The founder of Mumsnet, Justine Roberts, has revealed she was blacklisted by Barclays and Ocado and branded a “bigot” for standing up for women’s rights to access single-sex spaces, as she welcomes the Supreme Court’s trans ruling. The Mail has the story.
The founder of Mumsnet said she feared the site might not survive after they were branded “bigots” and blacklisted by big business for standing up for women’s rights.
Justine Roberts singled out Barclays and Ocado, who she claimed had refused to advertise or partner with the popular online forum when it called for the Government to clarify the definition of ‘a woman’ under equality legislation.
In a statement posted on Mumsnet in the wake of Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling, Ms Roberts said she felt under intense “pressure” from activists because of its stance, but stressed that “even in the darkest moments” she refused to ban discussion on the issue, saying that would have been “contrary to what Mumsnet is about”.
Ms Roberts wrote: “It’s been severely testing at times – there were moments I genuinely thought we might never see the tide turn, or at least not in our generation. … Mumsnet risked being permanently labelled as bigoted, vicious, and ‘on the wrong side of history’.
“A fair number of organisations pulled their advertising under pressure from activists – both internal and external. I’m sure there were many more we never heard from who simply steered clear.
“Commercial partnerships became noticeably harder to secure. The low point was discovering we’d been blacklisted on instruction from the top brass at Barclays – just weeks before its CEO resigned over concealing ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
“When we included a call to clarify the definition of sex in the Equality Act in our 2024 Mumsnet Manifesto, Ocado – who had been excited about a partnership – abruptly pulled out, citing Mumsnet’s ‘hateful political views’.”
Despite repeated attempts to explain our position – as a platform committed to amplifying women’s voices – they’ve refused to speak to us ever since.
“Nonetheless, even in the darkest moments, when I feared the site might not survive, we never considered banning discussion of this issue altogether. That would have been completely contrary to what Mumsnet is about: a space for mothers to talk about what matters to them.”
Under the landmark judgment, from the UK’s highest court, transgender women are no longer legally women, meaning they will not be allowed to take part in women’s sport or be on single-sex hospital wards.
Changing rooms must also “be based on biological sex” and Baroness Kishwer Falkner, Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), has already pledged to pursue organisations that fail to enforce women-only spaces.
Despite the ruling’s unambiguous language, many large businesses and organisations have said they will not immediately be changing their policies for transgender individuals, at least not until they have received legal advice on its implications.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Opposition to hunting is either politically motivated or factually ignorant.
The Burns report that led to the hunting act was chaired by an individual who knew little about hunting and ignored the most recent information available. The tyranny of the majority couldn’t even ensure that the hunting act was passed without an entirely inappropriate use of the parliament act to force this profoundly silly piece of legislation through.
Blair, whose wife instigated this cruel act, later admitted, in his dreadful book ‘A journey’, that it was a mistake.
In France, under a proportional voting democratic system, the countryside has its own party and a significant minority of support.
Obstructing hunting in France can land you with a Euro 30K fine and a year in jail.
Allez France!
I don’t really like fox hunting very much.
But I do regard the ban as being an attack on British traditional culture. This is odd given the steps taken to encourage non-British traditional culture in the UK.
Indeed.
I don’t like Morris dancing or football very much, struggle to tell the difference, but I do not think that they should be banned…..
You know none of the other ways a wild animal can die (famine, disease etc) make very nice photographs either?
No… of course you do. In fact this last 2 years have shown us that we don’t make a very good show at ensuring a good death even for our own species, once they’re safely out of the way in care homes.
It doesn’t say alot for a hunter gatherer species when they ban something that totally aligns to our instincts.
I’m not really getting what he means by moral outrage, as opposed to animal welfare. If he had said class reasons I would have understood.
It’s worth pointing out that very few of the 438 convictions secured under the Hunting Act were of people connected with registered packs of hounds. Most were for offences which would more accurately be described as poaching; the Merseyside Police seem to have been particularly keen on using the Act in this way.
Of course it was Class War.
No Government, or animal welfare obsessive, could possibly claim to be concerned about animal welfare when they support the installation of thousands of rare bird and bat slaughtering windmills.
Or do nothing about halal slaughter methods.
The hunting ban is all about jealousy, not animal welfare. It’s about having a pop at the country toffs, though most are ordinary decent people. Anyway, too many cars on the roads now for it to be safe for horses.