Decentered media podcast 007 wordpress 001 2025 04 17

For this episode of the Decentered Media Podcast, I spoke with Cath Leng from Seen in Journalism about a legal decision with far-reaching implications for how we understand and report on identity in the UK. The Supreme Court’s ruling that the definition of “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex—not self-identified or certificated sex—has reset the terms of public and legal discourse. This judgement, Cath argues, brings clarity where ambiguity had been allowed to proliferate, particularly within the media.

Cath has been at the heart of this issue for many years. A former BBC journalist, she faced internal resistance when raising concerns about the erasure of sex as a factual category in reporting. The challenge, as she sees it, has not just been one of legal misinterpretation but of cultural capture—where editorial norms have gradually shifted to affirm gender identity claims, often at the expense of accuracy and impartiality.

The conversation with Cath highlights the complex role that media organisations have played in shaping this debate. From the adoption of self-identification language to the suppression of sex-based terminology, the press and broadcasters have contributed—intentionally or not—to a public understanding that has deviated from the legal framework. In doing so, they’ve also affected the ability of citizens to make informed decisions about issues ranging from women’s rights and safeguarding to healthcare and sport.

Cath explains how Seen in Journalism, part of a wider network including civil service and healthcare professionals, works to restore factual accuracy and legal clarity to newsroom practices. Their approach isn’t about silencing debate—it’s about starting from verifiable facts. As Cath puts it, journalists need to “look out the window” and describe what they see, rather than reporting conflicting narratives as though both are equally valid when one contradicts biological reality and legal precedent.

One key thread in our conversation was the importance of language. Terms like “gender identity” have been inconsistently applied in editorial contexts, often used interchangeably with “sex” despite their distinct meanings. This blurring has had real-world consequences, including the erosion of women’s single-sex spaces and confusion around safeguarding policies. The Supreme Court’s judgement brings an end to this ambiguity, at least in legal terms. But whether it will recalibrate journalistic practice remains to be seen.

Cath is realistic about the road ahead. While some media outlets, such as Sky News, responded quickly and responsibly to the judgement, others—particularly those who have deeply embedded policies of affirmation—may be slow to adapt. Institutional inertia, leadership sensitivities, and the legacy of activist influence continue to shape editorial culture. But the legal clarity now available provides a strong foundation for change—and an opening for newsroom leaders to reassess their policies on impartiality and accuracy.

From a community media perspective, this conversation is especially relevant. Public trust in media depends on clarity, transparency, and responsibility. Community-based outlets and citizen journalists have an opportunity—and perhaps a responsibility—to model reporting that acknowledges complexity without abandoning fact. As legacy media navigate this moment, the wider ecosystem of place-based and participatory media can help keep the lens in focus.

What we need now, as Cath says, is willingness—willingness to acknowledge past missteps, to listen to underrepresented voices, and to re-anchor editorial decisions in shared, observable reality. The judgement doesn’t just offer legal clarification; it offers a cultural pause point, a moment to re-examine how journalism serves the public.

Follow Seen in Journalism on X: @JournalismSeen
Substack: Follow Cath @cathleng

Support the Decentered Media Podcast on Patreon

Source