Member's statement: Biological Reality
Member's statement by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 February 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Biological Reality
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5394292
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In 2025, the consultation on my proposed Member's Bill on women and girls in sport in Northern Ireland showed strong backing for the need for increased protections in sport here. There is a consistent demand for fairness, safety, equality and better participation and representation of women and girls in sport in Northern Ireland. Women's rights have been fought for long and hard, and there is still some way to go. The current battles are not just the traditional misogynistic ones but include increased attacks from the woke agenda. Women deserve better than that. I was incredibly disappointed at the European Parliament's recent decision, when it refused to anchor pregnancy to biological sex. That is shocking and shows a huge shift in how sex is treated in law. On 12 February, the European Parliament adopted a resolution, by a vote of 340 to 141, calling on EU institutions and member states to guarantee the full recognition of trans women as women in EU policy and law. An amendment was then brought stating that only biological women can become pregnant. That was defeated, with 233 Members of the European Parliament voting against it. Being pregnant and being a mother is a privilege. As a mother of three, I find that vote incredibly offensive and shocking. Whilst the vote does not change any treaties or mean that there will be any immediate changes in our laws, it does shape Commission priorities and influences how equality frameworks are interpreted. That vote shifts the line between biology and the law. We need to be very mindful of what that could mean for us all. Reproductive health policy, medical research, crime data, sports eligibility, prison placement and sex-segregated protections all require clarity about biological sex. In sport, those categories determine competitive fairness. In prisons and female-only shelters, they affect safety. The vote is a clear signal that biology itself is negotiable in statutory language. That has serious and worrying consequences. When a legislature will not state who can become pregnant, it is moved beyond accommodation into redefinition. Compassion does not require ambiguity in law. What will it be next? Will we see an attempt to rewrite simple biology in our school curriculums? Once again, women and our rights are under attack. Where is the common sense in all this? Only biological women can be pregnant. The DUP stands strongly to represent common sense and women on those issues.
402 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: 0.81 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.76); Sectarian or communal antagonism (0.64); Dog-whistle messaging (0.92); Controversy escalation (0.61).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.94).
- 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 | 0.76 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.64 | Yes |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.16 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.92 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.61 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.49 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.81 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.06 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.94 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.82 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.18 |
| 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 14:39 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.
If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.