runners, it’s a sobering reminder of how insidious it can be.

“My choir exists to lift people up, helping them through the hardest moments as they raise money for charity. I’ve run the London Marathon myself, and I know how much that support means.”

The writer said that while she did have gender-critical views, they did not enter into her work with the choir, adding: “I leave politics at home when I’m with the choir – and so does everyone else.

“Ironically, it’s Scope that’s brought politics into a space that was simply about supporting charity runners – effectively silencing a choir in the process.”

The cancellation came despite the Singing Striders performing for Scope at past marathons without incident.

The London Marathon has several “cheer points” along the route to boost the morale of runners, and Scope has two dedicated spaces this year, at Tower Hill and Woolwich

The London Marathon will take place on Sunday
The London Marathon will take place on Sunday Credit: Karwai Tang/WireImage
The Singing Striders were set to raise a chorus at the mile-three cheer point in Woolwich, performing from 8.30am to 1pm, with minor expenses for travel covered by Scope.

The choir had practised for months ahead of the marathon, and members were understood to be surprised and disappointed by the decision, and hopeful that an organisation might come forward to offer them a space at the event on Sunday.

Critics of gender ideology have been subjected to cancellation since the issue of transgender identities emerged into public consciousness, with figures such as Graham Linehan, the Father Ted co-writer, being an early victim of censoriousness.

Graham Linehan on the trans debate and new Father Ted material
Read more
In 2024, the debate shifted again when the Cass review cautioned against rushing children into life-changing gender transitions, particularly with the use of potentially harmful puberty blockers.

Scope has defended its decision to cancel the marathon choir, stating that the move “reflects where we stand as an organisation and our commitment to our colleagues, volunteers and supporters”.

John McLachlan, Scope’s chief executive, said: “Concerns were raised to us about the views of the founder and director of Singing Striders, a choir who were due to volunteer to perform for us at the London Marathon. After consideration, we took the decision to not have their choir perform on our behalf.

“We understand and respect the right for people to hold different views about inclusion. At Scope, we are committed to the equality and inclusion of trans and non-binary disabled people. We have trans and non-binary colleagues, volunteers and supporters.

“Scope is committed to equality and inclusion. Our EDI policy sets out our commitment to be an inclusive employer and inclusive charity.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/24/choir-dropped-london-marathon-founder-gender-critical-views/
https://archive.ph/LXP0N

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/24/choir-dropped-london-marathon-founder-gender-critical-views

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
16
IdaGlossop · 16/05/2026 12:27

Janet, who I met through work years ago, has just asked me to send her my email exchange with Scope. I emailed them on the weekend of the marathon, using sarcastically the words 'very inclusive' ie discriminatory. Earlier this week, I received in reply the stock response Janet has shared on ?LinkedIn. I have replied, saying I do not accept their explanation that the ban was about the language Janet used as I have been at events where she has spoken; she speaks in a professional way and none of her writing about trans issues has used inflammatory language. I conclude by saying that I hold to my view that Scope did not like the content of what Janet wss saying and that I do not buy the language argument they are using.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 16/05/2026 12:06

Datun · 16/05/2026 10:56

I don't see how she can't win. They said they don't like her views. Full stop.

Of course, it's not their bloody money, is it. It's the donors, ours. So they don't care.

I wonder how many charities will not give a flying fuck about losing, as long as they virtue signal. You'd think, economically they'd stop, but ideologically, who knows.

They won't stop until people are personally held to account for their prejudice and illegal behaviour. How many of the swathe of people giving testimony in courts about their bullying and often illegal treatment of women and men have ever been held to account by their employers?

Theeyeballsinthesky · 16/05/2026 11:48

Datun · 16/05/2026 10:56

I don't see how she can't win. They said they don't like her views. Full stop.

Of course, it's not their bloody money, is it. It's the donors, ours. So they don't care.

I wonder how many charities will not give a flying fuck about losing, as long as they virtue signal. You'd think, economically they'd stop, but ideologically, who knows.

