IPSO ruling in Molly v Sunday Times - the press can call men in dresses men

[fromorbit]

Another win.

For Women Scotland

Very much enjoying the IPSO ruling in Molly v Sunday Times.

The press should note that columnists are at liberty to call Euan a "bloke", a "lunatic", and "Mr Molly".

00092-26 Molly v The Sunday Times - IPSO
Sophie Molly complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sunday Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “How the ex-Green stole Christmas”, published on 21 December 2025.
https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings/00092-26/

Sparkles lost every single claim. This is a HUGE win for sexing blokes correctly in the Press. Thanks Sparkles we could not have done this without you being a lunatic. Your attempt to steal Christmas brought a gift to every boy and girl who knows their own sex.

NB The facts around Molly/Sparkles reliability and sex is a key focus in the upcoming libel trial for the Fox Botherer so If I was JM I would be panicking. If you winning anything legal depends on Sparkles you are doomed. Sarah has now issued her claim and it is heading for court.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5511121-glp-are-going-after-sarah-phillimore-and-are-going-to-lose-part-two?page=22

This is good news! Cheered me up no end!

A victory for common sense. Phew!

Good news. It's long overdue that the press revisits the ridiculous IPSO guidelines that have the press lying about the sex of child abusers, murderers and predators .

Happy days! I love it when Sparkles loses because he boasts about blatantly using women's facilities as much as he possibly can. He's a creepy little man.

Thanks, OP, good news. I know that most of us are tired of all the bloody court cases, I know I am! But most of them are wins for reality and common sense, and every win is another hole in the stupid gender wall. Well done!

Haha 🤣

It will be interesting to see how many IPSO-aligned news organisations do away with wrong sex pronouns now they don’t have to worry about regulatory action, and how many stick with it out of ideological positioning.

Why any organisation feared IPSO regulation on this has always baffled me. The Daily Mail worried about IPSO telling them off for calling rapists “she”? How pathetic.

Oh dear Lord, their findings were so unequivocal, far reaching and 'why don't you just get a fucking grip', that the repeated repudiation of everything actually got tedious. I had to start skimming 😁

I'm afraid the heading is technically inaccurate. Sparkles comprehensively lost this time because it was clearly an opinion piece. It's not a blanket ruling.

However it does suggest IPSO may have no patience with similar batshit complaints and therefore may encourage the press to be more honest.

Great news that this big hairy man lost.

"Sophie Molly complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Sunday Times breached Clause 1 (Accuracy)"

So if "sex" means "biological sex" 😮, does that mean that IPSO should be making findings for breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) against newspapers that call men women? If not, then why not?

The ruling is funnier than the column, but if anyone would like to read the original it's at the end of this Rod Liddle piece
https://www.thetimes.com/article/525b24cf-b1a8-4d86-9905-0cd03ef8a48d?shareToken=23f579c2d8c8965c2425f62e7ebec65e&ver=article

"13. Turning to the term “lunatic”, ..."

😂

Excellent news! I agree that this only relates to an opinion piece but hopefully it will give courage to other journalists/editors to start sexing men as men.

The fact that IPSO scrupulously observes his preferred pronouns while also agreeing he can be called a bloke, a lunatic, Mr, I'm not sure if the contrast makes it funnier.

Interesting!

"In addition, she [Molly] said referring to her as a “lunatic” was a prejudicial reference towards her protected characteristics. She said it implied she was mentally ill, as she is a trans woman. She also believed the term was misogynistic and a pejorative reference to her disability."

That's a lot to infer from the word "lunatic".

I started off from this position, but I've come to think that use of wrong-sex pronouns is deliberate and provocative*. They aren't saying, "Here is a man doing manly things like indecent exposure, rape and assault," they are saying, "Here is a woman (oops, sorry, we all know it's a man, just look at the ugly stubbly picture at the top), doing womanly (wait, manly) things like indecent exposure, rape and assault." (Subtext - just look how batshit this ideology is).

*Except for the BBC and the Guardian, of course...

I know what you mean but I’ll have to ponder on that…. Factual accuracy about biological sex in a relevant context should not usually be considered opinion.

id maybe flip it the other way - it should usually be acceptable to remain factually accurate and refer to biological sex when sex matters.

The debate is about when sex matters? For me it matters a lot but apparently less for other people

Awwww, come on, he's not ALL little.

His feet are HUUUUUGE!

I’ve thought this for a long time - there have been so many blatantly inaccurate articles and especially inaccurate and misleading headlines over the years.

Helpful: don't read the ruling and drink coffee at the same time.

16. In regard to the description of the complainant as a “bloke” and “Mr” the publication did not accept this was a prejudicial or pejorative reference to the complainant’s gender identity or sex. It said the article made no reference to the complainant’s gender identity and that the Supreme Court had clarified that biological sex is determined at birth, is immutable and of “foundational importance” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. It said gender reassignment remains a protected characteristic and those legal protections prevent direct or indirect discrimination. However, it said that those legal protections did not, mandate the use of particular pronouns or forbid all reference to biological sex and did not dictate the language an opinion columnist may use. It said that the complainant had set out his personal conviction that the complainant, in bringing a frivolous, trivial complaint that sought to curb the rights of others in the absence of any real harm, had abused the hard-won protections enshrined in equalities law.

it sounds like The Sunday Times put up a very coherent defence, The point being Liddle doesn't have a scooby what Sophie Molly's gender identity is, but he can tell simply by looking at him that he is a man (according to the commonly held definition of a man as an adult human male).

I also like the point about a frivolous complaint seeking to curb the rights of others.

Someone over at the Sunday Times fully has the measure of transactivists

Thanks for the share token.
So does this mean that Sainsbury’s can unpulp all the Grinch cards in time to put them back on their shelves for Christmas 2026?!

Agreed.

It's the entire thrust of the challenge, really. I don't give a fuck what your identity is, you're a man.

The rank hypocrisy of TRA's constantly, relentlessly drawing attention to themselves as trans, whilst earnestly maintaining that it's akcherly irrelevant, is beautifully punctured by people ignoring their trans status entirely.

Halleefeckinglujah at last, common sense and truth win!!!!! It really is time for this nonsense to stop. All sensible people know that "trans" is snake oil, men cannot be women, so everyone can stand down and the hard of thinking can stop pretending to believe in it.