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.

Yes. It would be great to have that Grainger tested.

What are you basing this on? Pure opinion?

but describing a man with a GRC as a woman goes against my belief that nobody can change sex. Checkmate. So that person is free, IMO, to continue to tell porkies about their actual sex (assuming nobody can tell by looking) and i am free to continue to believe that they are a man and refer to them as such.

(sorry that was a reply to @NobleWashedLinen )

The Spectator could have communicated exactly the same information by describing Dawson as "A person who was born male but is now legally considered a woman" without it being an attack.

But if they don't know whether Dawson has a GRC, this might be inaccurate. If they know that someone doesn't have a GRC (perhaps because that person has stated publicly that they don't) would it be appropriate to refer to them as a man who claims to be a woman, or would that still be considered an attack?

I have two problems with this. One is: do we have any evidence that Dawson has a deeply-held belief that he - or she, if you prefer - is really a woman? Because, to be honest, I'm sceptical. I think that trans-identified men have a very good idea that they are not women.

Second, and I can't say this strongly enough, it is absolutely fine, and indeed desirable, that all writers should be able to attack the strongly-held beliefs of lots of people. That is absolutely why we have free speech. It would be a different matter if the Spectator were to write "All trans people are sexual predators" or "All Muslims are terrorists." That would be free speech, but it would be unpleasant and unnecessary. But saying that people's ideas are ridiculous? That is not only acceptable, but essential, in a free society. When writers can't attack people's ideas because they fear giving offence, then we are in real trouble.

I read the Speccie for years, despite being politically left-leaning, but gave up during the Fraser Nelson years when it went a bit odd. Might start subscribing again.

Does it mention the way people (including parents) protesting against libraries stocking Juno Dawson's work have been vilified as 'Far Right', thereby inserting the thin end of a wedge that genuinely far right online influencers are able to use to feed those parents misinformation on other subjects?

Wasn't 'Wonderland' the name used by one of the first big paedophile groups to be caught in this country in the early days of the internet? To be clear, that this also happens to be the name of Dawson's book is likely coincidental and, from the sounds of it, a very long way from being the most problematic thing about it.

It seems that the problem is not what the Spectator said but the way they said it. Ffs

I have two problems with this. One is: do we have any evidence that Dawson has a deeply-held belief that he - or she, if you prefer - is really a woman? Because, to be honest, I'm sceptical. I think that trans-identified men have a very good idea that they are not women.

Dawson once wrote in a gay magazine that gay men were failed "trans women".

Here's a gay man discussing the article in the Independent. I couldn't find a link to the article itself. My bold:

In particular the idea that if you tend to be the more passive partner in a gay relationship, that makes you more likely to be a trans woman is surely quite hard to substantiate – of course perhaps it was true for Dawson, who elucidates that with the unforgettable quote: "I just wanted to get fd like a woman. That's what it's about. It's not about what hole it's going in" – but that doesn't make it true for all of us. If Dawson were saying "maybe you're like me", that would obviously be completely valid, but she goes so much further.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/juno-dawson-attitude-magazine-interview-transgender-gay-man-lgbt-trans-woman-a7752701.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/juno-dawson-attitude-magazine-interview-transgender-gay-man-lgbt-trans-woman-a7752701.html

'A lot of gay men are gay men as a consolation prize, because they couldn't be women,' says Dawson

Same! But I wholeheartedly applaud him for this!

'A lot of gay men are gay men as a consolation prize, because they couldn't be women,' says Dawson

Yes, that's the same one I posted, with a quote from the gay man who wrote it about why he wasn't happy about what Dawson said. It's not the article itself, couldn't find that.

I imagine there is an archive somewhere

amp.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/19/juno-dawson-cant-be-24-hour-sexual-fantasy-dating-trans-woman

This article is quite enlightening also. It shows that it's all about sex for JD.

https://pressgazette.co.uk/the-wire/newspaper-corrections-media-mistakes-errors-legal/spectator-juno-dawson-ipso/

Also, this is a pretty obvious point, but I find Dawson's view that he is a woman deeply offensive. I expect gay people find his view that gay men are failed trans women deeply offensive. But none of us is running to IPSO to stop Dawson from expressing those views.

Isn't this also the case with religions? If you're a Muslim or Jew, you probably find the Christian claim that Jesus is the son of God offensive. If you're a Christian, you probably find Muslims' or Jews' denial that Jesus is the son of God also offensive.

But - so what? We all have to find a way of rubbing along with each other. That's how a free society works.

I expect gay people find his view that gay men are failed trans women deeply offensive.

Even in the militantly pro trans Independent they published a rebuttal by a gay man, which I linked below.

A gay man could easily say that Dawson is a closeted homosexual who pretends to be a woman so he can avoid thinking he's gay* . That's what we call a straight score draw.

*(this is a recognised phenomenon at individual, social and even government level)

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170529165139/www.attitude.co.uk/a-lot-of-gay-men-are-gay-men-as-a-consolation-prize-because-they-couldnt-be-women-says-trans-author-juno-dawson" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20170529165139/www.attitude.co.uk/a-lot-of-gay-men-are-gay-men-as-a-consolation-prize-because-they-couldnt-be-women-says-trans-author-juno-dawson/

Archive with the quote, but doesn't contain the full article.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DDZ1UEMisCu/?hl=en

Juno wants to say more.

Ah,and here is the full IPSO ruling.

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

11. The Committee took into account that the article made clear the columnist’s views on the issues which were highlighted in the piece. He was critical of what he perceived to be Nicola Sturgeon’s position that “men should be allowed to assume the rights of women at their whim”, describing the self-ID gender legislation passed in Scotland as a “disaster”. Given the context, the Committee considered that the sentence in issue was sufficiently distinguished as being the columnist’s view that the complainant remained biologically male despite the transition process she had undergone rather than being a statement of fact about the complainant’s sex or gender as recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. For these reasons, the Committee did not uphold the complaint of inaccuracy.

12. The Editors’ Code also requires, however, that “the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s... gender identity”. In the view of the Committee, 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 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. The Committee upheld the complaint of discrimination under Clause 12 (i).

Gove's article in defence of Gareth Roberts in The Spectator is good but not great. He defends his writer and the importance of uncensored opinions. But then tips his hat in the inevitable way now, to all "people" who wish to live as transwomen (I think he means men):

Respecting the right of people to live as they wish, and exercising consideration and sensitivity towards them, is a virtue. Society has, understandably, sought to accommodate and make changes to ensure people who wish to live as trans women, even though they were born biological males, have every opportunity to find the happiness they seek in their assumed identity.

If we follow his logic we ensure men who wish to live as transwomen have every opportunity to use all women's spaces, no? Or society is not accommodating them. As it is virtuous to do. That's my take from that paragraph, anyway. Tell me I've read it wrong please.

But that is a far bigger lie than writing "a man who claims to be a woman".

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/in-defence-of-gareth-roberts/

https://seeninjournalism.substack.com/p/dawson-v-spectator?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2442132&post_id=152951549&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1n0tc7&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Thanks Arabella, they seem to have memory holed the original article.