Foreign

In the world of sports, where milliseconds and millimetres often separate champions from contenders, fairness is everything. This is a point that has largely been lost on politicians gripped by identitarian politics and wrangling over whether a woman can have a penis, with Orwellian rhetoric from our public sector bodies increasingly seeking to manipulate language and redefine truth to fit a particular ideological agenda.

In such an environment, the Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer’s belated support for measures to protect the female category of sporting competitions this week is appreciated. After previously declining to publicly confirm his position, Starmer has since said he is “supportive” of measures which protect the female category of sporting competitions. Although, the Labour leader gave no specifics about how this would be done at a grassroots level. 

In the context of grassroots sports, there is a growing discussion about the necessity of segregating sports by sex to ensure fair competition. This debate has ramped up after it was reported by the Policy Exchange think tank that biological men hold at least three Parkrun female records because of its policy that lets entrants self-identify their gender. Parkrun subsequently removed gender, course and age records from its websites after rejecting a campaign to make transgender runners record their sex at birth. A decision which will no doubt have harmful repercussions on female participation, motivation and sense of belonging in the event. 

During a recent ultra-marathon event around the Jurassic Coast, I crossed the finish line in fifth place among female competitors, marking a significant personal achievement. Without sex-specific categories, amateur athletes like myself may find ourselves overshadowed, with opportunities for recognition and advancement in the sport hindered. When I reached the final checkpoint of the race at 45K, the first question I put to the race wardens – between gulps of Lucozade and mouthfuls of Haribo – is where I was amongst the female competitors. Having access to women-only categories in the ultra-marathon meant I could challenge myself to be the best I could be and push my limits without feeling outdone by biologically superior male competitors. If you take away sex-specific categories from grassroots sport – i.e. those sports practised at a non-professional level for health, educational or social purposes – you take all of this away from female competitors. 

Calling for grassroots sport to be sex-segregated should not be controversial. The physiological advantages that men possess over women in sports have long been known, encompassing factors such as bone density, hormonal influence and cardiovascular function. One of the most notable physiological differences between men and women is muscle mass and strength. On average, men have a higher proportion of muscle mass and greater muscle strength compared to women. This inherent advantage enables men to generate more power and exert greater force during athletic movements such as sprinting, jumping and lifting weights. Consequently, male athletes often excel in sports that require explosive power and physical dominance, such as sprinting, weightlifting and football.

Another factor contributing to the male-female disparity in sports performance is bone density and skeletal structure. Men typically have denser bones and larger skeletal frames, providing greater support and stability during high-impact activities. This advantage not only reduces the risk of injuries but also enhances overall performance, particularly in sports that involve contact, collisions, and repetitive stress on the bones and joints. Sports like rugby, basketball and gymnastics – which demand robust skeletal support – often showcase the benefits of male physiology.

Testosterone, the primary male sex hormone, plays a crucial role in shaping physiological characteristics that confer athletic advantages. Men naturally produce higher levels of testosterone, which stimulates muscle growth, increases red blood cell production and enhances aerobic capacity. These hormonal differences contribute to greater muscle mass, faster recovery times and improved endurance among male athletes. While women also produce testosterone, albeit in smaller quantities, the disparity in hormone levels can influence athletic performance, particularly in endurance-based sports like cycling, distance running and swimming.

While both sexes are capable of extraordinary athletic achievements, understanding and acknowledging these inherent differences is essential for promoting fairness, inclusivity and participation. At a grassroots level, female categories undoubtedly encourage greater participation among female athletes by removing barriers and obstacles that may deter them from joining sports activities. For many women, the opportunity to compete against other women can also be a catalyst for overcoming cultural, social and logistical challenges that may otherwise hinder their involvement in sports.

Whilst Keir Starmer’s intervention this week is welcome, policymakers must go further to protect female sport at a grassroots level. This could be providing financial incentives for sports clubs and organisations that prioritise the development and promotion of female-only categories, such as grants, subsidies and sponsorship opportunities – and removing funding from those which do not. The Government should also look to enact legislation requiring sports clubs and organisations to adopt gender equality policies that prioritise female participation and representation in decision-making roles. 

Above all, we need to fix the Equality Act, as championed by former Prime Minister Liz Truss and former Home Secretary Suella Braverman this week, to ensure that sex means biological sex. By clarifying that “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, policymakers can establish a clear framework for ensuring fair competition and preserving the integrity of women’s sports.

Women-only categories in sports play a vital role in encouraging female participation and providing opportunities for women and girls to excel. However, the inclusion of transgender athletes in these categories, without regard for biological sex, will undermine the progress that has been made in promoting women’s sports. By reaffirming the importance of female-only categories through legislative reform, policymakers can send a powerful message about the value of women’s participation in sports and the need to protect their rights and opportunities.

From trailblazing Olympians like Wilma Rudolph and Nadia Comaneci, to the athlete-activism of Billie-Jean King and Martina Navratilova, women have left an indelible mark on sports history through their unparalleled achievements and contributions. By maintaining women’s categories at a grassroots level, we honour the legacy of these remarkable athletes and we affirm our commitment to creating a future where every female athlete has the chance to pursue her passion, fulfil her potential and leave her mark on the world of sports.

