06566-24 Joy v Telegraph.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Rachael Joy complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that Telegraph.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Time wasted on trans ideology has meant more pregnant women dying under the NHS”, published on 17 December 2024.

2. The article appeared online only, underneath a prominent author byline – which appeared above the headline, and used the same font and type size as the headline - and a photograph of the writer. The following sub-headline appeared below the headline: “Patient safety for women during and post-childbirth is in decline. Caring for mothers and babies should be the NHS’s priority”.

3. The article said that:

“One of the most galling effects of a preoccupation with ‘inclusion’ or ‘the gender wars’ or trans ideology over the last few years has been the actual neglect of women’s lives. And women’s deaths.

“I don’t say this lightly. Time spent on changing NHS language from mothers to ‘birthing people’ to arguments over whether men can get pregnant and ‘chest-feed’ means that provision for those of us with female bodies has been set back. This is all thanks to the ‘grow your own cervix’ brigade.

“When we argue for better healthcare for women, we are arguing for sex-based rights, not some imaginary right based on a desired identity. And what could be more basic to our sex than giving birth?”

4. The article then said:

“An analysis by the Institute of Global Health innovation at Imperial College London has revealed alarming declines in NHS patient safety. It shows that the number of women dying during or shortly after pregnancy, and babies dying within 28 days of being born, have increased for the first time in a decade. Since 2017 the maternal death rate itself has increased by a ‘statistically significant’ 52.3 per cent.  

“Surely the time and energy spent on trans ideology could have been used on caring for women and babies?”

5. IPSO received several complaints on the same points about the article. In line with its usual processes, a complainant was chosen to act as the lead complainant.

6. The complainant said that the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 as it did not evidence its claim that “time wasted on trans ideology has meant more pregnant women dying under the NHS”. She said that the article did not make a causal link between time spent on “trans ideology” and an increase in maternal deaths.

7. The complainant also said that the article breached Clause 12 because she considered it held trans people responsible for maternal deaths, and was therefore discriminatory.

8. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. It said the article was an opinion piece, and the writer was “posing a proposition” and setting out her view on what factors she believed contributed to failings in maternity care. It said the article made the author’s view clear – “that the right to give birth safely and to have access to quality antenatal care are eroded both because time and attention is diverted but also because the rights of biological women are seen as less important.” It said this did not mean that were no other factors which might contribute to the increase in maternal deaths, but the author was entitled to focus on the factor which she considered to be the issue. Therefore, it did not accept that Clause 1 had been breached.

9. The publication further said that the headline claim could not be carved out from the rest of the article, and must be read in conjunction with it. Given the article was clearly distinguished as comment – by way of the columnist’s prominent byline, picture of the writer, and the tone, which expressed the author’s opinions – it said that it followed that the headline was also distinguished as comment. It also said that nowhere in the article did the writer purport that she had engaged in a factual analysis into the root causes of the rise in maternal deaths.

10. Turning to Clause 12, the publication said that Clause 12 refers to discrimination against specific individuals, rather than groups. Therefore, it did not accept that the complainant’s concern – which was that the article discriminated against trans people in general – engaged the terms of Clause 12.

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

11. The Committee first wished to note that opinion pieces will often express strong views on topics of great importance and debate. The Editors’ Code does not prohibit the publication of any strongly held view - however, it does make clear that comment should be distinguished from fact. Therefore, the first question for the Committee was whether the disputed claim was clearly distinguished as the writer’s conjecture and comment.

12. The headline was prefaced by the writer’s name – this appeared prominently before the headline, in the same font and type size as the headline. A photograph of the writer also appeared beneath the headline, along with a photograph. Therefore, the Committee considered the manner in which the headline was set out was a clear indicator that it was setting out the views of the writer, given the prominent byline and photograph.

13. The sub-headline then went on to say that “[c]aring for mothers and babies should be the NHS’s priority”, and the article itself was written in the first person and posed the question: “Surely the time and energy spent on trans ideology could have been used on caring for women and babies?”

14. Considering the headline and article together, the Committee found that the headline was distinguished as the writer’s view, as made clear by the prominent author byline. The article supported the headline and clarified its meaning, by expanding on the writer’s argument: “I don’t say this lightly. Time spent on changing NHS language from mothers to ‘birthing people’ to arguments over whether men can get pregnant and ‘chest-feed’ means that provision for those of us with female bodies has been set back.“

15. The complainant had expressed concern that the article did not evidence its headline claim. In considering this aspect of the complaint, the Committee was mindful of the context of the article: it was a comment piece, setting out the writer’s views on patient safety before and after birth. The article was not presented as a dispassionate and impartial examination of the possible reasons for an increase in maternal deaths, and from the headline onwards it was clear it was the writer’s view that “time wasted on trans ideology has meant more pregnant women dying under the NHS”, rather than a matter of established fact. While the headline must support the text of the article, this did not mean that it had to provide external citations to support the writer’s view – given the headline was clearly distinguished as comment.

16. In such circumstances, the Committee considered that the headline was distinguished as comment, and was supported by the text of the article. Therefore, there was no breach of Clause 1.

17. While the complainant had expressed concerns – framed under Clause 12 – that the article was discriminatory against transgender people in general, the terms of Clause 12 do not address discrimination against groups. In such circumstances, the complainant’s concerns under Clause 12 did not give rise to a breach of Clause 12.

Remedial action required

18. N/A

Date complaint received: 17/12/2024

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 08/05/2025