Who are the controversial group Sex Matters - Evening Standard investigates!

[IwantToRetire]

Sex Matters is a controversial charity that campaigns for the importance of recognising biological sex (as opposed to gender) in law, policy and language. The organisation does not recognise transgender identities.

What do they want to achieve?

Sex Matters recognises two sexes: female and male. The organisation wants to “promote clarity about sex in law, policy and language in order to protect everybody’s rights”.

Full revelations at https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/sex-matters-who-hampstead-heath-women-only-pond-b1238022.html

Gosh! Watergate level investigation here.

Any normal person unfamiliar with all this (and some people still don’t have a clue) will read the article and wonder if the world has truly gone mad.

That article is hysterical. These dangerous women who believe sex is real. Can you believe it? Next they will be saying water is wet.

And get this, they are only Drs and lawyers and journalist and the like. I mean, I ask you when have doctors and lawyers and journalists ever known anything about anything

It is on one level really silly.

But the "trigger" words in terms of the article are "anti trans".

This is written by someone and published by a paper that assumes the new norm is TWAW.

ie it is contraversial to not recognise trans "identities".

And sad to say no newspaper that would write an article saying, who are the contraversial group saying you can "change your sex".

gosh, top investigative journalist uncovered all the tippy top secrets that Sex Matters shadily but openly publish on their website

amazing

It is really cheap journalism putting controversial in the head line

Especially as the controversial opinion is shared by the vast majority of people in this country and has now been recognised as the actual law

Where the intrepid Yorkshire Bylines leads, the Evening Standard follows:
Behind the ruling: how ‘Sex Matters’ is shaping UK policy on trans rights | Mumsnet

Found an archive of the article so thought I’d post it to the thread:

https://archive.ph/ZpNOo

Also, can’t believe someone was actually paid money to compile a short précis of publicly available bio info from SM’s website as though it were investigative journalism 🙄

And people say that great investigative journalism is dead.

That's hysterically bad. Is it by one of our resident ploppers perhaps? Although there's no seething so maybe not 😃

Ooh yes, good call 👏

The dim bulb who wrote it doesn’t seem to realise that Sex Matters were intervenors in the SC case, they didn’t just “applaud” it.

There seems to be an attempt to 'mirror' the GC identification of a trans ideology and a deliberate plan as to how to promote it, i.e. the Denton's Document .
Sex Matters is the shadowy group promoting 'GC ideology' and they have even identified a paper by Helen Joyce as a Denton's-like* how-to guide for promoting anti-trans ideology.

It's part of the mirroring, or parroting, by TRAs of words, phrases and ideas originally used to critique TRA discourse. There's a lot of it about at the moment!

'Yorkshire Bylines' will print anything by 'citizen journalists, it appears, but I don't know why the Standard is joining in, is it usually very anti GC?

I googled the writer, Arielle Domb, and very quickly found a link to a piece entitled 'My Awkward Night in an AI Sex Doll Brothel' published on Vice.com on 02.04.25.
It was paywalled. The article. And the AI Sex Doll brother, presumably.
Interesting range of topics...

*I always give a link to something about the Denton's Document because it is one of the things that used to puzzle me when I was new to this board -
DENTON’S DOCUMENT – THE GENDER COLLECTION
that and DARVO, which I also always explain as Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender for any newcomers

London Evening Standard.

Hmm, I wonder if this propaganda puff piece could have anything to do with the up coming court case, involving the City of London Corporation and their men's, unisex and trans validation swimming ponds?

This is one of the reasons that the TAs despite having the biggest corporations, many governments, academia in their pockets have started losing in recent years. They had the establishment behind them - they never had the truth. No debate was a dark tactic, but it was the only way they could win. Because as soon as their actual ideas - that biology doesn't exist, that men and women are not real - are discussed it falls apart.

This article says a bunch of things about Sex Matters that makes them sound reasonable. Its main result will be making Sex Matters look good. I bet they will get a bunch of new supporters.

What, not even a mention of potentially being funded by right wing Christian organisations? I’m disappointed.

Great article. Love the questions from Jolyon priming the reader to think "what makes me, biologically, a woman [or not]" and then Sex Matters support of the obvious conclusion most readers will draw from that leading to the very reasonable assertion that, in some instances, biological sex does actually matter.

Jolyon et al are so immersed in the miasma of Trans that they can't see that asking the general public "but what is a biological woman???" won't produce the same confusion and anxiety that it produces in them.

Jolyon knows full well what a biological woman is, he’s made his bed though. I think it’s the burden of the cognitive dissonance that’s made him so unhinged.

@MarieDeGournay It was paywalled. The article. And the AI Sex Doll brother, presumably.
Interesting range of topics...

where's my 'laugh' react button gone when I need it?

😀

I’ve taken to hitting the ‘agree’ emoji as it looks a bit like a round of applause

As pp pointed out on the Kenwood Pond thread, this is potentially a big, attention grabbing case as it involves the captured City of London Corporation. Plenty of threads about their antics on MN. I’m not surprised if it’s put the willies up trans rights activists. (Pun not intended)

Stuff like this that the mainstream media puts out and then gets furious when the public lose trust in them and go to social media.

That's why I'm very suspicious of Ofcom who want to regulate the internet, but allow legacy media like the Evening Standard to pump out stuff like the above article.

Your point about constant mirroring is astute. But Genderism is a magpie ideology (it picks up the shiny bits it likes from other schools of thought) so this behaviour would make sense.

Spot on Utopia. TRAs mirror GC arguments in odd, distorted ways but without the underlying substance.

And this article gets a 🤦‍♀️. Journalist discovers Google search shock.