Complaint
A viewer questioned the accuracy of the introduction to an interview with Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, the new chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In it Laura Kuenssberg stated the Supreme Court had said it was biological sex, not a person’s chosen gender, that should determine who should be able to access single-sex spaces.
The complainant argued this was misleading because it gave the impression that in “seeking to comply with the law in a compassionate and inclusive fashion” schools, employers and service providers had no choice but to exclude trans people from single sex spaces. The ECU considered whether the programme met the BBC Guidelines on accuracy.
Outcome
The Supreme Court judgment ruled the terms “woman”, “man” and “sex” in the Equality Act must be interpreted as referring to biological sex, not gender identity, even for individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). The Court did not rule specifically on access to single-sex spaces but acknowledged its interpretation of “sex” would affect the operation of such spaces under the Equality Act, for example in services, sports, or other women-only provisions. This is because those provisions rely on the statutory meaning of “sex”. Programmes such as Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg are aimed at a general audience and so it is usually considered acceptable to summarise a complex issue provided any such summary does not leave the audience with a materially misleading impression. In the ECU’s view, Ms Kuenssberg’s introduction was intended to convey the broad implication of the Supreme Court’s ruling that a person’s biological sex should determine who is able to access single-sex spaces in relation to the Equality Act rather than a person’s chosen gender. Whilst the introduction could have been phrased more precisely to avoid any risk a viewer might infer the Supreme Court had issued a direct ruling on access to specific spaces, the introduction expressed the core legal conclusion of the judgment.
Not Upheld