How Ipso surrendered to the trans lobby

[IwantToRetire]

One of the things that Ipso is most concerned with is accuracy. So the methodology I proposed – reasonably I thought – was to establish the ‘truth’ around trans issues in order to gauge how accurately the press was treating trans people.

At first Ipso was happy to agree with this approach. The pushback started when it became clear that our understanding of the baseline was disputed by the LGBT lobby.

Part of my reason for wanting to find out the facts was that I was aware there was much I didn’t know about the core issues in the trans debate. If that were true of me, a gay man, it was likely to be true of many on the Ipso board.

I wasn’t even sure why the label LGBTQ+ had been adopted. When the T was added to the LGB by Stonewall back in 2015, I was puzzled by the combination. While being gay is about accepting your sex and your sexuality, being transsexual is about rejecting at least one of those. My thoughts went no further though, and this project for Ipso just four years later was the true beginning of my journey of discovery.

What I found baffling was, as I produced draft after draft of the report, using analysis based on quantitative and qualitative research, Ipso kept coming back with feedback effectively saying that ‘this is a highly contentious area and the report needs to balance the two sides of the argument’. It reflected the view that there are somehow two equally valid opinions in any argument about trans issues. I disagreed. It became clear to me that on one side was an unscientific and quasi-spiritual trans ideology (which should be treated by the media in the same way they treat religious beliefs), and on the other side, science and common sense.

From an article in the Spectator https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-ipso-surrendered-to-the-trans-lobby/

Can also be read in full at https://archive.is/WDygE

(I know there was a thread about this at the time but cant find it, so have started a new thread.)

Thank you for posting - this is a harrowing read and suggests Ipso is not fit for purpose. Ironically it is going to take committed journalism and freedom of speech to untangle exactly why so many of our major institutions were captured by trans ideology, to the detriment of women and children. And that kind of investigation is exactly what Ipso is clamping down on. Really disturbing.

committed journalism

Well as this is one of the first professions to be captured by all the queer graduates from university it is never going to happen. As the editor of the Guardian has said, everything I do is guided by queer politics.

https://karadansky.substack.com/p/implementing-the-executive-order?s=09

A feminist take on the changed the the US. Worth a read

Here is the existing thread.

Ipsos "taken over by transgender lobby" www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/5264608-ipsos-taken-over-by-transgender-lobby

Dont know why I didn't see it.

But good to have the report in the author's own words.

Behind a paywall

I tried to archive it but it only archives upto the point where is says you have to subscribe

I think journalism has been one of the least captured. True, the BBC and Guardian have been dreadful. But some of the most important pushback against this ideology has come from the Times, the Telegraph, the Spectator and the Mail. Where would we be without people like Janice Turner, Hadley Freeman, Alex Massie, James Kirkup, Sanchez Manning and Suzanne Moore?

I think originally there was no pushback.

And whilst I have appreciated many of the stories published by the Times, Telegraph etc., there is part of me that feels it is for them as much about being in opposition to what they call the"woke" agenda rather than some committment to women's sex based rights.

But if that is all we can rely on then that is what we will have to make do with.