The recent reaction to the UK Supreme Court’s ruling that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex has laid bare a serious and growing problem within British journalism. Rather than providing factual, impartial reporting that helps the public understand the significance of this judgement, many media outlets have instead engaged in a practice that can only be described as “opinion-baiting.” This is the tendency to amplify emotional, activist-led commentary while sidelining the plain facts of a matter, distorting public understanding in the process.
The ruling itself is clear. The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court affirms that when the Equality Act refers to “sex” and “woman,” it means biological sex. This clarification has important consequences for the operation of single-sex spaces, for sex-based protections, and for the recognition of women’s rights in law. Yet large sections of the press, and notably the BBC, have chosen to report this ruling through the lens of trans rights activism, suggesting that trans women with Gender Recognition Certificates still enjoy the same rights to access women’s spaces unless exclusion is somehow “proportionate.” This selective framing is misleading. It misstates the judgement’s core clarity: that legal protections based on biological sex remain intact, and that self-identification cannot override this legal reality.
This represents a serious failure of journalistic duty. Reporting is supposed to uphold standards of accuracy, impartiality and fairness. When coverage consistently prioritises activist perspectives while neglecting the views of those who have fought to uphold sex-based rights, journalism ceases to function as a neutral guide to public understanding. Instead, it becomes a participant in ideological campaigns. In this case, the media’s repeated amplification of concerns from trans activist groups, while ignoring or minimising the implications for women’s rights, lesbian and gay rights, and broader public policy, illustrates a profound imbalance.
SEEN in Journalism has played an important role in challenging this bias. They have consistently called attention to the ways in which reporting has skewed towards activist narratives, particularly those promoting the idea of self-identification at the expense of material realities based on sex. SEEN’s advocacy highlights the need for a return to foundational journalistic principles: to report accurately, to represent the legal truth without distortion, and to ensure that the voices of women, lesbians, and gay people are heard without being reframed or marginalised through the prism of identity politics.
The practice of opinion-baiting, as seen in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling, represents a wider cultural shift in journalism. Instead of providing the public with a clear account of events and their legal or social implications, media outlets increasingly curate emotional reactions, seeking to provoke engagement rather than support understanding. This trend undermines trust in journalism and corrodes the democratic value of informed public debate. It is not the role of journalists to select whose rights deserve respect based on contemporary fashion or political pressure. It is their role to inform, with fairness, accuracy, and a commitment to the truth, however unfashionable that truth might seem.
The public deserves better than reporting that treats the affirmation of biological reality as a matter of opinion. It deserves better than broadcasters who frame legal clarity as a threat rather than a safeguard. And it deserves journalists who take seriously their responsibility to serve the whole public, not just the loudest or most fashionable voices. The call for a return to integrity in journalism is not a call for neutrality in the face of injustice. It is a call for fairness, honesty and the recognition that facts matter, even when they are inconvenient.