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 mean they convinced parliament that it was certain that a group of men were so indistinguishable from women that they needed to change their birth certificate and ^then said but you can't make that any part of the criteria, guv.

Reposting this: (my bolding)

Re disclosure and asking for a GRC, here is the relevant section (22) of the GRA:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

'Prohibition on disclosure of information

(1)It is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person.'

So those are very specific circumstances. To whit:

'A person acquires protected information in an official capacity if the person acquires it—
(a)in connection with the person’s functions as a member of the civil service, a constable or the holder of any other public office or in connection with the functions of a local or public authority or of a voluntary organisation,
(b)as an employer, or prospective employer, of the person to whom the information relates or as a person employed by such an employer or prospective employer, or
(c)in the course of, or otherwise in connection with, the conduct of business or the supply of professional services.'

And probably worth noting from the HoL discussion:

'Not a single prosecution has yet been brought for breach of Section 22.'

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

If "claims" is the problematic word in that using it is inherently perjorative to the claimant, our judiciary is in real trouble.

It is entirely standard parlance to describe a thing that somebody has said. It may imply that what is said is untested, unproven OR, in certain tones of voice, doubted or disagreed with, but none of those usages (including disagreement) can sensibly be said to be derogatory.

Unless of course, it is now inherently 'perjorative' to any speaker not to accept wholeheartedly whatever they say immediately and without the slightest application of critical thought. In which case IPSO has just ruled against the questioning of anyone about anything, as well as putting across any conflicting alternative narrative.

I'm not quite sure where they think that leaves journalism and the fourth estate, but what a fascinating conversation that would be.

Side note: Nice article by Gove but feel he could have shortened it considerably by availing himself of the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram.

Seamlessly assimilating, like "You can't see me, I'm hiding behind my hands."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/13/press-watchdog-ipso-accused-double-standards-transgender/

I tried the archive version but it didn’t work.

Here tis.

HJ complained tht the article was inaccurate and misleading. Ipso said it shouldn't intrude on Le Fey's privacy.

https://archive.ph/miK2z

'The article’s “inaccuracy”, Ms Joyce told Ipso, “significantly impacts” her and Ms Keen, the victims in the case.
In her complaint, she wrote: “It is always misleading for a media outlet to use any of the words “woman”, “female”, “she” and “her” for a man/male person since many readers will understand the person to be biologically female, which in the case of men – including those who identify as women – is false. <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/miK2z/www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2024/12/11/ipso-has-misstepped-transgender-spectator-sturgeon/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">This is a breach of the Editors’ Code.”

She added: “I am not a ‘third party’ in this complaint. It closely relates to me – to my life and to my knowledge of what happened to me; I dared to speak about women’s rights and a man who doesn’t care for women speaking about their rights threatened me in an attempt to intimidate me into silence.
“This misreporting of a crime has had a significant impact on my life. It is revictimisation.”

But despite acknowledging she was a victim in the case, Ipso dismissed Ms Joyce’s complaint as a “third party issue”. The regulator said that determining Le Fey’s gender – critical to assessing the complaint of inaccuracy – would require an investigation that “could represent a significant intrusion into their privacy”.'

'She told The Telegraph: “When a man with a prior conviction for violence, and who identifies as a woman, threatened on Twitter/X to carve up my face and cut out my eyes, press reporting of his conviction referred to him as a woman. Ipso refused to act when I complained, even though its Editors’ Code says reporting must be accurate.
“Ipso placed the feelings of a violent criminal who threatened extreme violence against a woman who refuses to pretend he is a woman ahead of the feelings of his victim, and ahead of the plain truth. The press regulator is simply not fit for purpose.”'

It Absolutely is not fit for purpose. And, given the direction of travel at the moment, I'm going to say it will either fold or have to, er, when review itself.

It only needs a diagnosis of GD and two years of id. If it was about men passing as women that wouldn't have been the criteria.

It's also why its reasonable to call an obvious man who wants to be seen as a woman 'a man claiming to be a woman' because theres no way of looking at someone and knowing if they have a secret certificate or not.