As we navigate complex debates surrounding gender identity and expression, let us remain vigilant in defending clarity, integrity and respect in discourse, ensuring that truth triumphs over Orwellian distortion.

Isabella Wallersteiner is an Associate Fellow at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

On Friday evening, the Prime Minister made a striking statement outside No. 10, likening Islamists and the far-right as “two sides of the same extremist coin” who harbour a mutual loathing for Britain. While the sentiment expressed in the Prime Minister’s speech was undoubtedly symbolically important, it arrives considerably late in addressing a concerning trend that has persisted since October 7th.

Since the heinous Hamas attack on Israel, weekends have been marked across the country by regular protests concerning the Israel-Gaza conflict. These protests, unfortunately, have frequently featured antisemitic imagery, casting a shadow over the public discourse and raising questions about the state of tolerance and inclusivity within our society. Such demonstrations began almost immediately after Hamas’ atrocities and before Israel had retaliated. This is in contrast to the seeming lack of interest in the sufferings of Muslims, such as the Rohingyas in Myanmar (more than a million refugees), and the persecution of the Uighur Muslims by the Chinese government.

For the past five months, individuals like myself have been tirelessly bringing to attention the presence of antisemitic symbols and rhetoric at the pro-Palestine marches in London. Yet, despite our efforts and the obvious need for action, law enforcement has often fallen short in effectively policing these events, allowing such hateful expressions to continue unchecked.

Earlier last week, as a result of my activism and fundraising, I had the honour of being invited to  the Community Security Trust (CST) annual dinner during which the Prime Minister announced the extension of a Government Grant of £18 million for the next financial year. Moreover, a minimum commitment of £18 million annually over the next four years will be allocated to the Jewish community.

The announcement came at a critical juncture given the recent surge in antisemitic incidents following the Hamas attacks on Israel and their aftermath. A recent report by the CST revealed that antisemitic behaviour in the UK reached its highest levels in over 40 years, with incidents rising by almost 150%to more than 4,000 in 2023 alone.

The persistence of these protests has led to Jewish individuals feeling increasingly vulnerable in public spaces. Recently, actress Tracy-Ann Oberman revealed that she was advised against leaving a London theatre due to ongoing pro-Palestinian protests outside. This underscores the palpable fear and anxiety experienced by members of the Jewish community amidst the escalating tensions.

Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, has also sounded the alarm, expressing grave concerns over the rise of open extremism in Britain. In an interview with the Mail On Sunday, he stated, “It is the public brazenness of hate directed towards people by category, in particular Zionists, or Israelis, or Jews.”.

Whilst the Prime Minister’s intervention is welcome, the scale of the challenge is such that without specific legislative proposals, it is hard to see how the situation will improve. Instead, the Prime Minister has emphasised backing the police in their efforts to maintain order.

The failure of the Government to take decisive action in addressing these issues has exacerbated the situation, with calls for accountability growing louder. Despite the clear evidence of antisemitism within these protests, there has been a notable absence of meaningful intervention.

One of the key points of the Prime Minister’s speech on Friday was the pledge to re-double support for the anti-terrorism Prevent program. This indicates a recognition of the need for proactive measures to counter radicalisation and prevent the spread of extremist ideologies within communities. But, the Prime Minister needs to go further and fully implement the recommendations from the Shawcross review. The long-awaited report on the Government’s counter-extremism programme ‘Prevent’ by William Shawcross, an author and the former chair of the Charity Commission, has called for a greater focus on Islamist terrorism. Despite all the evidence demonstrating that Islamist terrorism is by far the greatest terrorist threat this country faces, the numbers referred to Prevent for Islamist radicalisation have become an ever smaller proportion of those in the scheme, representing only 11% of referrals in the year April 2022 – March 2023

Shawcross’s review also revealed that university referrals to Prevent were ‘strikingly low’, despite risks to universities from extremist groups. In his speech on Friday, the Prime Minister called for universities to tackle “extremist activity” which reflects a growing government concern over the potential radicalisation of young people in educational institutions. By demanding action from universities, the Government aims to address the root causes of extremism and promote a culture of tolerance and inclusivity on campuses.

There has been a wave of antisemitic incidents faced by Jewish students across the country, including physical attacks and assaults. The CST has received 150 reports of antisemitic incidents affecting students, academics, university staff and student bodies across the UK in 2020-21 and 2021-22. This compares with 123 in the previous two academic years. The Government must go further to ensure students unions and university authorities are better supporting their Jewish students, taking concerns seriously and acting against antisemitism.

Five months have passed since the initial attack that sparked these protests and the subsequent display of antisemitism. The Government’s failure to act swiftly not only undermines its commitment to combating extremism, but has also left the Jewish community feeling isolated and unprotected. I have Jewish friends who will not use the underground on Saturdays because of this sense of fear and vulnerability.

