In the same week that DIVA magazine offered an example of mainstream lesbian voices choosing inclusion and responsibility, Martina Navratilova used her public platform to refer to trans doctor Beth Upton as a sexual predator. The Dundee employment tribunal that examined the case involving Upton found no wrongdoing. There were no sexual allegations made against her in that case. The claim Navratilova repeated was, by any careful reading of the facts, false.
What the tribunal actually found
The Dundee tribunal ruling is a matter of public record. Beth Upton was cleared. The proceedings did not involve any sexual allegation against her. When a tribunal examines a case and finds no wrongdoing, that finding carries legal and evidential weight. It is not a footnote. Repeating a characterisation that the tribunal did not support, and attaching it to a named individual, is something quite different from expressing a political view about gender policy.
The difference between opinion and accusation
There is a legitimate space for public debate about gender policy, medical practice, and legal frameworks. That debate has been taking place in courts, parliament, and clinical settings for years. Calling a specific named professional a sexual predator, without any evidential basis and in contradiction of a tribunal's findings, falls outside the boundaries of opinion. It is an accusation. It has the potential to cause serious professional and personal harm to the individual named, and it contributes to an environment in which trans professionals face harassment that has nothing to do with reasoned policy disagreement.
The contrast with responsible public engagement
The example set by DIVA magazine in the same news cycle is worth acknowledging precisely because it shows that mainstream voices within communities that have genuine disagreements about gender policy are capable of engaging without resorting to this kind of language. Inclusion and responsibility are not incompatible with holding complex views. They do, however, require a decision not to weaponise a public platform against individuals who have already been through formal scrutiny and been cleared.
Why this matters beyond one case
Trans healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom already work in a pressured environment. Regulatory bodies, media coverage, and political debate have all contributed to a climate in which clinicians face scrutiny that goes well beyond normal professional accountability. When high-profile figures amplify false or unsubstantiated characterisations of those professionals, the effect is not abstract. It affects who is willing to work in trans healthcare, who is willing to seek it, and what kind of public conversation becomes normalised. Accurate information, grounded in what tribunals and courts have actually found, is the only basis on which any of this can be discussed fairly.
If this article is useful to you, please share it. Every share helps more people find accurate information about gender diversity.
Dr Helen Webberley, Gender Specialist and Medical Educator.
helenwebberley.com