The guidelines allow for the airing of views on controversial matters and due impartiality does not require that these are always countered by a guest with an opposing perspective.  In this case, in the ECU’s view, the interview with Dr Joanna Harper, a trans woman, included  sufficient context and challenge for listeners to be aware of the controversy in this area.  For example the introduction mentioned the fact Lia Thomas had been breaking swimming records leading to the Sports Federation FINA wanting to toughen regulations on trans participation.  The presenter also raised the advantages people born male would bring to competition:

Are the current rules enough to remove an advantage that someone assigned male at birth would have in a women’s competition?

In the ECU’s judgement it would have been apparent to the audience that Dr Harper’s identity informed her perspective and she was airing her view, informed by her research – not  statements of established or undisputed fact. 

The complainant also described this as a discussion solely about the fairness of women’s sport, in light of which they considered it problematic that it was discussed by “two males”, and therefore misogynistic.  The guidelines do not set restrictions on who may discuss what – that is a matter of editorial discretion.  Moreover the conversation concerned not only the fairness of women’s sport but the broader question of inclusion and trans athletes.
Not Upheld