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.

I think, from that, we're okay talking in generalities but not about a specific man person,

Well IPSO did not uphold Juno Dawson's claim that the Spectator was 'inaccurate' - so IPSO agrees that Juno is male but calling Juno a man is derogatory? Surely that's misandrist?

I wonder if it was the 'claims to be'. There's a little piece of paper that allows the holders to claim they are the opposite sex, even though that's biologically impossible, legally the fiction is maintained. So the article could be interpreted as casting aspersions on the tw's honesty.

That's the best I've got.

Yes, rather than, “has a gender recognition certificate legally deeming them to be a woman”.

Is The Guardian really not signed up to IPSO? I had assumed from their craven behaviour that they were the first to sign on the dotted line.

It quite amuses me how many men think because they have a piece of paper, it makes something true. Would that reality could be altered so easily.

i think the GRC is secret if the holder wants it to be secret. and if you find out during the course of your work (eg as a medical practitioner) it is illegal for you to disclose that information to anyone at all.

But, i would hazard a guess, that if someone (Dawson has one, iirc India Willoughby does not?) discloses their "GRC status" online, in an article or just shouting about it in the street, that would then become common knowledge and not illegal to disclose.

Given how easy it is to get them, i do wonder why more aren't issued. But that's a different conversation for another thread.

People applying for a GRC do not actually go in front of a panel (despite TRAs trying to fool the public into believing they have to parade in front of a panel of people who judge whether they are feminine or masculine).

The panel simply check the paperwork supplied by the applicant. They rarely turn anyone down and even if they do it is usually overturned.

"The application is decided on the basis of the paperwork by a two-person panel made up of a medical and judicial member. The panel tends to take a supportive approach. If it finds that applicants have submitted insufficient evidence (such as failing to fill in the form correctly, or failing to send marriage or divorce documentation) it issues directions to enable applicants to supply the additional documentation."

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/what-are-the-facts-about-applying-for-a-grc/

Can I just mention that Gareth Roberts has also written an interesting (and very funny) book called Gay Shame. Well worth a read. Interesting to get a gay man's perspective on gender nonsense.

Confused.....

So Juno identifies as Trans and makes no secret of this identity.

For Juno to be trans they have transitioned their gender because it's biological reality you can't change sex.

Ergo Juno self promotes the fact that they do not present as their born sex and are simulating being the other which "allows" them to access female spaces.

As such when writing about gender ideology they have a clear bias that should be recognised in any reputable reporting.

It's akin to being unable to describe the takeover of the red squirrel habit by their more aggressive grey counterparts because of a ban in being able to describe the species variants.

Can you imagine... Save the squirrels!!!

Err, the squirrel squirrels or the other squirrels?

Do not OTHER the squirrels.

The complainant said the article breached Clause 12 as she considered the claim that she was “a man who claim[ed] to be a woman” to be discriminatory as she legally changed her gender in 2018. The complainant considered she was deliberately misgendered with the intention being to offend her.

IPSO considered referring to the complainant as a man “claiming” to be a woman was personally belittling and demeaning toward the complainant, in a way that was both pejorative and prejudicial to her gender identity, and was not justified by the columnist’s right to express their views on the broader issues of sex and gender identity. As such, there was a breach of Clause 12 (i) on this point.

Clause 12

i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's, race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.

Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice deals with discrimination. It says the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to a person’s race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. It also states that these details should not be included in a story unless they are relevant.
In general, Clause 12 complaints can only be taken forward from the party directly affected – because the complaint might involve personal and sensitive information about a person, or we might not be able to investigate the complaint properly without their input. In certain cases, where there is a sufficient public interest, IPSO is also able to take complaints from representative groups affected by the alleged breach.

https://www.ipso.co.uk/what-we-do/monitoring/clause-12-monitoring/

Looks like it's the word 'claiming' that's the problem.

Ridiculous.

Dawson cannot dictate how others think, nor decide what language others use when they describe the reality they see.

Good article from Gove.

Oh dear, what a tangled web of contradictions.
I'd like to know more about this 'gender recognition panel' giving out these certificates - what's their criteria? I bet it's bonkers?!

https://www.ipso.co.uk/resources/sex-and-gender-identity-guidance/#:~:text=There%20is%20a%20wide%20range,or%20sex%20may%20be%20pejorative.

IPSO Sex and gender identity guidance

Thank you IDareSay. I naively thought it would be similar to a parole hearing when the applicant had to say what they were wanting to do, how they were achieving it, and whether they really meant it. You know, just a little bit of explanation and therefore I was wondering how this panel decided.

So it's two people probably in a back room rubber stamping if the form is filled in. No (real) questions asked. Awesome 😯

Environment and housing brought forth some agreement. It's still difficult to get over education though...

It is indeed illegal to disclose confidential information about a person having been issued a GRC.

This is because doing so is a profound breach of privacy and can have permanent, devastatingly harmful effects upon their personal life and safety.

The law is very clear on this. The battle to gain this crucial legal protection for trans people took a long time to win and required the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights because the UK was dragging its heels.

Not sure if this has been posted (been having real problems with MN boards - chaotic notifications).

This is the full text of the ruling. Too late for me to make sense of. But maybe of interest.

03844-24 Dawson v spectator.co.uk
https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings/03844-24/

no one can't ask to see a GRC or even if you have a GRC.

Why can't you ask? I've looked at the GRA, and I can't see anything that implies such a prohibition. Am I missing something? I've seen similar assertions before - it seems to be quite widely believed, but is it true? And if not, why do people believe it is?

This makes no sense. Very few people with a trans identity pass as the opposite to their natal sex, even after surgery and hormone treatment.

Nick Wallis has written a good blog post about this IPSO ruling. https://genderblog.net/enemies-of-free-speech/

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/39006.htm#:~:text=73.It%20is%20not%20unlawful,in%20almost%20all%20circumstances%20unnecessary.

Ach. Messy link. House of Lords on GRC laws.

'73.It is not unlawful under the GRA to ask a person to produce a GRC,69 but it is in almost all circumstances unnecessary. There are very few situations in which it would be appropriate to ask for proof of legal gender (see Chapter Six).'

I agree - it’s insightful and funny. I read the book after listening to this interview with Brendan O’Neill.

It's not unlawful to ask if someone has a GRC nor to disclose the fact, unless you gained that information in an official capacity, like your job.

This was discussed after the recent FWS/Sex Matters etc case in the Supreme Court and nowhere in the legislation about GRCs does this appear. I challenge @Butterflyhatched to cite the details.

This did not, naturally, prevent the usual suspects from telling trainees (such as the police) in their indoctrination sessions that it is indeed unlawful for most of us to disclose this information.

thanks for posters dropping factual information with sources, always appreciated

How could a journalist fact check the legal status of a man?

If men should be referred in a particular waý if he has a GRC, shouldnt there be some way of checking who has a GRC?