Scottish Children's Charity rejects disabled child because of Mother's Lawful Gender-Critical Views

This is likely to constitute a breach of the charity's Articles as well as of Equality legislation and therefore be a fundamental breakdown of governance in the charity. Under circumstances such as these the regulator should investigate and place the charity in the appropriate special measures category, be asking questions about how the governing body convinced itself that it would be OK to enter into a breach of its own Rules and the law.

Normally, in these circumstances, as the breach is so obvious, all trustees who approved this would be removed and, either statutory appointments be made, or the charity wound up.

Here’s what happened.

The mother, a single parent from south Scotland, applied for her son to attend a three-day residential camp run by Over The Wall (OTW), a charity focused on providing enriching experiences for children with long-term illnesses. The issue arose when the mother responded “Seriously?” to a question on the application form asking for her son’s preferred pronouns. In a subsequent phone call with OTW’s clinical director, Sally McCluskie, she expressed her gender-critical beliefs—specifically, that there are only two genders based on biological sex and that asking about pronouns for an eight-year-old was inappropriate. Shortly after, OTW informed her that her son’s application was rejected.

OTW publicly claimed the rejection was due to the mother’s “aggressive” conduct during the call and the potential for “conflict” because a transgender child would be attending the camp. However, internal documents obtained through a Subject Access Request, with support from the Free Speech Union (FSU) Scotland, revealed a different rationale: the rejection was explicitly due to the mother’s “views on gender and inclusivity” not aligning with OTW’s “inclusive environment.” This contradiction between the charity’s public stance and internal reasoning forms the basis of a complaint lodged with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) by the FSU, alleging that OTW failed to meet its charitable objectives and potentially breached equality law by discriminating against the mother’s protected gender-critical beliefs.

The mother’s gender-critical views—that sex is binary and immutable—are legally protected in the UK under the Equality Act 2010, as established in a 2021 employment tribunal ruling. For Women Scotland, a feminist campaign group, has called this a “clear-cut case of discrimination,” arguing that OTW’s insistence on pronoun usage could confuse or upset children, particularly those with special needs. The FSU’s Fraser Hudghton emphasized that the charity prioritized ideological conformity over its mission to support vulnerable children, describing the decision as “scandalous.”

OTW, which raised £2.6 million in 2024 and is supported by organizations like BBC Children in Need, maintains that the rejection was based on the mother’s behaviour, not her beliefs. They’ve welcomed a potential investigation by the Charity Commission, which oversees both Scottish and English regulators, to review the matter. However, the internal documents undermine this claim, suggesting the decision was indeed ideological.

This case reflects broader tensions around gender ideology in institutions, particularly those serving children. Critics argue that OTW’s approach—requiring pronoun declarations for young children—imposes a specific worldview that may exclude those who hold legally protected beliefs. The mother’s decision to avoid legal action to protect her son’s anonymity underscores the personal stakes involved, while the FSU’s complaint to OSCR seeks to hold the charity accountable for prioritizing ideology over its core purpose.

Information courtesy of FSU, The Telegraph, Daily Mail. Image created for illustration.