Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Women’s charities and the UK Supreme Court ruling: Murray, Blackburn, Mackenzie

11 replies

TheNoWord · 16/04/2026 09:38

"The report details how some women’s charities have lost sight of their charitable objects over recent years. It identifies a range of charities set up specifically to benefit women that have extended their reach to include men who identify as women. These cover a range of charitable activities and delivery models, including: service provision, charitable associations, advocacy or campaigning charities, educational charities and award or prize-giving charities. We also show how funders can create pressure on charities to apply a definition of ‘woman’ that extends to men who identify as women, which is not compatible with the Supreme Court ruling, including by setting formal conditions on funding."

You can download the report and the legal opinion from Karon Monaghan KC here:

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2026/04/16/losing-focus-womens-charities-and-the-uk-supreme-court-ruling/

Losing focus: Women’s charities and the UK Supreme Court ruling - Murray Blackburn Mackenzie

Women’s charities and the UK Supreme Court ruling Our latest report focuses on charities whose objects, as set out in their governing documents, state that they should benefit solely women and/or girls, or that their beneficiaries must be female. The r...

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2026/04/16/losing-focus-womens-charities-and-the-uk-supreme-court-ruling/

OP posts:
TwoLoonsAndASprout · 16/04/2026 10:00

MBM do/commission some seriously good work. Thanks for this @TheNoWord.

AngleofRepose · 16/04/2026 10:13

NoWord, I saw a news report on this. Thanks for drawing attention to the report.

It's going to be a real task to roll this back. The inertia is strong, the ideology embedded. I think that, for many very small charities, their main concern is about funding, and "other considerations" may fall by the wayside. When I donate, I try my best to read into their policies and never donate if I perceive that they do not, at least on some level, understand basic biology. Or I will tell them why I will not be donating. (most don't seem to care-perhaps that will change if the tide is now turning)

How many years have we be saying "this will be the year things change?"

TheNoWord · 16/04/2026 10:41

Like many quangos, the Charity Commission have proved to be absolutely useless. If the regulator won’t deal with these charities where do we go from here? Looks like we are still in the ‘lawfare’ quagmire.

OP posts:
MarieDeGournay · 16/04/2026 10:45

MBM are great - they seem to be an island of realism and common sense.
I don't know how they got to be like that, but it's wonderful that they are!

Their website is full of useful stuff - for example this page has interesting links
Academic publications - Murray Blackburn Mackenzie

AngleofRepose · 16/04/2026 10:46

We will have to sue. And sue some more. Every. single. time.

Thank goodness for crowdfunding and women (and men) with money who are willing to pay out and support those who need it.

AngleofRepose · 16/04/2026 10:48

MarieDeGournay · 16/04/2026 10:45

MBM are great - they seem to be an island of realism and common sense.
I don't know how they got to be like that, but it's wonderful that they are!

Their website is full of useful stuff - for example this page has interesting links
Academic publications - Murray Blackburn Mackenzie

ps. Marie, I'm not following you around, promise!

MarieDeGournay · 16/04/2026 17:22

AngleofRepose · 16/04/2026 10:48

ps. Marie, I'm not following you around, promise!

👀I'm on the QV now😁

IwantToRetire · 16/04/2026 18:31

I think a few years ago I would have thought this is really great.

But sadly much in this report is known. Of course I apprecite that this is in a "porfessional" report, and so must might make some people take notice who wouldn't if it was just info on a FWR thread.

If anything the past year has shown is not that many people care.

And politicians are going to say we must have an investigation, we must get these women's groups to return to their WLM aims.

And despite not having sympathy with the women who are now running these groups, these groups are like this because of the combined pressure of politics (eg the Labour Party), funders who dont give a shit, just want the most cost effective use of their money(*), and of course the huge and massive sucess of Stonewall etc..

And sadly many women using these services, are probably so desperate and so concerned that criticisms would just lead to the closure of services, that they are unlikely to band together and campaign for women's groups to return to their founding principles.

It wouldn't surprise me if the MRAs dont just use this as an opportunity to say that government and charity funding should not be wasted on charities (claiming) primarily for women.

Or women's groups will just change their aims and objectives.

(*) More women's groups have closed because funders dont think women only services are cost effective. And of course women dont matter.

Waitwhat23 · 16/04/2026 18:31

MBM seriously deserve some sort of reward or honour for their work. They have been superb.

BellaBlackberry83 · 16/04/2026 19:43

Karon Monaghan KC's Opinion (linked at the end of the article) is excellent, and worth downloading and referring to if anyone is involved in lobbying charities on this issue.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page