Kirkup quoting Orwell; "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

[MrsSnippyPants]

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/was-this-journalist-sacked-for-saying-sex-is-binary/

James Kirkup seems to pop up with timely articles. Given what has happened to LangCleg, this one he posted today is particularly appropriate.

Great article by James Kirkup. The linguistic battles are absolutely central. And it's about control, the desire to dictate the narrative and punish transgressions. But it has a truly Orwellian underpinning. It's about the ideology behind Newspeak. That if you remove words, the ideas they reference will cease to exist. And if you subvert the meaning of words, the new definition will upend external reality...

^Language is very important to transgenderism and its influence over institutions. Like all orthodoxies, it has approved and forbidden language, holy words controlled by a priesthood ready to punish those who say the wrong words.
Hence the police chief who spends time telling people which pronouns to use. Hence the officers who question people for misgendering or other unacceptable speech online^.

It is very well timed. There is so much we aren't allowed to say in regard to transgenderism and gender.

So many coy euphemisms to mask what is happening.

Such a good article. I’ve enjoyed watching Janes Kirkup progress from wanting to keep his distance and not offer his opinion to “actually I’m not having it, sex is not a spectrum”. Excellent.

An excellent article - and even the normally toxic comments under articles in the Spectator are starting to shift with far more commentators understanding the threats to free speech and women that this movement poses.

This is a great piece. I share his frustration at how few journalists are addressing this honestly.

That is a great article. Should be required reading.

Language always matters. Always.

Excellent article. Scary times.

The linguistic battles are absolutely central. And it's about control, the desire to dictate the narrative and punish transgressions.

Yup. And media orgs are censoring themselves beyond what the law actually requires. Articles are submitted to trans orgs for approval before publication, and the IPSO guidelines are a joke. For example, they require journalists to use 'preferred pronouns'. It's self id in practice, and IPSO members are acting as enforcers.

Articles are submitted to trans orgs for approval before publication

ThePurported seriously? Just incredible. Harry Miller made exactly that point about the police. They are being trained by Stonewall and they are implementing policies which have no legal basis This tactic is deliberate. They are an organised, relentless lobby operating sub rosa.

Oh yes Bovary there was an article about the IPSO guidelines, might have been Janice Turner, might have been James again?

I'll see if I can find it......

Look which organisations IPSO points at as resources for a start (bottom of page 10)
www.ipso.co.uk/media/1275/guidance_transgender-reporting.pdf

I think that article was by Julie Bindel - or it may have been someone else but Julie who retweeted it. Think it's on Julie's twitter page. I'm supposed to be working but I'll try and find it later.

Bovary Julie Bindel wrote about it recently.

thecritic.co.uk/issues/january-2020/triumph-of-the-trans-lobbyists/

"Paul Clarkson, managing editor of the Sun, mounted a strong defence of the paper’s coverage: Winterbourne and Graf had approached the Sun about coverage, he said. They wanted the story to be printed. Warming to his subject, he then revealed more than he might have intended: “Every word, headline and image was passed by transgender groups pre-publication.”

Perhaps the significance of that sentence might not be obvious to non-journalists, but to those in the trade it is fairly shocking. The Sun, the biggest-selling paper in Britain and the baddest feral beast in the newspaper jungle, gave full copy approval to campaign groups.

Not that Clarkson was alone. Peter Wright, “editor emeritus” at Associated Newspapers and former editor of the Mail on Sunday, said his group was very keen to have its journalists receive training and guidance from trans advocacy groups. Or rather, more training. “We have talked to them in the past and taken advice,” he told the MPs.

These admissions went unremarked upon and unreported. It suits none of the participants to admit that the supposedly mighty newspapers that are commonly accused by activists of whipping up a climate of transphobic hatred are, in fact, so meekly compliant that they let transgender groups vet their reporting and train their staff.

Where did the Sun and Mail get the idea to ask trans lobbying groups how to write about trans issues? I would hazard a guess that the impetus came from Ipso, the press regulator. Its Guidance on Transgender Reporting includes a list of “resources” for editors to consult: All About Trans, Trans Media Watch, Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, and Mermaids."