Yes, I agree.

I think passing isn't any basis for law. It isn't a fucking beauty pageant.

Either your strong and important man feelings can make you a woman or they can't. It should have nothing whatsoever to do with your physical appearance.

This thread is another great one for the lurkers, v informative.

Thanks, wims.

Errr you know that passing as non-trans isn't anything to do with beauty, right? I've got a trans guy mate who jokes all the time about transforming from a strikingly attractive woman into a spotty and incredibly generic looking bloke. He wears it as a badge of pride; it's exactly what he asked for and exactly what he got.

It can often actually help you pass overall to end up not looking particularly aesthetically remarkable.

God I just love it when you play the complete denial game. It really helps me to feel safe knowing that you don't appear to be able to even imagine my existence.

Getting a certificate to say you've changed sex doesn't have anything to do with appearance. All that's required is changing your name on your utility bills and convincing a couple of doctors that you really, really want to be the opposite sex. So you can be a big bearded bloke with all your parts intact and still get a certificate to say you're woman. The whole thing is bonkers.

As for passing... it's absurd that passing yourself off as something you're not (like the opposite sex) should be encouraged.

No certificate can change someone’s sex. It is called a Gender Recognition Certificate for a reason.

Which allows the holder to falsify the sex on their birth certificate.

To quote from the Act:

9 General

(1) Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

The distinction between sex and gender in the GRA is anything but clear.

No-one is obliged to make perfect strangers happy. Now I can't get the picture of a man in tight pink leggings out of my head - well, it gave me a laugh.

Your negative attitudes toward trans people or transness in general are showing.

I particularly liked the way you sneeringly invoked a tired set of transphobic stereotypes that imply there is only one particular aesthetic standard of femininity permissible for women as part of your transphobic tirade. How very feminist of you.

Saying a man can never be a woman is not anti feminst.

You know as well as everyone here that there are men who fit that description who still believe that they pass, use womans spaces and call women transphobic for speaking about it.

Its not womans fault that men arent happy with their sex, its not our responsibility to hide our uncomfort when they invade our spaces.

Its madness that you come here, hear how uncomfortable we feel when we cant even go into a public toilet without a man thinking he has a right to be there, and claim somehow that thats women enforcing femininity.

Give your head a wobble, butters. You are never going to change minds by claiming seeing men as men is anti feminist.

that imply there is only one particular aesthetic standard of femininity permissible for women as part of your transphobic tirade.

Women come in all aesthetics, but being male isn't on the list. Because those people are men or boys.

“A tired set of transphobic stereotypes” no, when I was writing that post I could see very clearly images that have appeared across various media platforms within the last 18 months or so. There isn’t a single aesthetic standard of femininity - who ever said there was - but putting on woman face and claiming that this equates to being a woman and inheriting our rights is offensive and demeaning to women , as I suspect is the intention. As also is demanding that women change the words they use about ourselves and our bodies, that we submit to the demands of natal men to use our spaces, that we deny the evidence of our own eyes and instincts to placate male bodied people.

It might surprise you to know that I don’t really care how people gender themselves,or choose to present themselves, it’s not my business, get on with your life, but when it comes to expecting me to lie ,and to accept lies without comment , expecting me to be agreeable to aggressive tactics in order to use my spaces and make me an unwilling participant in someone’s fantasy life, expecting me to stand back when other women are being harangued, harassed and hounded out of their careers for asserting their feelings and legally held opinions , or excluded from events and pastimes because their social, religious or personal beliefs stop them from using mixed sex spaces then yes, I will let loose a tirade, because being kind has been flung back at us too many times. I am fed up with women being expected to carry the burden for making life easier for people who hate us and resent the fact that by an accident of conception we got the coveted genes.

ButterflyHatched · Yesterday 23:15

God I just love it when you play the complete denial game. It really helps me to feel safe knowing that you don't appear to be able to even imagine my existence.

Good for you, mate.

TheHereticalOne

“Side note: Nice article by Gove but feel he could have shortened it considerably by availing himself of the answer given in Arkell v Pressdram.”

😂