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 the Streisand effect has kicked in

https://archive.ph/955jm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/11/jk-rowling-trans-spectator-gender-critical-michael-gove/

Thanks for posting the ruling ArabellaScott - it's an interesting one.

I wonder if IPSO might have been ok if the phrasing had been "a man who believes they are a woman".

(NB. I deliberately went for "they" here so as not to conflate two issues, as Dawson's complaint alleged misgendering and that goes to the part of the Forstater ruling that the judge left open to further testing, and I'm not talking about that bit here).

From the ruling, the issue is certainly around the disparaging nature of the word "claims", which has connotations of being a lie (which obviously GC would agree that it is), and it sounds like NobleWashedLinen's suggestion that IPSO are viewing this as akin to disparaging someone's genuinely held philosophical/religious belief is right on the money.

It feels like the distinction IPSO is trying to draw is between acknowledging that the person genuinely believes the gender identity thing themselves and suggesting that it's some sort of grift (which it obviously is sometimes, but there are also lots of people who genuinely believe they have a gender identity too).

It's especially interesting as the whole GRC thing is exactly that - someone claiming to feel like the opposite sex inside their own head, and needing a legal document to prove it as their inner feeling doesn't accord with biological reality.

But with actual religions, no-one needs a document to prove they believe their religion, as it's acknowledged that there is nothing to prove as you just hold an unfalsifiable believe (in god or whatever). And they don't need to 'claim' their religion is the correct one, as their beliefs don't require non-believers to participate in their religion for them to practise it.

I think the fact that IPSO have clearly referred to Forstater and are trying to follow that and the EA2010 to the letter is actually quite useful in furthering the debate, as it's clear they're treating it as an issue of how journalists should describe people with different philosophical beliefs aa opposed to stating that TW actually AW. As PPs have pointed out - IPSO didn't uphold the inaccuracy claim around Dawson being described as a man - just that using the word 'claims' was a belittling description of Dawson's gender identity.

So this supports the notion that gender identity is a belief rather than a fact, which lends weight to the argument that it should be handled in society like any other religion or philosophical belief and not as a scientific fact.

I posted this last night and really recommend reading it, rather than speculating on newspaper selected comments. ie 3 pages of comments not taking this into account!

ie the actual ruling by ISPO

An opinion piece in the Telegraph

https://archive.ph/a3tEA

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/11/were-losing-the-right-to-offend-and-that-should-frighten-us/

The examples he gives are all familiar from these boards.

The broad response from The Spectator appears to be "Thanks IPSOS for your input, now kindly fuck off".

Apologies IwantToRetire - I didn't see you'd posted the ruling yesterday!

I completely agree with you about reading the ruling itself - it feels far more positive and balanced in terms of Forstater and the issues at hand than the "chilling effect" stuff in the press.

That said, I'm glad JKR and others are on the case, as the more people considering the issue and talking about the details of what IPSO upheld and what they didn't and why, is really rather helpful, IMO.

Right, I’m buying a copy of the Spectator as soon as the shops open.

I disagree with most of its politics, but it was the first newsstand publication I found, years ago now, that openly disputed transgenderist dogma.

The wonderful James Kirkup was a tireless defender of women’s single-sex rights, while wittily debunking trans rhetoric. Five or six years ago, he was one of the few mainstream voices of sanity.

Some other publications have since gained a bit of courage to speak up, though very few on the left, apart from the communist newspaper Morning Star.

Shame on IPSO for backing censorship against free speech.

I have read it, and feel frustrated by the judgement:
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.

But a transwoman is, by definition, a man claiming to be a woman, whether backed by a legal ruling or not. The law can’t change someone’s chromosomes. Juno Dawson makes no secret of being a transwoman and does not shun publicity.

A simple and unhideable truth should not be judged pejorative or prejudicial.

To add one point: Dawson made a string of complaints, of which IPSO dismissed all except that referring to the complainant as a man “claiming” to be a woman was personally belittling and demeaning .

But a transwoman is, by definition, a man claiming to be a woman, whether backed by a legal ruling or not.

Claiming implies lying? Saying someone claims to be an accountant or a Christian, it suggests that they really aren't. 'Is recognised' or 'believes' means something different. Like they actually have a qualification or faith.

But how is anyone supposed to know who is recognised by law as a woman, and does the law actual mean that everyone has to recognise that certificate given we dont know who has one?

Surely any man who claims to be a woman is lying, whether he has a special lady certificate or not.

If you think it's possible for a man to claim to be a woman and not be lying, you must believe that people can change sex.

Given the spectators history with this issue, I've a hunch this ruling is going to be the beginning of something, not the end of it

And to the poster above, sorry, I can't find the post, who said the issue should be with what Dawson writes about. I agree. And there have been many threats on this board about the content. Completely inappropriate for children and teens.

I obviously dont.

Im just trying to think about the reasons for this ruling. The state obviously thinks there's something about these men that warrants a female birth certificate, but they are not clear on why, and how that impacts on everyone else. And organisations dont want to be sued.

I think the IPSO made the wrong decision, i think the article expressed the situation as clearly as possible to everyone reading it. He is a man pretending to be a woman, but is the fact that its state approved pretending relevant?

I think the government needs to step in and explain what they mean and what they expect of the population including the press.

So would ipso be okay if journalists described Dawson, in the way Dawson describes thenself?

"I just wanted to get fd like a woman."

I can't help thinking that given Dawson's output, it's a mistake to force journalists into saying what Dawson wants, rather than what Dawson says.

IPSO was recruiting for a new panel member recently. I didn't apply although it crossed my mind.

Maybe IPSO makes the rulings it does because there's a lack of heterodoxy?

Does preference falsification take hold because lots of us don't apply to be part of these decision-making bodies?

Threads obvs 😁

Another article in the Telegraph

https://archive.ph/b79MM

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/12/12/ipso-press-watchdog-michael-gove-trans-writer-spectator/

It would be meet if this nonsense might ipso facto cause the end of IPSO.

If the Telegraph ever finds itself short of a story, it seems it should look into what Dawson's books are peddling to kids.

None of them seem to have read the judgement. IPSO only found that 12i was breached, meaning had the article re-phrased the comment - which IPSO found was legitimate in the context of the opinion article about Ms Sturgeon - it would have been ok. An attack on free speech, certainly, but by no means devastating.

I wonder if IPSO decided they had to give Dawson something!

Perhaps. Otherwise he'd have had a hissy-fit - so girlish!

As far as I can tell IPSO took exception to a single word. That Dawson 'claimed' to be a woman.

What worries me is that a single, very mild and not really contentious verb can be described as 'discrimination'.

Discrimination is serious. To be found guilty of it is serious.

In upholding a complaint over such a completely inconsequential single word, IPSO turn language into a bed of eggshells. The media is essential, freedom.of speech and expression is essential.

So actually I find this more devastating for the trivial and minor nature of the 'offense' - the word 'claim' - and the absurdly disproportionate response.

What other mild and everyday words might be labelled as discriminatory? Does it depend in who is making the complaint?

It reminds me of the attempt to claim "trans identitied male" was hate speech.

If Dawson just wants to" get fd like a woman." may I refer him to the wonderful Nicole Hollander c1976?

The man asks the Great Guru Ancient Mother of the World to be taught how to cry - not to get fd, but same difference, eh?

She replies 'Sure, no problem. Tomorrow I'll start you at a dead-end job, then ....'

If you look at IPSO’s code on discrimination even the absence of a pejorative term referencing a person’s GI or sex can still be considered pejorative.