05535-24 Hamilton v The Daily Telegraph

Summary of Complaint

1. Blair Hamilton complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Sutton match postponed over transgender furore”, published on 2 September.

2. The article – which appeared on page 7 – reported a women’s football team had “abruptly postponed their scheduled women’s match at Ebbsfleet United [on Saturday 30 August] amid a mounting furore over the signing of [the complainant], a biological male, as their goalkeeper”. It said while the club “offered no explanation for their failure to assemble a team, it is understood that the cancellation is related to increasing disquiet around [the complainant’s] involvement and the implications for sporting fairness.”

3. The article went onto state that “within hours” of the publication reporting on the complainant’s call-up by “Sutton Women’s transgender manager, the club sent an email to Ebbsfleet at 11.12am confirming that they had been unable to put a team together but offered no reasons why.” It reported, “parents of several players in the [division] where Sutton compete, have privately expressed unease about a player carrying the physiological advantages of male puberty competing in women’s football,” and reported that a former competitive swimmer had received significant correspondence from people concerned about “a biologically male” goalkeeper taking the place of a woman. The article stated, “the presence of [the complainant], 34, in the women’s game has drawn protests during previous spells for Hastings United and England Universities.”

4. The article also appeared online in substantially the same form under the headline, “Football match postponed after disquiet expressed over signing of transgender goalkeeper.”

5. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 because it referred to a game being postponed due to her involvement. She said she was never selected for the game in question.

6. The complainant also said the article was in breach of Clause 1 because it inaccurately reported that the game was called off because her teammates were allegedly scared for their safety. To support her position, she supplied a screenshot of a WhatsApp message posted in a group called “Sutton United 2024/25” which said, “we as a group would like to put it on record that no players from Sutton United FC refused to play on Sunday and we all fully support our manager and team mate who have been targets of disgraceful speculation and abuse”. The complainant also supplied a WhatsApp message sent by the team’s manager to her on Friday 30 August which said, “[the former competitive swimmer] has been tweeting about us and the club have been getting crap all day. The American bosses have said that you cannot play this weekend until they have a meeting on Monday.”

7. The complainant said the article was in breach of Clause 12 because it described her as a “biological male”, which she said was discriminatory against her protected characteristics of gender identify and legal sex. She said the term was a transphobic “dog whistle”. She said the correct way to indicate her legal sex had changed would have been to state she had been “assigned male at birth” – she said referring to her as a “biological male” mischaracterised her legal female sex.

8. The publication did not accept it had inaccurately reported the game was cancelled due to the complainant’s involvement. It said the article reported Sutton United failed to assemble a team and that the complainant’s involvement as a member of the club had raised concerns over sporting fairness. It said this was factually accurate as there was concern surrounding her involvement, and previous appearances by the complainant in other women’s football matches had drawn protests. The publication also said there were concerns arising from the complainant’s potential appearance at the match, and that this was supported by the statement put out by the club which explained the postponement:

The wellbeing and safety of all our players is of paramount importance to us and it was through an abundance of caution on this subject that the decision was made to postpone the match on Sunday. We will not tolerate any behaviour that undermines our values or puts anyone’s health or safety in jeopardy […] Following recent media reports regarding our women’s team and a recent player addition, the board would like to take this opportunity to express our full support of [the manager] in her decision to recruit based on ability, character and commitment to the team.

9. The publication said the article did not report the complainant was selected for the game in question. It said the article accurately reported the complainant was signed for the club; at no point did it state the complainant was due to play in the cancelled match.

10. The publication disputed the article reported the game was called off because the complainant’s teammates were scared for their safety due to her participation. It said her teammates were not mentioned in the article. It said instead the article reported there was mounting disquiet across the sport about “a biological male” playing in women's football from parents, from players, from women's rights groups, and other groups.