Having read the article about the bbc and how it was captured, you could easily transpose that to the charity sector (and the NHS and the civil service)

RoyalCorgi · 16/05/2026 11:48

Datun · 16/05/2026 10:56

I don't see how she can't win. They said they don't like her views. Full stop.

Of course, it's not their bloody money, is it. It's the donors, ours. So they don't care.

I wonder how many charities will not give a flying fuck about losing, as long as they virtue signal. You'd think, economically they'd stop, but ideologically, who knows.

I don't see how she can lose, either, unless they manage to prove that her expression of her views on social media was particularly offensive. But Janet's posts are usually very measured - especially in comparison to posts from trans activists - so I think they will struggle.

And even if they did try to argue that her expression of her views was offensive, it's unfortunate for them that the CEO initially told Janet the choir was being cancelled for her views, not her expression of those views. It looks as if the line about her 'language' or her 'expression' came afterwards, as a fairly desperate attempt to stay within the law.

Datun · 16/05/2026 10:56

I don't see how she can't win. They said they don't like her views. Full stop.

Of course, it's not their bloody money, is it. It's the donors, ours. So they don't care.

I wonder how many charities will not give a flying fuck about losing, as long as they virtue signal. You'd think, economically they'd stop, but ideologically, who knows.

MassiveWordSalad · 16/05/2026 10:02

Go on Janet and friends, good for you. At this point it seems that legal action is the only thing that makes organisation take note. Best of luck 🤞🏼

mrshoho · 16/05/2026 09:29

Best of luck to Janet bringing this claim. These large high profile charities must take responsibility for abiding by our Equality laws. Pandering to a minority that leads to ignoring the law and trampling over the rights of the majority makes no sense morally or financially. I wonder how this ridiculous situation has already affected their income stream? Charities having to spend resources on these totally avoidable legal fights is such a kick in the teeth for their donors.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 16/05/2026 09:11

Bloody well done Janet - the charity sector also needs its moment in the spotlight as it's completely captured with this nonsense too

PrettyDamnCosmic · 16/05/2026 09:11

At the very least I'd like Scope to sack the Alphabetty who's responsible for cancelling the choir.

It was the interim CEO who was responsible so I think it unlikely.

KnottyAuty · 16/05/2026 09:11

lcakethereforeIam · 16/05/2026 08:28

Superb!
I would hope this will be a win - and a warning shot to the charities sector that this wholescale discrimination against women/GC beliefs is unacceptable.

We just need a few more idiotic organisations to get their insane beliefs out in the open so that a few more cases can be brought and get this genderist supertanker turned on to a more sensible course

AlexaStopAlexaNo · 16/05/2026 08:57

Ah good for them! If Scope face real, public consequences for their actions other organisations might think twice.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 16/05/2026 08:37

Me too, her views are grounded in fact and law, so she has a good case. At the very least I'd like Scope to sack the Alphabetty who's responsible for cancelling the choir.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 03/05/2026 06:48

JellySaurus · 02/05/2026 20:29

So Scope said“Gender-critical views are highly polarising and we are sensitive to the fact that for some of our valued members, supporters and colleagues, gender-critical beliefs may be deeply upsetting and alienating.”

Clearly they have never considered that transgenderist views are highly polarising. Clearly they are insensitive to the fact that for some of their valued members, supporters and colleagues, transgenderist beliefs may be deeply upsetting and alienating.

Clearly they have never considered that transgenderist views are highly polarising.

A good point, they seem to start of with the premise that GI is the majority view and then along comes the GC view which is the minority view, and that is causing division and polarisation.

Where's as in fact the GC view is the norm and GI is the invading view, it's all part of the 'normalisation' ethic of Queer Theory.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 02/05/2026 21:40

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

JellySaurus · 02/05/2026 20:29

So Scope said“Gender-critical views are highly polarising and we are sensitive to the fact that for some of our valued members, supporters and colleagues, gender-critical beliefs may be deeply upsetting and alienating.”

