03224-25 Poynter v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. William Poynter complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Activists’ legal threat over ‘lavatories for all’ Fringe sign / Fringe’s gender-free lavatories send activists round the bend”, published on 4 August 2025.

2. The article - which appeared on the front-page and continued on page 4 - reported that a venue had been “accused […] of breaking the law for allowing biological men to use women’s lavatories”. It said this came:

“after the Supreme Court said that transgender women are not legally women in a landmark ruling. The decision by Britain’s most senior judges in April prompted new guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, stating that although it is not compulsory for public services to have single-sex facilities such as lavatories, it could be indirect sex discrimination against women if the only toilets provided are mixed-sex.”

3. It went on to say: “The case was brought to the Supreme Court by the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland after two courts rejected its arguments that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female.”

4. The article also included a quote from the “director of advocacy for human-rights charity Sex Matters, which campaigns for clarity about biological sex”. It reported they had said: “’There’s no lawful basis for putting up male and female signs – for toilets, changing rooms and so on – and then declaring that you mean something other than sex. Organisations that fail to get this right risk enabling sexual harassment and ultimately being sued.’”

5. The article also appeared online in substantively the same format, under the headline “Fringe venue ‘breaking law’ by letting biological men use women’s toilets”; this version of the article was published on 3 August 2025.

6. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it reported that the Supreme Court had ruled that “transgender women are not legally women”. He said that the Supreme Court’s judgment was clear that its ruling was of limited scope, and addressed only the interpretation of the term “sex” in the context of the Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010). He said that transgender women who held a gender recognition certificate (GRC) were still legally considered women, except in very specific circumstances defined by law.

7. The complainant also said that it was misleading for the publication to include a quote from a spokesperson from the group Sex Matters. The spokesperson was reported to have said that the provision of toilet facilities based on an individual’s gender identity “could be illegal.” The complainant said that this assertion was incorrect.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that the Supreme Court had found that the EA 2010 should be read as defining women biologically, including for the purpose of GRCs.

9. It said that the quote from Sex Matters referenced by the complainant – that the provision of toilet facilities “could be illegal” – did not appear in the article under complaint. At any rate, it noted that the article explained that the Supreme Court ruling had led to new guidance from the EHRC, which stated that not providing single-sex toilet facilities “could be indirect sex discrimination against women”.

10. The complainant disputed that the article claimed that transgender women are not legally women according to the EA 2010 – rather, he said, the claim made by the article was that “transgender women are not legally women”. In support of his complaint, he referenced the following paragraph from the relevant Supreme Court judgment, which he said made clear the judgment was limited to the definition of “woman” in the EA 2010:

“It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (‘the GRA 2004’).”

11. The complainant also expressed concern that - in relation to the assertion that not providing single-sex toilet facilities could be illegal – the article had not included any countering view. He said this was dishonest, as it presented only one side of the debate and demonstrated political bias.

12. The publication said the article made clear that the reference to “a landmark ruling” which found that “transgender women are not legally women” was a reference to the definition of women in the EA 2010. It noted that the paragraph which followed the disputed reference said: “The case was brought to the Supreme Court by the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland after two Scottish courts rejected its arguments that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female.” It said this made clear to the reader that the case related to the Equality Act’s definition of a woman.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

13. The Committee considered the first point of complaint, which arose from the sentence “the Supreme Court said that transgender women are not legally women in a landmark ruling”. The complainant said this was inaccurate, as the ruling was limited to the definition of the word “woman” in the context of the EA 2010, and transgender women who held a GRC remained legally women in the context of other legislation.

14. The Committee noted that when taken out of context, the sentence under complaint, arguably, could be interpreted to mean that – in all situations and contexts – transgender women are not legally women. However, it was clear the sentence should not be taken out of context. Rather, it should be read and understood in conjunction with the article in which it appeared. To do otherwise would be inconsistent with how news articles are generally read and interpreted.

15. The article made clear that the Supreme Court judgment related to the interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 by setting out the background to the case: “The case was brought to the Supreme Court by the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland after two courts rejected its arguments that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female.” Therefore, read in conjunction with the article as a whole, the Committee considered it was clear that the sentence under dispute was referencing the Supreme Court’s judgment regarding the term “woman” in the context of the EA 2010.

16. Both parties accepted that the Supreme Court had found that, under the Equality Act, “woman” should be understood as someone who was born female. Given this, and where the article when read as a whole made clear that the ruling was in relation to the Act, the Committee did not consider the article to be inaccurate, misleading, or distorted on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1.

17. The complainant had also said that the article breached Clause 1 by reporting a quote from the group Sex Matters which said that the provision of toilet facilities based on an individual’s gender identity “could be illegal.” The article did not contain this quote. As the article did not include the reference under complaint, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

18. The complainant had also expressed concern that the publication had not presented both sides of the argument when reporting on interpretations of the Supreme Court ruling. He said that this showed political bias. The Editors’ Code does not restrict bias – political or otherwise – nor does it contain a requirement for impartiality or balance. Provided the Code is not otherwise breached, newspapers are free to express its views and the views of others. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

Conclusions

19. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

20. N/A

Date complaint received: 06/08/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 11/12/2025