Summary
The Sunday Times and the Art of the One-Sided Narrative. TransLucent holds Hadley Freeman and The Sunday Times to account saying "NO" to transphobia - a response.
The Sunday Times and the Art of the One-Sided Narrative.
By the TransLucent Team
At TransLucent, our mission involves campaigning for visibility, acceptance, and legal recognition for the trans community while actively countering the misinformation and disinformation peddled by trans-hostile actors.
Following Hadley Freeman’s recent Sunday Times article, “We won the Supreme Court sex ruling. The PM is subverting it,” we believe it is necessary to go beyond merely correcting the facts. We must address the systemic bias in how the media constructs a narrative that purports to speak for all women while silencing the voices of those most affected.
Constructing the “Expert” Myth
The Sunday Times piece is a masterclass in one-sided reporting. Throughout the article, the founding members of For Women Scotland (FWS and apparent laypeople) are treated as if they possess supreme legal authority. In contrast, actual legal experts and trans people themselves are conspicuously absent. Susan Smith and Marion Calder are permitted to frame complex legal interpretations as “simple,” while dismissal of the government’s concerns is characterised as “playing silly buggers”.
Furthermore, the author, Hadley Freeman, has a long and well-documented history of attacks on the trans community, which informs the slanted perspective of the piece. The article also levels heavy criticism at Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson and Prime Minister Keir Starmer without appearing to offer them a right of reply, thereby presenting a political attack as objective reality.
The Erasure of the “Winners”
Perhaps the most egregious aspect of the Times’ bias is the omission of those who have actually prevailed in legal challenges against the gender critical ideology movement’s interpretation of the law. While the article highlights gender-critical claimants like Sandie Peggie, it fails to interview the actual “winners” of these tribunals- the trans women who successfully defended their rights to dignity and inclusion.
For instance, the article mentions the case of Peggie v NHS Fife as a “grim time” for women’s spaces. However, it omits the fact that the claimant lost 43 of her 47 claims, and the tribunal found that it was actually the claimant who appeared to have harassed her trans colleague, Dr Beth Upton.
By ignoring the perspectives of people like Dr Upton, the Times spreads disinformation by making it appear as though the law has reached a consensus on exclusion, when in fact employment tribunals continue to find that inclusive policies are a proportionate way to create a safe workplace.
The Sunday Times and the Art of the One-Sided Narrative. Challenging the “Quiet Majority”
The article relies on weak anecdotal examples of women who whisper support to FWS in cafes, creating the illusion of a “quiet majority”. It fails to acknowledge the existence of the vast number of women who do not share gender-critical views.
In reality, a significant and vocal collective of gender-conforming women, known as the NION (Not In Our Name) women’s collective, has categorically rejected the exclusion of trans people. In total, over 75,000 women have said “no” to transphobia by signing an open letter of the type spread by The Sunday Times.
These women recognise that the real threat to women is not trans people seeking to live with dignity, but a culture that enables male violence. They point to staggering statistics: one woman is killed by a man every three days in the UK, and 98% of perpetrators of sexual offences are men. These women refuse to have their experiences “weaponised” against their trans siblings, yet their perspective is entirely absent from the Sunday Times’ coverage. The NION letter says this:
“We want the media and politicians to recognise that there is a large number of women who are supportive of the trans+ community. We call on them to report truthfully about the sources of violence against women and to address the systems that perpetuate harm.”
The Sunday Times and the Art of the One-Sided Narrative – The Legal Reality vs. Media Panic
The Supreme Court ruling in FWS v SGM did indeed define “sex” as biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. However, the Court was also clear that this does not strip protection from trans people. As the ruling notes, trans individuals remain protected under the characteristic of “gender reassignment” and can bring discrimination claims based on perception or association.
Recent tribunal outcomes, such as Kelly v Leonardo UK and the case of trans worker Sophie Cole, demonstrate that the Equality Act still offers meaningful tools for trans people to challenge harassment. The so-called “landmark” victory claimed by GC activists has not resulted in the sweeping endorsement of exclusion they promised.
Our Commitment
We recognise that by calling out these biased perspectives, TransLucent’s team members may face intensified personal attacks from these same media outlets that seek to propagate a culture war against trans people.
However, we remain in total agreement: the future of our society depends on solidarity, not division. TransLucent will continue to advocate for a world where the law is used to protect the vulnerable, rather than to justify the “active discrimination” of a minority group.
