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 that's terribly sad. Teenage girls and young women face endless scrutiny of their appearance and many experience sexual harassment and assault. It's no wonder some take an extreme way out of that, but it's a form of self-harm. Taking testosterone in high doses and suppressing oestrogen and progesterone is not going to be good for their health. Far better to work with other women on trying to change male behaviour, or at least strengthen protection from it for women and girls.

This example illustrates how for many young women who want to escape womanhood, this decision is based, at least in part, on how women are objectified. It contrasts with the desire for objectification often seen in men who want to be women. Juno Dawson wanting to be "fucked like a woman", Paris Lees talking about the joy of being treated like a piece of meat...

People like Dawson and Lees have a very male view of what it is to be a woman. In fact, all the evidence indicates that all men who claim to want to be women have a very male view of what it is to be a woman. But how could they have any other view, when they are male?

How did we sleepwalk into a place where someone like Dawson talking about wanting to be f-ed like a woman is regarded as different from a man who enjoys pushing various objects up his bum and forcing NHS staff to remove them?

People's libidos vary, people's private sex fantasies vary, but none of them should be given a free pass (or a subsidy) (or acclaim) to pursue them in public, particularly not if it involves people who don't consent to being included in other's sex acts . Victims include those selling underwear or removing potatoes or seeing fetish clothing worn in public as well as those suffering assault or rape by a person stealthily pretending to a sex other than their own.

The demands for male sex rights are destructive to civil society, cause distress to victims of exhibitionism and voyeurism, and cost public money. And that is still not being talked about, because heaven forfend any looks crosswise at men.

I understand some transwomen are not abusers, I understand that some transmen are this generation's anorexics or nuns, but do not believe that gender transition is the best cure for genuine distress at puberty.

As GrammarNut said, no-one is responsible for making perfect strangers happy. Unsurprisingly, you expect us to make you feel safe when you are denying us actual safety.

Butter wants to be safe from unkind words. We want to be safe from actual violence from men.

“Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”

Very well said.

OldCrone, thanks for this
"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."

So the law tries to make the sex something biology says it is not. In other words we have to call a spade a ball even though science says it is a spade.

Dawson also stated in their book The Gender Games that the two key events that made them realise they must obviously be a woman were (1) not enjoying a night out at a seedy gay club and (2) being crap at Mario Kart...

Why has society decided the rest of us have to A) know and B) care about egotistical sex-addled dullards?

Unless

they are doing something damaging or dangerous to others, in which case they should be prosecuted and punished according to the laws on voyeurism, exhibitionism, theft, sexual assault and so on which already exist

or

they are doing something intrusive that enables dangerous actions from others (toilets, changing rooms, schools etc etc) in which case they should be told to stop

or

they are doing something which puts a financial burden on the state toilets, publicity seeking groups, potato-ism etc etc) in which case they should foot the bill themselves.

Outside those three categories I have no interest in them, they seem to be very boring people.

It doesn’t make sense because when sex is important, gender is irrelevant - a medical trial looking at the effects on women for example. And i cant think of a situation where gender is important and sex isn't. I dont know what situations they were imagining.

And its impossible to force the public to see the person as the opposite sex by the issue of a certificate alone.

The only things are private matters like tax codes and marriage certificates. But it says for all purposes.

Its definitely an ambition law to implement.

Strongly-worded piece here from Michael Deacon referencing the IPSO ruling:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/14/jk-rowling-is-right-stop-pandering-violent-trans-criminals/

my niece is brilliant at Mario kart!! Do I need to have a difficult conversation with my sister pointing out that she might actually be a boy?? 😨

I found an archive version of this article.

archive.ph/VbnDC

Theeyeballsinthesky it really does beggar belief that this isn't part of the DSM diagnostic criteria - I don't know why Cass says there's no way to tell which kids are actually trans when there are methods like this so readily available!

I did think it was a mistake for Dawson to get ipso to clamp down. There are going to be loads of journalists already chomping at the bit over the restrictions.

And to claim that it was accurate but not fair is going to be catnip to them.

And of course, you're going to get the Isla Bryson comparisons. Because nobody gives a shit if people say he was claiming to be a woman.

