Why did trans ideologues bar a disabled child from a summer camp?

Working for the Free Speech Union (FSU), you see so many examples of callousness disguised as ‘social justice’ that it’s hard to be shocked by anything. Yet even I was blindsided when I came across the heartbreaking story of a Scottish single mother, whose seriously ill son was refused a place at a residential summer camp because of her gender-critical views.

The eight-year-old boy has a complex health condition that requires around-the-clock support. His mother applied for him to attend a two-day camp in July in Perthshire, Scotland, run by Over The Wall (OTW) – a camp that is free for children with special needs. A problem arose in March, however, when OTW probed the mother about a response in her son’s application form.

The charity had taken issue with her writing ‘Seriously?’ next to a question asking for her son’s ‘preferred pronouns’. When OTW’s clinical director, Sally McCluskie, asked the mother to explain this response, she replied that she believed in biological sex and didn’t think it was appropriate to ask children what their preferred pronouns might be. Hours later, she was told that her son’s application had been declined.

The mother was rightly suspicious of how quickly the rejection followed the phone call about her beliefs. Now, with the aid of the FSU, those suspicions have been confirmed. The charity’s call log states, in the classic robotic argot of Orwellian Newspeak, that: ‘We will be making the family unsuccessful for this year’s camp due to the lack of alignment with our inclusive environment.’ (This contradicts OTW’s public explanation, which is that the mother was ‘aggressive’ and could pose problems for a trangender child at the camp.)

The FSU has now lodged a formal complaint with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, asking it to consider whether OTW has strayed from its professed aims to help relieve ‘sickness, distress and suffering in seriously ill children and young people by providing therapeutic recreation for them, their siblings and their families’. The complaint also notes that objecting to the political views of parents should never be grounds for deciding whether vulnerable children can access the services of a charity.

This refusal of services to a disabled child is not only morally wrong, it may also be unlawful. In a 2021 case brought by tax consultant Maya Forstater, who was fired for expressing gender-critical beliefs, a tribunal ruled unequivocally that her beliefs are legally protected. But while the mother may have a strong case for discrimination, she has ruled out pursuing this further in order to protect her child’s anonymity.

This is far from the first time trans activists have concealed cruelty under the cloak of ‘inclusivity’. In 2023, solicitor Teresa Steele objected to a transgender nurse being involved in her ‘intimate’ care at London’s Lady Grace hospital. The next day, the hospital’s chief executive told her that the operation was being cancelled because Lady Grace ‘did not share [her] beliefs’. In other words, the feelings of a trans staff member were placed above a patient’s health.

These cases suggest a disturbing trend: that in an era of rampant cancel culture, access to healthcare and support is being made contingent on ideological conformity. This should alarm anyone who cares not only about freedom of speech and the rule of law, but about basic human dignity, too.

Freddie Attenborough is the digital communications director of the Free Speech Union.