That's the one! Thanks floisme and ThePurported

MrsSnippy

Thank you. I have just had a quick look at that. Wow. Interesting how it states at the outset it isn't intended to influence editorial decisions.... and of course the usual organisations dominate page 10. No wonder so many journalists are so silent. Thank you floisme this board is an education, appreciate the resources.

ThePurported

Thank you for that link. It's absolutely bloody outrageous. But it does explain the compliance of the press.

The other day someone posted a link to a Twitter thread by a Liverpool Echo journalist which brilliantly demonstrated the problem, but I can't find it now.

The recent US fifth circuit court of appeals pronoun decision sums up the problem with courtroom use of neologisms and redefinitions of common words:

The panel said federal courts are increasingly asked to decide cases that turn on hotly-debated issues of sex and gender identity. A court may have the “most benign motives” in honoring a party’s request to be called by a certain pronoun but “in doing so, the court may unintentionally convey its tacit approval of the litigant’s underlying legal position.”

www.forbes.com/sites/patriciagbarnes/2020/01/15/xemself-eirself-and-verself---us-appeals-court-wont-go-there/#561ecc6f3711

The problem in journalism is parallel.

To record male crimes as "women's" crimes (rape committed by "her penis" being the most egregious example.; to frame the CT girl athletes' Title IX complaint as seeking to keep "trans females" out of female sports, as even the esteemed Wall Street Journal did recently, is to obscure the facts.

In trying to be courteous to some people, journalists are granting their highly disputed political premises. This is not sound journalism.

The Sun, the biggest-selling paper in Britain and the baddest feral beast in the newspaper jungle, gave full copy approval to campaign groups

It really is quite stunning. Submitting copy to lobbyists for approval is incompatible with press freedom.

On the wider subject of political engagement with politicians, a little thread, which might also sound somewhat familiar.

Everything is about dumbing down debate and watering down journalistic scrutiny.

In this environment corruption and scandals fester...

An interesting thread about Johnson and 'people's questions time' which he's done on FB...

Peter Walker @peterwalker99
Boris Johnson does another of his softball "People's PMQs" on Facebook at 5pm. After the last one, colleague @AndrewSparrow said it made the PM "look like some second-rate despot holed up in his bunker, terrified of an actual encounter with his people". That seemed fair to me.

This is not to argue against politicians/PMs taking questions direct from the public. That's a good thing. But when the questions are hand-picked in advance, with no follow-up or scrutiny, it's an almost entirely pointless spectacle.

First question of Facebook "PMQs" shows how pointless it is. Question is what happens if EU gives a worse trade deal than Canada et al. Johnson says: "I don’t think that’s going to happen." Question not answered, no follow up. Pretty soon we're onto, "What shampoo do you use?"

There's very possibly some dictators out there who, if presented with these questions in advance for a choreographed press conference, might protest that they're all a bit embarrassingly easy.

"Would the prime minister like to comment on the great endeavours of the Transport Ministry in achieving record tractor production this year?"

#PeoplesPMQs

The eventual downside of the lack of any challenge or interest is, presumably, that before too long most people will not bother tuning in just to listen to a prime minister endlessly praising his own achievements.

So in other words, what is the effect of over censoring and only allowing dumb chats, because politicians don't want to take part in proper debate...

Sounds very familiar Red...

It's one thing for people to be in an echo chamber of their own making, but it can't be healthy for media orgs to consult lobby groups and then hide facts as a rule.

Amen to that!

Thank goddess for the bravery of journalists like Kirkup who stick unswervingly to the facts, even when the world is forcing them to answer "5".

The Twitter thread I mentioned. Worth reading the whole thing.

mobile.twitter.com/LivEchoCourt/status/891049105908256768

Woman caught with animal porn involving horses, dogs & pigs celebrates as she walks free from court bit.ly/2eTGFlf
@ LivEchonews

Neil Docking
@ LivEchoCourt
It's not a question of guts, it's complying with law & IPSO guidelines. You may raise this issue with my employers or IPSO. Thanks.

Holy shit, ThePurported!

What a vile... person. How can editors and IPSO endorse these lies???

I experience the war on objective reality and the language used to describe it as attempting to destroy my moral integrity, which is inherently abusive.

Kirkup et al get that. There is no way to stay sane in a world without people who insist that 2+2-4.