Are we going to get all the reasons why no one thinks Karen White is a woman, but not a non-rapist? Is it only discriminatory if you're not a horrible person?

It's interesting watching mainstream media really get down into the weeds of the issues that we've been talking about on here for years.

I really don't understand this use of "safe". If any of us met you in real life, you would be no more and no less safe whether we could tell which sex you are. Why do you think you might be less safe if SinnerBoy realised that you are male than if he thought you were female?

And here is a photo of the fragrant Angel Hill who is mentioned in the article. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/dangerous-woman-jailed-violent-physical-30571646

Potato-ism... Excellent!

I agree, Datun. I think the IPSO ruling is like a red rag to a bull in a way. Lots of journalists are going to start testing the regulator and seeing how far they can go.

And you're right, it's hard to see IPSO defending people like Bryson without putting themselves into a very awkward position. But where do they draw the line? I remember Janice Turner was happy to use female pronouns for Debbie Hayton but not for Bryson. Others might be less respectful. The difficulty for IPSO is that if you endorse the principle that people have the right to have their pronouns respected, and not accused of "claiming" to be a woman, then that right must, logically, extend to rapists and paedophiles as well as people like Hayton.

'How do I complain about IPSO?

Complaints should be made in writing to the Chief Executive via [email protected]'

https://www.ipso.co.uk/making-a-complaint/complaints-faqs/

I hope that journalists are starting to realise the problems that feminists have been trying to sound the alarm about for years.

Compelled speech, the chilling effect, the mangling of meaning, doublespeak, ridiculous rules about pronouns, oxymoronic statements like 'Transwomen are women', the silencing of dissent, the banning on social media, the deletions on here, the removal of women who disagree from marches and public life, the threats, abuse, and censoriousness ...

https://www.ipso.co.uk/what-we-do/our-people/independent-reviewer/

'Any request for review must be made in writing within 14 days of any decision being issued. IPSO must then decide whether to refer the complaint to the Independent Complaints Reviewer.
The reviewer can only review complaints that have been investigated after raising a possible breach of the Code. They cannot review rejected complaints that either IPSO’s staff or Complaints Committee have decided do not raise a possible breach of the Code. The reviewer’s role is to consider whether the process followed by IPSO in investigating and ruling on the complaint was substantially flawed. Examples of issues she would consider are:
Did both sides to the complaint have the opportunity to see and comment on all of the evidence considered by the Committee?
Did the Committee have access to all of the evidence it needed to make its decision?
Did the Committee give full consideration to the arguments of both sides and the evidence supporting them?
She has access to all correspondence relating to the complaint, and is able to ask questions if necessary to inform her review. She then writes to IPSO’s Chairman within 14 days with her decision on whether the process was flawed.
If the Independent Complaints Reviewer finds that the process was not flawed, the decision is then published, so long as there are no other outstanding issues to be resolved.
If the Independent Complaints Reviewer finds that the process was flawed, the complaint returns to the Committee for reconsideration, taking into account the process flaw identified by the Reviewer. The final decision on the complaint is then made by the Committee.'

Yet still no one asked the women, any women (cunty ones) if they were ok with this.
We are not even second class citizens. We are way below.
Youd think someone, somewhere might have given a passing thought to women, but no, we are below men and men pretending to be women. Probably even lower than 3rd place.

Emperors new clothes, I don't understand why some trans people have to insist that we must all believe what they believe.
Why are we all being forced into worshipping a god we don't believe in?

I see 3 women and 5 men, I can't help it, I'm not particularly looking for it, but to my eyes and my brain that's what I see.
I'm not trying to be hateful or difficult, I just want fairness and safety for myself, my family and others. I imagine the ability to distinguish the sexes is deep in my biology, it's instant, I could not stop the feeling/thought even if I wanted to erase this instinct, just as I can sense when I am not alone or someone is staring at me.
I don't want to lose/erase this instinct, it's been incredibly useful particularly when I was a child and a younger woman, it alerted me before my education about the world, and the dangers, joined with my instincts to protect me. I've not doubt without this instinct I would have come to serious harm at some point. I will teach my daughter to trust her gut, to pay heed and respect what those instincts and feelings and to act on them.

But I am not allowed to feel or think this? Or I am? But not speak it? Or I am? But only in my head and my body, or only in court?