Broadcasters must air views that trans women are women, says Ofcom

[IwantToRetire]

Media regulator warns GB News that it cannot treat the controversy as settled despite Supreme Court victory in April.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/29/broadcasters-must-air-views-trans-women-are-women-ofcom/

https://archive.is/1KhgX

But feminists say sometimes a baby must not have human rights. It is the same cherry picking. Human life begins at fertilisation at which point sex is immutable determined. Trans is impossible. There is no "abortion right" to take a human life

@Fringle yes it is pure science three are only two sexes. And sex is immutable. Where something is pure science it should not be required to include dissenting voices. Man made climate change is not pure science. And even less - were it true- whether measures claimed to solve the problem may or may not cause greater problems

What relevance has abortion got to do with Ofcom forcing broadcasters to say that trans women are not men?

But feminists say sometimes a baby must not have human rights.

Now you are the one cherry picking; a foetus is developing in the womb, and doesn't become a baby until it is born and can live independently. While the foetus is in the womb its the mother that has the human rights.

@TheCatsTongue Please ignore. Trish has disrupted other threads to bring them off topic in the last few days (i. e. no further talking about trans activism).

@Thelnebriati Please ignore. Trish has disrupted other threads to bring them off topic in the last few days (i. e. no further talking about trans activism).

Ofcom has recently become too powerful, and I think in a few years we'll be talking about how big this quango is and what a waste of money it is, but it will be too big and too institutionalised to get rid of.

It's expansion into online space is worrying. It got the powers under the guise of protecting children from pornography and has spent most of its time going after sites like Kiwifarms etc.

The SC ruling was specifically about the EA2010 and was not an overall judgement on what defines a woman. So saying that ruling is the rule of law for every law in this country is incorrect and the Regulator is right.

But that doesn't mean that the regulator can insist on media organisations saying that trans women are women or using preferred pronouns.

Give an inch, take a mile...

Give over! Everyone knows what a woman is and that batshit anti-reality brainwashing is on the way out.

You know a lot of people disagree with you right? What I stated was a fact and it would have been an overreach for the SC to make the ruling that you would have preferred

No. But the regulator can tell a news organisation that it has to tell the truth.

And trans women being women is not a truth.

No, it’s a belief

You wish. It pretty much seals it. Tell me when a different definition of a woman would apply? What that definition would be and how it wouldn't impact on actual women? Nonsense on stilts.

The Gender Recognition Act

Oh dear me! If the Gender Recognition Act is causing such confusion maybe it would be best if it were repealed? It does not serve any useful purpose now that we have same-sex marriage and the pension age has been equalised for men and women.

As much of a belief as that the Earth is round. It is a fact based around reality.

The spell has been broken by the Supreme Court and people no longer have to lie that trans women are women, despite your attempts to claim otherwise.

Also you tried to claim that trans women are women was the truth and that trans women being men was only a belief, you've tried to change your argument over two posts.

I haven’t done anything other than state facts which are backed up by legal judgements, which I can tell that you agree with. You might disagree with me on some things and I respect that.
what you said in this message doesn’t make sense to me. But I’m sure there is logic behind it.
I’m off to watch the end of the tennis. I hope you have a good rest of this evening.

It isn’t causing confusion. I just answered your question.
That act had nothing to do with marriage or pensions, and neither of them are reasons I’ve heard for transitioning.
Anyway, good chatting to you tonight. I’m off to watch the end of the tennis.

You don't seem to know much about the history of the GRA.

The Equality Act 2010 is the keystone piece of Equality legislation in the UK. The same reasoning which led to this ruling would apply to all other laws where this is in question. This is the highest ruling. A “trans woman” is a biological man who identifies as a woman.

Please specify the definition of “woman” in the GRA. It doesn’t define what a woman is. It’s about the act of “transitioning” your gender so that you get a certificate saying you are the opposite sex. It’s a legal fiction.

That Act (The Gender Recognition Act 2004) had nothing to do with marriage or pensions

If there were a prize for the least well informed, most arrogant assertion about the GRA2004 then you would win hands down.

You do not have even the most basic understanding of the legal background and basis for this legislation, yet you come here trying to lecture women who have been steeped in this subject for years if not decades.

I suggest that you start researching the subject and stop wasting your time playing with crayons and colouring-in books supplied by Stonewall and the Good at Losing in Court Project.

Nick Wallis (of the post office scandal fame) has just signposted to this open letter from Seen In Journalism to Ofcom:

https://seeninjournalism.substack.com/p/ofcom-latest?r=bc1jk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true