We believe IPSO now needs to make serious and appropriate adjustments to its perspective on complaints about accuracy and impartiality on the issue of sex and gender.

The Supreme Court found that what has been known to be indisputably true in life is also true in law, and has specifically been so since 2010 - that sex is binary and immutable.

IPSO now needs to make it clear that no news outlet will be reprimanded for truthful use of language around the issue of sex and gender. Self-identification of sex and the concept of 'misgendering' are campaigning positions that should be clearly and publicly disowned by the regulator.

IPSO has a complaints procedure which prioritises self-identification of sex when considering complaints about coverage of sex and gender issues - the 'person most directly involved' rule.

While it has this settled complaints procedure - which functions entirely to support self-ID - it does not need to ban 'misgendering' in its sex and gender guidance, or the Broadcasting Code. For IPSO to point to the lack of a ban in either, as a defence, is a misdirect. IPSO has chosen to interpret Section 8 of its regulations to act as a mandate for self-identification.

The wording of (8) however offers an alternative and fairer interpretation.

'In the case of third party complaints the position of the party most closely involved should be taken into account'

Where accuracy under the law is at stake, 'should be taken into account' should not be taken to mean 'must override objective truth and lawful accuracy'.

IPSO is certainly allowed to revisit its interpretation of Regulation (8) and the Supreme Court judgement offers an urgent opportunity to do so. News outlets should no longer operate in fear of regulator reprimand for using objectively accurate and truthful language under any circumstance.

Regulation (8) is not a mandate for sex self-identification, and should not be interpreted as such.