11. The publication did not accept a breach of Clause 12. It said the article discussed the postponement of a women's football match and the broader issue of transgender women’s participation in women’s sports. It disputed that calling the complainant a “biological male” was discriminatory – it said this was simply factual and the term did not amount to prejudicial or pejorative language. The publication said the key issue in sports was not whether an individual was transgender, but the advantage that “a biological male” may have over biologically female athletes, especially in contact sports like football. It referred to scientific research which it said showed the residual physiological advantages of male puberty could affect fairness and safety in women’s sports. It also referred to a letter from MPs and peers calling for rule changes in football after a transgender woman caused a serious injury to another female player. It said referring to someone as a "biological male" in this context was not discriminatory but was relevant to the issue of fairness and safety in sports. It said there was therefore no breach of Clause 12.

12. The complainant responded that she considered the term "biological male" to be both pejorative and prejudicial because it reduced her identity to her assigned sex at birth and disregarded her lived experience and affirmed gender identity, as well as her personal journey as a transgender woman. She said the phrase inaccurately reflected an outdated understanding that did not account for the complexity of gender beyond mere anatomy. She said additionally, "biological male" is frequently used in exclusionary or hostile contexts, which made it feel stigmatising and invalidating, even when used without malintent. She said focusing solely on the sex assigned at birth implied her affirmed identity was somehow secondary or invalid. She said terms like "transgender woman", or "transgender athlete" would have been more respectful and accurate, reflecting both her identity and lived experience.

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.

Clause 12 (Discrimination)

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

ii) Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.

Findings of the Committee

13. The Committee firstly considered whether referring to the complainant as “a biological male” was irrelevant, pejorative or prejudicial, in breach of Clause 12. The Committee recognised the complainant objected to this particular terminology. However, it noted this did not – in and of itself – mean the term breached Clause 12. The article specifically discussed women’s sport, and the wider debate around transgender players competing in women’s football. This debate – as evidenced by material provided by the publication – involves discussion of the possible biological advantages experienced by transgender players. In this context, the Committee considered the reference to the complainant being a “biological male” was genuinely relevant to the issues discussed in the article. The Committee did not consider that the term in the context in which it had been used was belittling or demeaning to the complainant, nor insulting in a manner that it considered pejorative or prejudicial. Further, while the Committee acknowledged the complainant’s concern that her legal sex and gender were not stated in the piece, it considered that the article made sufficiently clear that she was transgender. Considering these factors, there was no breach of Clause 12.

14. The Committee then considered whether the article inaccurately reported the game was “called off” because of the complainant’s involvement. The Committee carefully considered how the cancellation of the match had been reported in the article. The article expressly stated that no explanation had been offered for the “failure to assemble a team”. It then reported that it was “understood that the cancellation related to increasing disquiet about the complainant’s involvement and the implications for sporting fairness” which, in the context, was a reference to the complainant’s involvement with the team, rather than the match which had been cancelled. The statement from the club referred to the “wellbeing and safety of all our players” and “recent media reports regarding our women’s team and a recent player addition” and the complainant provided a text message from her manager where she was informed that, “the club have been getting crap all day. The American bosses have said that you cannot play this weekend until they have a meeting on Monday”. The Committee, therefore, did not find that the article reported the game had been “called off” because of the complainant’s involvement in the game itself, and found that the reported “disquiet” about the complainant’s involvement in the team was supported by both the statement which had been released by the club and the text from the complainant’s manager. There was no breach of Clause 1.

15. The Committee then considered whether the article gave the misleading impression that the game was “called off” due to concerns from the complainant’s teammates. The Committee noted that the article did not report that the match was cancelled because the complainant’s teammates were concerned about her involvement. The article mentioned different groups who it said were worried, including “parents of several players in the [division]” and people who had written to the former competitive swimmer to express concerns about “a biologically male goalkeeper taking the place of a woman.” The complainant did not dispute there was controversy around her involvement in the team and reporting on those concerns, which were not attributed to her teammates, did not give rise to a breach of Clause 1.

Conclusions

16. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

17. N/A

Date complaint received: 06/09/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 17/02/2025