Member's statement: Northern Ireland Women's Rights Network
Member's statement by Mr Peter Martin on .
- MLA
- Mr Peter Martin
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 February 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Northern Ireland Women's Rights Network
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4802384
Read the official Assembly record
Text
This morning, I will talk about the Northern Ireland Women's Rights Network, which is a UK organisation committed to defending and bringing clarity to the discourse around sex- and gender-based rights. Its work has been all the more critical in recent years as moves have been made by Governments to alter equality legislation. Some initiatives to promote self-ID in equality law have had an alarming effect on respect for women's spaces and have provoked a backlash across the political spectrum. Last week, the Women's Rights Network attended the Executive Office Committee, but its evidence was highly criticised by three of the political parties present. The Alliance Member for East Antrim said that its remarks would be traumatising for trans people. That is, however, from a party that said that it would:
"need evidence before deciding on whether 3 year old know whether they are trans",
and its Justice Minister is not sure how many genders there are. Sinn Féin branded the arguments and support for single-sex spaces as disgraceful. The SDLP stated that not everyone fits neatly into male and female and said that it did not agree with the evidence presented. What could be so controversial and contentious that these comments were made in the aftermath by Committee members? I will quote directly from their oral evidence:
"When it comes to toilets, changing rooms, healthcare settings, sporting opportunities and job opportunities, however, sex matters. Many women have been forced into silence on these issues in their workplace, in their family life and in public. They fear ... challenging gender ideology."
I apologise for the unparliamentary and highly provocative language in this next statement. The Women's Rights Network stated that "there are only two sexes" — male and female. People can define themselves how they like, but the logic of demanding that rights follow is precarious. In 2022, an able-bodied trans woman from Norway announced that she had felt disabled since birth. She now defines herself as disabled and spends every day in a wheelchair, even though she does not need one. After that was reported in the press, disabled rights groups in Norway went apoplectic. Yesterday, the 'Scottish Express' was reported to the police for referring to a transgender woman, Dr Beth Upton, as a man during the Sandie Peggie employment tribunal. The largely discredited Stonewall is still funded by the Minister of Finance in a Northern Ireland Assembly. In this party, we know what a woman is, we know how many sexes there are and, seemingly, unlike most other parties in the Chamber, we are wholly committed to protecting women and girls' spaces.
435 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.89 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.90); Sectarian or communal antagonism (0.72); Dog-whistle messaging (0.91); Controversy escalation (0.79).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.97).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.90 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.72 | Yes |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.13 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.91 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.79 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.27 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.89 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.02 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.97 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.98 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:57 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.