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.

Given that there are 100+ gender identities, most of them must be more like hobbies and equivalent to "I like model railways" than actual protected characteristics to be taken seriously. This is the issue I have with gender identity. My serious and lifelong lego habit is equally worthy of respect as you (royal you) being cat gender, in my opinion, and neither is needing protected by IPSO or the courts etc.

They are, yes, Bez.

https://www.medicinenet.com/whatareethe722other_genders/article.htm

1 Abimegender: Associated with being profound, deep, and infinite. The term abimegender may be used alone or in combination with other genders.
2 Adamas gender: A gender that is indefinable or indomitable. People identifying with this gender refuse to be categorized in any particular gender identity.
3 Aerogender: Also called evaisgender, this gender identity changes according to one’s surroundings.
4 Aesthetigender: Also called aesthetgender, it is a type of gender identity derived from aesthetics.
5

So they are not allowed to state a fact about chromosomes. So if someone has changed gender by English law and may be treated as female for all purposes that is taken also to mean that no statement about their biology is allowed.

1. Alexigender: The person has a fluid gender identity between more than one type of gender although they cannot name the genders they feel fluid in.

This list is surely a joke? An elaborate one by somebody clever and with a lot of time on their hands?? Distressingly, I found myself identifying with about 3 of them😱😱😱

So you don't need to use pejorative words for it to be pejorative. Are they talking about sarcasm and inference, here? The absence of stipulated honorifics? Is it the tone?

The idea that for most GRC holders disclosure is a 'breach of privacy' is a complete fantasy, as it will usually be blindingly obvious if their legal sex doesn't match their actual sex.

And apparently it's not illegal anyway. Only if it has been disclosed under certain circumstances, like to a doctor, or in the course of a job. If the person next door knows it, they can tell who they like apparently.

I caught an item yesterday afternoon on Times Radio discussing free speech in light of the recent IPSO / Spectator decision. I thought it was good with a pretty well informed presenter, Nick Wallis, (who didn't seem worried about correctly-sexing Dawson which is refreshing). Nick Wallis interviewed Connie Shaw of Leeds University and there's then a lively discussion with sensible comments from Ben Jones of the FSU and hyperbolic ones from Ben Smoke (I think?) of Huck magazine.

The Times at One with Nick Wallis | Times Radio | The Times and The Sunday Times

Meant to add it's about 36 minutes into the programme.

Because it hurt his feelings. Like if someone uses your wrong pronouns, or tells you you are in the wrong toilet, or doesn’t shush their child when the child says “ mummy why is that man wearing a dress”. Because however tall you are however large your Adam’s apple, however visible your beard, however deep your voice, however huge your feet, however crooked and fake your wig, however clumsy your make up or blue your eyeshadow, however apparent your male entitlement, however tight your pink leggings, if you say you are a woman the world has to suspend their disbelief otherwise you might be sad.

Even though, in this case, Dawson will tell anyone who listens that they are actually a man, and a man who wants to be fucked like a woman.

Is that self discrimination??

Please keep believing that

So legally a woman, but not a woman. OK got it now……

I cant see how others knowing that someone has a GRC can put them in danger.

If anything, knowing a male person has a GRC and may be treated as a woman is what they want isnt it? Otherwise whats the point of having a GRC?

It cant be both a privacy issue and the key to be treated as the opposite sex.

Are they literally The Literary Tone Police?

Congratulations Butters. You have single-handedly confirmed to me that it doesn't matter how well a transwoman passes. Human beings cannot change sex and even the most convincing transwoman is still male and will never be a woman.

ETA. I use woman in the proper way, meaning adult human female.

Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 12:53

They are, yes, Bez.

I think they all fall under the umbrella of demented bollocks.

Some determined people managed to convince Parliament that certain men look so exactly like women, undetectable in fact, and so they need a female birth certificate (only available once you've got a GRC), so they're not exposed as the men they actually are.

It's a piece of sexist, rubbish, and drives a cart and horses through safeguarding.

I also want to point out that I'm really quite glad that some of our regular posters are men. They can see, for themselves, exactly what women are talking about. It's not necessarily something they might encounter in real life, but on here, you can't miss it.

I didn’t know that Dawson had said he wants to be fucked like a woman. It just goes to show how misogynist these men are, not just the AGPs but the HSTS too.

Also I didn’t realise Nick Wallis had his own show so thanks for posting that @AuntMunca

Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the process of drafting the bill that would eventually lead to the GRA might have involved people who had actually met those of us who had received treatment from an early age and already been seamlessly assimilating into society as our acquired gender for years?

Curated, you mean? The middle aged fetishists were probably told to make themselves scarce.

Personally, having read some of the Hansard records of the debates over the GRA bill, I wouldn't fool myself for a minute that the relevant MPs had met any such people. It comes across that the MPs had been told such people existed, yes, but not that they had met such people amongst their constituents.

Exactly. And given a GRC doesn't require anyone to pass in the slightest, it was a farce from start to finish.