"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.'

Meh, I just found the actual report and had a quick skim through it. In 136 pages the word transgender is mentioned once and LGBTQ+ five times (mostly in a "summary" of previous points). It's about the spread of so-called false and misleading information in various areas (health, foreign affairs). The one transgender reference is absolutely nothing and has no policy implications for "gender critical" positions.

The actual report

The Telegraph is, as usual, pushing its disingenuous anti-EU nonsense by saying the authors are "EU-funded" when this report has nothing to do with the EU. Perhaps one of the authors once did research with some EU funding and that might not even have been the author responsible for the one mention of the word transgender.

The Telegraph article itself is riddled with misinformation!

I wondered if Sally Hines took a leaf out of ‘Natacha’ Kennedy’s book and has written the whole thing herself under seven fabricated names. Although it sounds a little restrained for her.

Just a quick look - it claims "Targeting of marginalised groups: Migrants and LGBTQ+ communities are targeted by false and misleading information, which can fuel discrimination, hate speech, and physical violence, further marginalising already vulnerable populations (Szakács & Bognár, 2021; Irfan et al., 2021). "

It does mention "Gender and political participation: Female public figures, particularly politicians and journalists, are disproportionately targeted by gendered disinformation (Gehrke & Amit-Danhi, 2025; Posetti et al., 2021; Rheault et al., 2019). This contributes to self-censorship, discourages political participation, and reinforces structural underrepresentation.

● Offline harms: Online misinformation can translate into real-world consequences, including health, violence, harassment, and illegal behaviour, particularly in relation to migration and gender issues (Purnat et al., 2025; Hameleers, 2026)."

Doesnt seem to recognise that a lot of this harm arises from TQ+ activists targeting women who recognise reality.

Will need to do a more thorough look before deciding whether this requires writing to Patrick John Thompson Vallance, Baron Vallance of Balham, the current minister for Science and or the authors/ University of Sheffield.

Can I just clarify. You think calling Khelif male is racist and islamophobic?

Half the article is also about the completely unrelated government counter-disinformation unit.

Can't find anything about Imane Khelif in the main body of the report, so difficult to know what their argument is. Obviously Imane Khelif is not trans.

In the actual report, one of the 11 "Thematic Categories of False and Misleading Information in EDMO Data" is given as:

"Gender, LGBTQ+ & EDI
Anti-LGBTQ+ narratives, 'gender ideology' claims targeting schools and public institutions, Pride event misrepresentation, and transgender athlete controversies"

Then in a table entitled "Prevalence of False and Misleading Information by Category", "LGBTQ+ & gender issues" is one of just 6 - these are obviously given more prominence than 5 other categories. Presumably because the table claims "High prevalence " of 76.8% (present in >75% of months).

The word "gender" occurs 14 in the report.

I cannot find any description of what exactly the authors regard as false and misleading in this area.

The "Harms" section contains the usual buzzwords "harassment", "hate speech", "marginalising already vulnerable
populations" specifying "LGBTQ+ communities" as one of two groups.

Ironically, under "Targeting of experts" the authors say this "leads to self-censorship and may undermine research quality and public communication". I bet they haven't considered the effects of gender ideology on academics and the effects of the mangling of language in health research.

The constant berating for wrong think is one of the factors contributing to greater support for Reform, and falling trust in traditional
media including the BBC

The Telegraph is, as usual, pushing its disingenuous anti-EU nonsense by saying the authors are "EU-funded" when this report has nothing to do with the EU.

They didn’t claim that though:

'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.

So I’ll take all your other criticisms as being based on wishes rather than facts.

The Telegraph article itself is riddled with misinformation!

Can you specify exactly what misinformation you have spotted because your first attempt is clearly incorrect.

I think you are in the wrong post buddy...

Ironically, under "Targeting of experts" the authors say this "leads to self-censorship and may undermine research quality and public communication". I bet they haven't considered the effects of gender ideology on academics and the effects of the mangling of language in health research.

They can forget the "may" can't they? It definitely has led to the sacking of gender critical people and the withdrawal of funds for unbiased research into trans issues, among other things.

I'm not your buddy, sweetheart.

“It does mention "Gender and political participation: Female public figures, particularly politicians and journalists, are disproportionately targeted by gendered disinformation (Gehrke & Amit-Danhi, 2025; Posetti et al., 2021; Rheault et al., 2019). This contributes to self-censorship, discourages political participation, and reinforces structural underrepresentation.”

I haven’t read the report yet, but just checking from what you’ve (anyolddinosaur) said…..

They’ve lumped LGB together with the rest of the alphabet, then interpreted the ‘T’ as gender, and then included in ‘gender’ sex-based disinformation about women???

I really hope I’ve misinterpreted, because that’s a hell of a stretch

Leeds, AFAIR

Wiki says Sheffield

She moved from Leeds to Sheffield and, as far as I know, she’s still there.

Sounds similar to the recent Amnesty report which did something similar. “Gender critical” was used to mean something wholly different from its current meaning, which is more or less sex realist. Pretending to defend women’s rights and debase gender critical groups by pretending we are anti-women may well be the next approach taken.

Their word games and “queering” of everything makes fighting this ideology incredibly frustrating, but this pattern is happening over and over. As we begin to win, the goalposts and language change again.

Please point to the spite. Ta.

They’ve lumped LGB together with the rest of the alphabet, then interpreted the ‘T’ as gender, and then included in ‘gender’ sex-based disinformation about women???
I really hope I’ve misinterpreted, because that’s a hell of a stretch

I was just about to make the same point, Dragonasaurus.

This is a very clear example of where the term 'LGBTQ+' is itself misinformation - it is a cobbling together of different groups, which happened when the 'T' for trans was added on to LGB, without rhyme or reason.

Transpeople, and lesbian and gay people, are different groups - different people, different history [though TRAs rewrite history to say they were 'always there'], different identities, different issues.

Along with the T came misogyny, homophobia esp against lesbians, and a new level of aggressive, anti-social and sometimes violent activism.

So some 'anti-LGBTQ+ narratives' are valid - the hyperbole about 'literal genocide', the obsession with the 'right' to pee in the women's toilets, the threats of rape and death, the aggressive shouting down of women's events, the irrational demands, the disproportionate influence on the media, the law, education, medicine and even language itself...

The term 'LGBTQ+' is too scatter-gun, and misses where the problems arise. As a result, the lesbian and gay community are dragged into situations which have nothing to do with us, and being part of the so-called 'LGBTQ+ community' has been damaging for the 'LGB' part.

LGB✂T, for the sake of clarity and to avoid misinformation.

Just working through - driving force seems likely to be https://sheffield.ac.uk/cs/people/academic/kalina-bontcheva

The name of the thread Shark started themselves is the only spite I can find in recent postings. It's very puerile, and when you run your eye down the other thread titles, it really stands out as a different kind of posting style and approach to debate to the usual.

I'm confident you don't mean to imply that a person who sees themselves as trans can't be lesbian or gay – they obviously can, just as they can be heterosexual (I'm not quite sure whether I could have used the word "straight"!). But T doesn't have a correlation with LGB as far as I can see, and the deliberate confusion caused by those claiming to be the other sex and therefore swapping sexuality is a real problem when discussing matters of sexuality.

[It may be that T has a correlation with LB for women, and the situation for T men doesn't seem to have been researched, though Az Hakeem has talked about his clinical experience.]

"We"?

Indeed. I'm not reading any thread with Mouldemort in the title. It's obvious that the TRAs are disappointed with Amnesty for pulling the report and so are on a bit of a teenage name-calling spree.