Clearly they have never considered that transgenderist views are highly polarising. Clearly they are insensitive to the fact that for some of their valued members, supporters and colleagues, transgenderist beliefs may be deeply upsetting and alienating.

Sskka · 01/05/2026 16:13

BusyAzureTraybake · 01/05/2026 15:59

Only the private sector is capable of corruption. The public and third sector are beyond reproach whatever they do. Do you need re-education?

Good idea. I’ll invite tenders from suitable providers and let you know when the first of the infinity bi-weekly seminars is set up.

BusyAzureTraybake · 01/05/2026 15:59

Sskka · 01/05/2026 15:52

The thing is, nobody would have any problem calling this what it is in any other context. If a fixed-term contractor magics up needless work to milk its public sector clients, or the mafia sends guys to a construction site to sit in deckchairs and collect a wage, everyone knows that that’s corruption.

But act like that when you’re a charity and for some reason it’s really hard to see it.

Only the private sector is capable of corruption. The public and third sector are beyond reproach whatever they do. Do you need re-education?

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 01/05/2026 15:55

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Sskka · 01/05/2026 15:52

This reply has been deleted

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

The thing is, nobody would have any problem calling this what it is in any other context. If a fixed-term contractor magics up needless work to milk its public sector clients, or the mafia sends guys to a construction site to sit in deckchairs and collect a wage, everyone knows that that’s corruption.

But act like that when you’re a charity and for some reason it’s really hard to see it.

OpheliaWitchoftheWoods · 01/05/2026 15:44

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

IwantToRetire · 01/05/2026 02:08

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 30/04/2026 21:10

Scope, like Stonewall and other charities, gained a high profile because of the good work they did, and then it became more and more about the high profile and less and less about the good work.
It was hijacked first by the professional charity class and all the power was consolidated at the top, the organisation then became policy orientated, reputation became the focus and service delivery stagnated and then faded away.
They are no longer fit for purpose, they're no longer of any value to those they're suppose to help.

I think part of the problem is that they did used to provide actual places of support etc..

But I think over time got criticism for how this was delivered and that many premises were basically no longer appropriate at a time many were asking for independent living support, not to be told they should be isolated off with others like them.

No doubt finances also paid a part, and so they stopped offering actual practical support.

So in re-emerging as a campaign type group, the question has to be asked for whose benefit was that? The ego of the staff or because users had said yes please continue to advocate for us.

A bit like Stonewall when they found that in a sense they were no longer needed and then "found" that they could add in the T and created a whole new stream of funding.

Mumofteenandtween · 30/04/2026 22:48

Even if they did “put it right” (which they haven’t for all the reasons other posters have given) it is too late for my donation. I have found a new charity to donate to. My donation has been going for years. At best guess I would say I have been making it every month for over half my life. But not any more.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 30/04/2026 21:10

Scope, like Stonewall and other charities, gained a high profile because of the good work they did, and then it became more and more about the high profile and less and less about the good work.
It was hijacked first by the professional charity class and all the power was consolidated at the top, the organisation then became policy orientated, reputation became the focus and service delivery stagnated and then faded away.
They are no longer fit for purpose, they're no longer of any value to those they're suppose to help.

womendeserveequalhumanrights · 30/04/2026 20:35

AccordingToWhom · 30/04/2026 16:53

I'm disgusted that a charity to help disabled people is fucking around like this. They seem to have lost sight of what is actually important.

Agree but I'm also disgusted their obviously incompetent CEO is on 150k - that's not value for money. There will be people on far lower salaries that donate to
Scope who are essentially paying for him to live in luxury.

I'm concerned Scope isn't for disabled women (many of whom live on very limited means - 150k could make a big difference to a large number of them). Single sex care is important for disabled women and the rate of sexual abuse of disabled women is high. I think it was WRN that did a report on it and the facts and figures were horrendous. Where's the scope campaign to say that women who want same sex care aren't bigots?

I also agree with a PP that they haven't suffered for their anti-women attitude enough.