"Anti-trans views classed as misinformation in government report"

[UtopiaPlanitia]

So, in addition to Amnesty, we now have 7 academics writing a 136-page report for the Government Office for Science claiming that lack of support for Genderism is misinformation and misleading.

The report also calls for government use of 'psychology' to prevent the spread of narratives the report writers view as misleading.

Some highlights from the newspaper article below:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/0ea071d23809639a

'The study, from May 2026, was designed to inform government policy on “identifying and tackling harmful misinformation”.

It uses data compiled by EU-funded fact-checkers to identify 11 key categories of “false and misleading information”, backed up by a list of examples.

One of the categories included is defined as “anti-LGBTQ+ narratives, ‘gender ideology’ claims targeting schools and public institutions, Pride event misrepresentation and transgender athlete controversies”.

The examples – published alongside the report – include the case of Imane Khelif, the Olympic boxer who became embroiled in a row over biological sex when competing as a woman in Paris in 2024, despite allegedly failing sex tests the previous year.....The list suggests that saying “Imane Khelif is a man” would be an example of “racist/Islamophobic misinformation”.

...The authors also encourage the Government to ramp up its monitoring of misleading information and prioritise tackling the “harms” caused by certain claims, rather than focusing too much on the “intent” behind them.

To keep track of the problem, ministers are urged to create “a comprehensive, wide-ranging, and monthly updated database of false and misleading narratives spreading in the UK”.
...Mr Burghart, a former Tory minister, described the idea of “psychological inoculation” as “frankly terrifying”.

He said: “It could end up restricting speech from those fighting for biological women’s rights, telling the truth about grooming gangs or criticising the EU.'

FFS. Fuck right off with that.

I think they come on here to test their theories, its why the whole 'anti trans is racist' gibberish has become so prevalent.

It is totally c razy. There are loads of other things in the report too, which are equally concerning.

I’d like to know exactly who these “seven academics” are.

The end of the era of no-debate has induced academics and NGOs to promote government-backed psychological manipulation of the population.

This is not a total overreaction to being faced with reality <sarcasm>

How is it racist or Islamophobic to call a man a man?

Never have so many people beclowned themselves.

I was hoping there would be a link to the report but it just goes to something about TikTok, I’ll post it here if I find one.

whats the purpose of it all ? and why

FFS is right!

Would they just give it up trying to take women's rights already! It feels bloody never ending.

I noticed Imane Khelif was getting wheeled out on here again by TRAs. It is not fucking racist to say that is a man, he IS a man! A big bloody bloke who was cheered on to repeatedly punch a woman in the face on the world Olympic stage, and who at the end of the "bout" tapped/touched Angela Carini's breast! It wasn't enough to just cheerfully beat a woman about the face, he had to have a quick grope too, just to add insult and sexual assault to injury, the absolute bastard!

Frustrating that the Telegraph doesn't link to the report or even name it or its authors. If anyone finds any more information about this, please post.

The purpose of it is to stop sex-based reality intruding into the ideological bubble maintained by the lanyard class (reality brought about by women and women's organisation fighting for their legal rights) and it's also to try and maintain the grip over information that allows dissemination of only pro-trans arguments. The Conversion Practices Bill is another element of this manoeuvre.

Been trying to access this! The telegraph seems to have stepped up it paywall. Thank you for posting it

The report is not mentioned on the official Government for Science website so perhaps the journalist had sight of the report before it's due to be published on the site.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/government-office-for-science

redacted

I look forward to reading it.

Maybe it will also call for the calling out of the misinformation that male people are in any way female people ?

Name and shame the 7 so we can point and laugh! Surely we are pretty much over all this shite and we can all move on!

This will be an interesting read when its available.

Given the cutting edge technology available in sports science it is surprising that the research about including trans-people into sport was not conducted before the rules were rewritten.

It really comes to something when reality and speaking the truth is classed as 'misinformation'.

Perhaps the authors are not familiar with what the word 'misinformation' means but thought if they babble on sounding confident, nobody would notice...

This looks to be it, grabbed it from Twitter. Haven’t had the chance to look at it yet as cooking tea.

https://usher.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2026-05/False%20and%20Misleading%20Information%3A%20An%20Evidence%20Summary%20and%20Map%20for%20Policy%20and%20Practice%20.pdf

Authors and acknowledgments:

Authors
Dr Harriet M. Baird, School of Psychology, University of Sheffield, UK
Dr Hui Zhang, School of Psychology, University of Sheffield, UK
Dr Lesley Uttley, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, UK
Professor Kalina Bontcheva, School of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, UK
Professor Thomas L. Webb, School of Psychology, University of Sheffield, UK
Joanna Wright, School of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, UK
Professor Linda Bauld, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh,
UK
Acknowledgements: We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the following experts,
whose insights through the expert consultation process helped to shape and refine this work: Dr
Madalina Botan, Dr John Cook, Paula Gori, Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Clare Melford,
Chris Morris, Stephan Mündges, Pallavi Sethi, Colin Strong, Professor Sander van der Linden,
and Bob Ward. Names are listed in alphabetical order and do not indicate the level or nature of
contribution.

Do they really not know that Khelif is a biological male in every cell of his body? Have they fallen for the Caster Semenya propaganda that he's just a very butch woman?

Because this is so batshit. It's disprovable with a click of the fingers, ffs.

Sheffield is Sally Hines’ stomping ground, no?

depends on how they classify the misinformation and how or what they view as truth, if a scientist says its x and then the general public use realist or realism points, the realism could still be classed as misinformation

for example :

The classification of misinformation largely depends on the epistemic framework used to define "truth". When expert scientific consensus clashes with general public "realism" (interpreting the world based on everyday, common-sense observations), the public's views are frequently classified as scientific misinformation.
The tension between scientific consensus and public "realist" perspectives can be broken down into a few core factors:
Defining Scientific Truth

• Consensus Reality: Science determines "truth" through the scientific method, which includes hypothesis testing, peer review, and continuous self-correction over time.
• Abstract Models: Scientific explanations often rely on theoretical constructs, simplifications, and unobservable entities (e.g., subatomic particles, epidemiological models). They aim for practical utility rather than absolute, 1:1 mapping of everyday reality.

Defining "Realist" Misinformation

• Everyday Empiricism: General "realist" points heavily rely on anecdotal evidence or direct sensory observations (e.g., "It's snowing outside, so global climate change isn't real").
• Misinterpretation: Because these realist claims contradict established evidence and misrepresent the underlying mechanisms of a scientific field, institutions and fact-checkers categorize them as scientific misinformation.

The Challenge of Classification The boundary between genuine scientific skepticism and misinformation is highly debated. If "misinformation" is strictly defined as content that contradicts established scientific evidence, then a public "realist" claim that denies a scientific consensus will always be classified as misinformation, regardless of the speaker's intent

They're all from Sheffield? With one from Edinburgh?

Jesus, talk about trash your uni's credibility in one fell swoop.

Crediting tweet I got it from

https://x.com/jenkteach/status/2078911225149182365