The Spectator in trouble for stating the truth

[lcakethereforeIam]

Just read the article from the Telegraph, my free speech has been chilled

https://archive.ph/8628j

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/10/press-watchdog-accused-of-chilling-effect-free-speech/

and now i'm on the same side as Gove! Strange times.

Right, I may have to subscribe to The Spectator now. Weird times, yes, but strong, clear words from Gove. Counts for a lot

Well said, Gove.

Here's the article IPSO has forced the Spectator to print

https://archive.ph/Dv1d0

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ipso-judgement-on-spectator-co-uk-with-regard-to-editors-code-section-12-1/

as an ex-teacher, I am very surprised to agree with Gove on anything.

I am also an ex-teacher and I also agree with Gove on this. I also agree with him on the teaching of systematic synthetic phonics and a knowledge-rich curriculum. I am surprised to agree with a man who lacks integrity in many areas, but on these three things he is most definitely correct.

Blast. Would prefer not to spend even more cash at the moment but will now have to subscribe to the Spectator again

Dawson, who writes young adult novels, was legally declared a woman by the gender recognition panel in 2018.

So how many people were on this panel? And what was their criteria they based "woman" on? And why cannot anybody disagree with those findings as they aren't based on reality or scientific fact.

I'm glad to see the new editor at The Spectator standing up the free speech rights of his columnist. Gareth Roberts is a very talented (and sarcastically humorous) writer.

Fuck me. Sure it might be offensive to Juno Dawson but it's also objectively true. It's phrased in plain English and is what everyone understands to be true, even if they pretend otherwise. I can think of far more offensive ways to write the phrase.

How is it possible to convey the truth about Juno Dawson in language that a reader of any background would understand?

Are there factual statements one could write about any of the other protected characteristics which would also be banned?

I don't understand why they don't leave IPSO. The Guardian isn't a member.

Well sex is a protected characteristic. Would it be problematic to write men are not and cannot be women or vice versa? And if it was, why would that be? Also a GRC is secret. How is the Spectator supposed to know if a tw has one or not?

it's a truly excellently written article, big applause

I dont understand how this ruling came under "discrimination", and then they go on to say they upheld it because it was:

“personally belittling and demeaning toward the complainant, in a way that was both pejorative and prejudicial of the complainant due to her gender identity, and was not justified by the columnist’s right to express his views on the broader issues of a person’s sex and gender identity given that this targeted her as an individual”.

It was a statement of fact. Does this mean you cant even make a statement saying someone has a GRC. To say recognising being trans is to be belittled and demeaned seems to imply to be trans is a problem not only for the person but IPSO.

Not in relation to the article in question, but quite often an article / commentary, about something that has been said or written, will include references about personal facts that might to be pertinent because nobody is not impacted, influenced by personal facts.

Or is this going to be another of those trans are different from everyone else. Many people interviewed will refer to events that have influenced their view of the world. Are we supposed to believe that someone who has transitioned isn't influenced by that?

Or is this just an extension of the dead naming rule?

Not. A. Woman.

What a pity Gove wasn't so outspoken on this issue when he was in Government.

Ipso did not uphold Ms Dawson’s complaints of inaccuracy and harassment.

This is the most important bit for me. Ipso knows.

Interesting the complaint for "inaccuracy" was not upheld.

So while it is accurate to say he is a man who thinks he's a woman we are prevented from reading/saying/publishing this statement.

A huge infringement of everyone's rights.

Thanks I missed that.

But that makes what they did say about the comment, even more bizzare.

If it was accurate how was it demeaning?

Is it true to say that the panel declared Juno a woman, or did they say " here's a certificate showing your self declared gender"? I didn't think they investigated which true gender someone is as such.

"Does this mean you cant even make a statement saying someone has a GRC.*"

Yes I think so. You don't have to show anyone your GRC, & no one can't ask to see a GRC or even if you have a GRC.

It came out in the FWS Supreme Court hearing - Scot Gov spoke of this. Apparently you use your GRC to amend the sex marker on your birth certificate and then that is "proof" of your sex. As it's a birth certificate I guess the amendment is retrospective.

Clearly nonsensical.

However I have been reading for years about changing the sex marker on drivers license & passport by request- no GRC required.

I believe gender remains, as ever, elusive & undefinable. undefined, in a non circular sense.

Yes indeed RobinEllacotStrike, and yet the statement implies that the panel (who may not have met Juno) carried out a definitive investigation into Juno's true gender! 😆

"Does this mean you cant even make a statement saying someone has a GRC."*

I shouldn't have included that in my comment, as this wasn't what was said in the article.

And as we have now been reminded, IPSO accepted that the comment as being accurate.

Which seems to mean you can say "a man who claims to be a woman"!

Just dont reference a GRC!

"Does this mean you cant even make a statement saying someone has a GRC."*

I shouldn't have included that in my comment, as this wasn't what was said in the article.

And as we have now been reminded, IPSO accepted that the comment as being accurate.

Which seems to mean you can say "a man who claims to be a woman"!

Just dont reference a GRC!

“personally belittling and demeaning toward the complainant, in a way that was both pejorative and prejudicial of the complainant due to her gender identity, and was not justified by the columnist’s right to express his views on the broader issues of a person’s sex and gender identity given that this targeted her as an individual”.

In the old days we'd have called this verbal diarrhoea, me thinks they're trying too hard to justify their verdict, squaring circles is as impossible as a man becoming a women.