Charity Times - one sided inaccurate article on SC

[Theeyeballsinthesky]

Completely one sided sad faced article on charities implementing the SC ruling. Third sector remains locked in to TRA

https://www.charitytimes.com/ct/DigitalEditions/CT-DigitalEdition-Spring_2026.pdf

The complexity also differs

depending on context. For service

providers, current case law affirms that

charities are not required to provide

single-sex services, though they may

choose to where objectively justified.

Any exclusion of trans people must

meet a proportionality test and be

necessary and evidence-based

Why do they keep framing it as any exclusion of trans people must meet a proportionality test. It's the provision of single sex services that requires a proportionality test and once that has been satisfied then it automatic that those single sex services are based on sex not gender.

It’s been a phenomenal grift for the charity sector; they’re not going to give up easily.

For parts of it yes but it's done untold damage to other parts of it targeted at women and girls

but as has been said many times, it does seem to be a revolving door of CEO & trustees TRA who go from one to another

All this article shows is that as usual trustees etc., are the least competent, value free group of people and certainly shouldn't be taking policy decisions, even if they can add up a column of numbers.

The problem is theirs. If they had acted this scrupulously when they were all stonewalled about women's sex based rights, there wouldn't be an issue.

It is because they gave away women's sex based rights to ingratiate themselves with the newest trends, that now that women are having their rights re-established they are pretending it isn't their fault.

Just grotesque that someone who presumes to comment on the charity sector seems so oblivious to their own bias.

As always everyone convenietly forgets that the point of the Supreme Court ruling was to reclaime women's rights.

This article just makes it look like charities dont care about women, let alone their sex based rights.

But in case anyone wondered, this articles shows how many groups got captured.

Because complete incompetents who have a limit skill in one tiny area are then put on boards who take ethical and policy decisions about the basic function of the charity.

Is it any wonder that mission drift is so common in the so called charity sector.

Is it worth asking them to write an equally one sided article about how the Supreme Court ruling is forcing charities to realise their mission drift and re-established women's sex based rights.

I looked for them on facebook and would be happy to comment there, but they haven't up dated it since 2009.

...charities are not required to provide
single-sex services, though they may
choose to where objectively justified.
Any exclusion of trans people must
meet a proportionality test and be
necessary and evidence-based.

This statement is, and always was, true, but very misleading because it doesn't make it clear that the proportionality test applies to the exclusion of a trans person from a single-sex service of their own sex. I can't help but feel that this is deliberate sleight of hand intended to have a repercussive effect on the interpretation of the first sentence. Second sentence should be deleted.

They've also failed trans service users. Should have included:

if charities provide single-sex services, this is likely to constitute discrimination against trans people unless they also provide mixed-sex or gender neutral services for their use

[In an ideal world, would also like to see:

if charities provide mixed-sex services, admission criteria should be the same for both sexes, or a sex-discrimination claim may arise

and

provision of only mixed-sex services may give rise to a claim of indirect sex-discrimination against women]

The whole piece is really offensive, full of performative bewilderment and stuff about trans-hostile organisations and the need to get back to trans domination ASAP. Plus we must let people speak but ignore the ones with the wrongthink.

It's obviously been written by someone who understands the law and the reasons for it, and is clever enough to mislead without telling outright lies. So, not stupid, just evil . Why is anyone like this?

LGB alliance were asked for comments and apparently supplied several, none of which were used

I was going to say unbelievable, which in terms of professionalism it is, but in terms of the charity sector, it isn't - sadly.

I know that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer but if this article is right, why have the WI and GG actually moved to removed TiMs no matter how reluctantly?

I dont think the article is claiming to be right, but is making the arguement that just about everybody is making is that the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling just isn't fair. Because they all think trans rights such be more important that women's rights, and it is only because loud mouthed women have stood up for their rights, that they are now realising they cant get away with going on breaking the law. And they were in the wrong to do it anyway.

Its a complete fabricated sob story.

A genuine story would have been to ask how so many charity groups allowed themselves to coopted into breaking the law becaue prior to the Supreme Court ruling nowhere did it say, that those people even with a GRC were biological women. So if their organisation eg Girl Guides had been set up with the stated aims of being for girls and young women (at a time when those words would only have meant biology) and they then broke those stated aims by including those identifying as female, they were in the wrong. Or should have ammended their aims and objectives.

So the fact that some in Girl Guides have recognised that and agreed that they breeching their own aims and objectives, is in fact not only legally correct but a re-establishment of sex based rights.

But the whole article is an attempt to reverse reality and never admit that all those organisations the broke their own aims and objectives by including trans women.

A properly professional article, that would have helped restore faith in the Charity sector should instead have been about why did so many charities and its trustee behave so badly and broke not only their onw aims, but also the law./

Many People in the charity world I know exist in an elitist bubble after following clear career paths from uni in the 90s. They’re extremely committed to being Very Good Humans and have devoted their social media energy to LinkedIn. Which, I’ve only recently realised, is the worst offender for authoritarianism on TRA rules. They rub shoulders with celebs and of course, gobbled up DEI. They perfect their PR media presence better than celebs. It’s even worse in the arts related charity sector.

The “it’s not working podcast” is very revealing here.

I reckon the charity sector has had its own version of what’s going on in academia, where everyone quotes everyone else’s work and voila! New facts are born. (But I can never remember the term!)

I also honestly think - from what I picked up in schools - that the whole argument for single sex spaces was framed as an entirely Tory / right wing ideology and that once labour got it it would all go away. I think they’re genuinely still completely in denial about it all.

It's not about the number of children leaving it more about the number of children not joining.

This effects of this policy will be like a snow ball and the full effects will be felt in the coming years.

Anecdotally I've heard that the catchment area of the most popular local comps for 2025 and 2026 intake has shrunk. Checking the data+ catchment for one school has shrunk from a historical catchment of circa 7.5 km to 1.6km and this is for cohort with a lower birth rate.

Other than the VAT I'm not sure what else it could be

Is the magazine a member of IPSO? I can't see anything on their website.
They do invite opinion pieces though. It would be great if LGB Alliance took them up on that and wrote a rebuttal, including the fact that they were asked to comment and it wasn't published.
https://www.charitytimes.com/ct/aboutus.php

I haven't read this in full, but at least this is putting it in the public domain.

https://lgballiance.org.uk/charity-times-urges-charities-to-act-unlawfully/

That’s a nice, clear response from KB. Shame on them for not publishing it.

Talking of Charities

Regulator launches inquiry into international children’s charity over serious safeguarding concerns - GOV.UK https://share.google/vEhOTEonzIfEz6OnX

I've never heard of CISV international. It's possible, likely even, that the safeguarding issue has nothing to do with gender ideology but a quick perusal of their website gives the impression that they're completely captured.

Apologies for the derail.

Well said @IwantToRetire.
That article is shamelessly biased.
As Oxfam and others have seen, if they go down the TWAW road and ignore the wishes, safety and dignity of women and girls, many of us will stop making donations.

And now we have the rumours that Labour is intending to change the EA to correct "imbalances" or something, makes an article like this seem that the majority will think or be made to think that the Supreme Court ruling was "unfair".