A choir has been dropped from the London Marathon over its founder’s gender-critical views after organiser Scope said the views were contrary to its “commitment to diversity and inclusion”. The Telegraph has the story.
The Singing Striders are frequently booked to stand on the sidelines and raise the spirits of runners, and the group had been invited to support the upcoming marathon by Scope, a leading disability charity.
However, the amateur ensemble was dropped because a single member had been critical of gender ideology.
This is the view that gender is defined by self-identification, rather than biological sex, meaning that [men] can become women.
Janet Murray, the choir founder, was informed that her opposition to this worldview went against Scope’s “commitment to diversity and inclusion”.
Charity bosses also told her “we are concerned about your views because we don’t agree with your views”.
As a writer and journalist, Murray has publicly expressed concerns about the inclusion of biological males in women’s sports and organisations such as Girlguiding.
It is understood that the decision to cancel the choir, which was to perform for no fee, came after Scope received two anonymous complaints about these opinions.
The charity has since defended its stance as it is “committed to the equality and inclusion of trans and non-binary disabled people”.
Murray told the Telegraph: “When cancel culture finds its way into something as joyful as a choir singing for marathon runners, it’s a sobering reminder of how insidious it can be.
“My choir exists to lift people up, helping them through the hardest moments as they raise money for charity. I’ve run the London Marathon myself, and I know how much that support means.”
The writer said that while she did have gender-critical views, they did not enter into her work with the choir, adding: “I leave politics at home when I’m with the choir – and so does everyone else.
“Ironically, it’s Scope that’s brought politics into a space that was simply about supporting charity runners – effectively silencing a choir in the process.”
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
“we are concerned about your views because we don’t agree with your views”
Does the charity offer “re-education” for people whose views are “incorrect”?
Here’s a hypothetical: If this “charity” discovered that a severely disabled person in desperate need of support held gender-critical views, would they withhold their support on the grounds of an ideological clash?
It would appear this mind virus has metastasized into previously benevolent organizations.
Really… what are they trying to accomplish by turning down free advertising on the sidelines of one of the biggest sporting events in the world, because an innocent choir member believes that biological sex is actually a thing?
Oh, and here’s a truly stunning piece of logic: “We are concerned about your views because… we don’t agree with your views!”. The mind boggles.
I see postings are going missing again.
Choir whose founder has diverse views, excluded to meet the “commitment to diversity and inclusion”.
OK.
And they told her that “we are concerned about your views because we don’t agree with your views” WTF? Plus just two anonymous [naturally] complaints. Welcome to the 21st century East Germany and more proof that we are becoming a province of China.
There’s nothing that says you care deeply for the disabled quite like driving away people who are trying to generate income for you, for free, in their spare time. There’s a disabled child somewhere who won’t be able to have the wheelchair he needs because of this.
I am not sure if Scope provide anything anymore as they shifted to the cushy, well funded life of a ‘campaiging charity’ as opposed to running the homes that they used to.
I guess they provide a nice living for the paid staff, and opportunities to signal “virtue”
campaiging charity
Useful phrase. Thank you.
Campaigning charity — outlet with charitable status dedicated to influencing policy in certain ways. In theory, that’s illegal (according to charity law).
I think they did that to avoid the possibility of being accused of allowing abuse in said homes. There was a lot of that sort of thing some time ago, the abusers flocked to these establishments as there were so many inmates that couldn’t fight back.
You simply don’t have the proper worldview: A child which cannot walk isn’t disabled, because that’s perfectly natural for it. The only proper disability is having a perfectly healthy male body when your innate gender is female.
[I’d call that a cynic statement, Scope would call it an obious truth.]
Well, Scope won’t be getting any donations from me.
My dealings with Scope – formerly the Spastics Society – led me to consider them complete scumbags. Unfortunately, my late father left them a gift in his will and even worse it was not a fixed amount but a proportion of a remainder amount. This wonderful ‘charity’ has people scouring published probates to see if they get anything so quite quickly they were hassling me for their money. Their concern was that it involved investments that needed to be sold and wanted to ensure the maximum for them. Having sent them the money and the required documentation they came back wanting a full set of estate accounts and pointing out that they were a ‘big charity’. I resisted the temptation to tell them to go f*ck themselves and ignored them. I also resisted asking them if they might have heard of one of the other benficiaries, who by contrast were wonderful and thankful for what they received. English Heritage are fairly well known and quite a big charity I think.
If anyone reading this has a Will that includes such a term please consider rewriting it or adding a codicil. A relatively simple solution might be to put a fixed upper limit on it. It’s a real pain for your executor(s) and only really a bonus for lawyers.
It is well said of charities that they start as a crusade, become a business and end up as a racket. Plush headquarters building, CEO paid £400k+ (“we have to attract the best”), staff salaries and pensions to pay. And – as mentioned here – virtue to signal. I used to support the trussell trust and the royal british legion (deliberately NOT leading capitals for these organisations) – but quit when they both hired highly paid “diversity and inclusion” officers.