While words are important, they must be accompanied by meaningful action. The Prime Minister’s speech serves as a reminder of the urgent need for robust measures to address extremism in all its forms. It is imperative that the Government works tirelessly to ensure the safety and well-being of all its citizens, regardless of their race, religion or background.

As we move forward, this speech should mark the beginning of a concerted effort to tackle antisemitism and extremism head-on. The time for complacency has long passed; now is the time for decisive action and unwavering commitment to the values of tolerance, inclusivity and respect for all.

Isabella Wallersteiner is an Associate Fellow at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Daniel Sandvik]

In today’s diverse and multicultural society, the question of whether religion should be a part of the educational system continues to spark debates. The recent High Court challenge against Michaela Community School in Wembley, northwest London, sheds light on a contentious issue within the realm of education – the role of religion in schools. Founded by teacher and educational reformer Katharine Birbalsingh, the school is facing scrutiny over its policy of banning prayer rituals, with a student arguing that the ban disproportionately affects Muslim children and consequently taking the school to court. The case has invited a broader discussion on the implications of incorporating religious practices in schools and whether a more secular approach might be necessary for fostering a truly inclusive and tolerant educational environment.

Headteacher Katharine Birbalsingh, the Government’s former Social Mobility Commissioner, implemented a temporary prayer ban at the Michaela Community School in March of last year as an element of its inclusive ethos. Birbalsingh said the school went to great lengths to make sure children from all backgrounds mix, but argued that allowing children to separate at lunchtime to pray impacted the ethos of the school.

As a result of the ban, a two-day High Court judicial review hearing against the school has been brought by one of its Muslim pupils, who cannot be named for legal reasons. Her lawyers argue the ban breached equality laws and the student’s freedom of religion.

Yet Birbalsingh has continued to robustly defend the school’s position, asserting that the claim should be dismissed. She argues that the ban was needed to restore “calm and order” after harassment and violence was directed at the school’s teachers, pointing out also that the school’s number of Muslim pupils has grown by 50%.

It is hard to disagree with Birbalsingh. Michaela Community School, based in Wembley, has been consistently awarded Ofsted’s highest rating. Following Ofsted’s latest inspection of the school in May 2023, inspectors found the expectations put on pupils are “exceptionally high,” meaning they “rise to the challenges” set by teachers and “take their education seriously.”

Despite the school’s successful record, Birbalsingh is being dragged through the courts and pilloried by commentators, with one Guardian journalist calling the ban “a dystopian, sinister vision of Britishness.”

To her credit, Gillian Keegan MP, the Secretary of State for Education, has posted a supportive tweet for Birbalsingh, but most MPs have stayed silent on the issue.

There is nothing radical about Birbalsingh’s stance. Other countries also emphasise the separation of religion and education as a fundamental principle. Religious symbols have been banned in French schools since 2004. In August 2023, Emmanuel Macron went further, barring children in public schools from wearing the abaya, a loose-fitting, full-length robe worn by some Muslim women.

In Germany, eight states have introduced so-called “neutrality laws,” which mean that religious symbols and prayer are banned in public schools. It is argued that this ban helps maintain a fair and unbiased learning environment, allowing students to form their own beliefs independently.

It is time that policymakers in the UK examined the role of religion in educational settings. As it stands, in the UK, a school’s rules must conform to the Human Rights Act and Equality Act, which protect characteristics associated with religion or belief, race, gender or ability. Whilst these rights can be assessed against other priorities, there are no blanket bans and pupils can dispute restrictions on a case-by-case basis.

While the idea of banning religion in schools may be met with resistance from those who value the importance of faith-based education, this should be outweighed by the need to create an inclusive, unbiased, and rational learning environment. Banning religion in schools helps safeguard students from potential indoctrination, allowing them the freedom to explore diverse ideas and form their own worldviews based on their experiences, knowledge and personal reflections. By fostering critical thinking, preserving the separation of church and state and promoting equal opportunities, a secular education system seeks to prepare students for the complexities of the modern world, encouraging them to navigate it with an open mind and a respect for diverse perspectives.

Britain’s rich tapestry of cultures and religions can be a source of strength, but it also carries the risk of potential divides and flashpoints. At Batley Grammar in Yorkshire, a religious studies teacher had to go into hiding in 2021 after showing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed to pupils. For days afterwards parents and activists protested at the school gates and the teacher received death threats. In 2023, it was reported that the teacher was still in hiding with his young family.

The incident had a lasting impact on schools, with a Policy Exchange-commissioned survey finding in November 2023 that one in six teachers had curtailed teachings on religion after the Batley furore. Policy Exchange said the findings showed that a “de facto blasphemy code” had been established in classrooms.

Schools are the foundation of a child’s integration into society and as such should be spaces that unite rather than divide. The call to ban religion in UK schools is not about stifling individual beliefs; it is about creating an environment that fosters diversity and encourages free thought. The shackles of religious dogma have no place in a modern, forward-thinking educational system.

Isabella Wallersteiner is an Associate Fellow at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue.