"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.'

Not just misinformation but “disinformation”
ie deliberately spreading false information with intent to cause harm.

It is an increasing govt strategy, copied from the madder factions of activists (begun by Johnson and Mr Should have Gone To Specsavers I think) to just look the general public in the eye, with the evidence right there in their hand in plain sight, and swear it doesn't exist. In the manner of a toddler with chocolate around his mouth, swearing he didn't eat the biscuit. On the principle of wtf can anyone do in the face of a moral devoid lunatic.

Mandelson once claimed we were entering a 'post democratic era'. I am very very definitely entering a post politician era.

I will have a look through the other briefings, there may be other gems.

Bontcheva's X timeline indicates that she is a big fan of the progressive left. I doubt that she can 'see' any disinformation that comes from that direction.

Pretending to defend women’s rights and debase gender critical groups by pretending we are anti-women may well be the next approach taken.

An interesting spin on the The Faux Concern (or Squirreling) tactic: look at all the other issues women should be fighting for (or, Women, You're Doing Feminism Wrong)

Thanks for this, will add to the list, I hope that's ok?

It's clear to me that, along with the lobby groups and think tanks, "academic" works of varying degrees of competence/reliability will need to be scrutinized . Often and carefully. They're going to be trying all angles now.

The "anti-woman" line has already started, pretending that any women with short hair will now be questioned in the ladies and that we all all less safe because those claiming to be trans men will be there too.

I'm only about half way through and the one thing I will agree with them on is that the evidence base is poor.

Mandelson once claimed we were entering a 'post democratic era'. I am very very definitely entering a post politician era.

Yeah, that era is so far behind me that It wouldn't even appear in the rear view mirror! I don't believe a single word any politician says anymore. All I care about is action - evidenced, tangible outcomes.

And the law.

Everything else is fluff in the wind.

This report is along the lines of the Lemkin Institute, it's trying to astroturf 'academic' reports that will act as support/justification for any government, or EU, desire to take action to reduce the effectiveness of women seeking legal redress in the face of Genderist overreach. Publications like this are also likely to provide cover for future measures to restrict speech online.

As we've seen in the behaviour of Stonewall, Amnesty, ILGA, and UN Women, this is all part of 'no debate' v2.0 - undermine the credibility of women's and LGB groups by throwing mud and hoping enough of it will stick.

That’s why they’re using “anti gender” as a nice catch all term. You see if you look at the categories list, “anti gender” is exclusively used for LGBTQ, women’s rights don’t get a mention, as if no misinformation/disinformation is ever spread about women’s and girls’ rights.

The report in section 4: Findings: Understanding and Measuring the Problem starting on page 14 categorises different types of misinformation/disinformation:

Gender, LGBTQ+ and EDI

Anti-LGBTQ+ narratives, ‘gender ideology’ claims targeting schools and public institutions, Pride event misrepresentation, and transgender athlete controversies.

In the table entitled “prevalence of false and misleading information by category” it’s stated that

“LGBTQ+ and gender” issues of misinformation/disinformation were present in 43 out of 56 months examined with a prevalence of 76.8% (something they see as higher than AI based misinformation over the same period). They are classified as “high” meaning that they are present in >75% of months over the period examined.

Something else that concerns me is the addition of a category in the terminology section “malinformation” which they describe as “genuine information used with the intent to harm”.

Genuine information used with the intense to cause harm. Includes leaks, harassment, and hate speech where the content is true, but the purpose is to cause harm.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see how that could be weaponised against political opponents, whistleblowers, and people campaigning for real issues which clash with the agenda of the supposedly right thinking monitors.

And we have discussed this scope creep previously here:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5051761-worth-watching-unherd-investigation-inside-the-disinformation-industry-kathleen-stock-specifically-mentioned?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

'Genuine information used with the intense to cause harm. Includes leaks, harassment, and hate speech where the content is true, but the purpose is to cause harm.'

Woah, what have I just read?!

.......... it's TRUE, but it's hate speech because the purpose of speaking truth was to...

you what now? We're valorising Kind Lying as a prescribed Thing enforced by law?

Someone's meds need checking.

Indeed. It’s worth reading the thread I linked, and watching the video if it’s still available. It lays this aspect out in more detail, with reference to the shadowy ratings agencies.

I wonder who it is gets to decide what today's 'Kind Narrative' is, and who gets to shut up and chant whatever bollocks they are told to regardless of their 'life experience' and objective perceptions and the damage being done to their rights? Under threat of punishment for failing to obediently be a mouthpiece for whatever they're told?

Because I can bloody describe them.

This is sociopathic.

It's catechism for the new omnicause religion with sainthood reserved for the most oppressed minority ever - men who say they're not men.

Indeed.

Anyone fancy doing an FoI? I'm away from home at the mo and it would be a faff to do on a phone, but I'll try to remember to put one in when I get back if there's not one on What Do They Know? by then.

As I say, I suspect they pointed to health misinformation to justify it as it is the focus of much of the references in the report.

Its interesting that the Telegraph does not link to the actual report
beither do GB News who are very frothed up

because the bulk of the report is about issues utterly unconnected to trans and gender

I wouldn’t say they’re unconnected. The report sets out its stall by including them at the start.

The report itself doesn’t give that many specific examples of anything, we’re meant to interpret that these are the ways in which misinformation/disinformation spreads across all the categories. The description of the “gender” one I’ve included upthread.

It doesn't matter what the bulk of the report is about, it doesn't detract from the fact that the report is smuggling in some highly inflammatory activist information that is actually disinformation, in a report about the spread of disinformation.

Doubt anyone thinks that snow contradicts climate change. Climate change happens all the time. Catastrophic climate change happened at the end of the High Middle Ages. The much warmer weather created the arena for an explosion of ideas etc., but then the Medieval warm period (which had allowed Vikings to safely cross the Atlantic, allowed grape vines beyond the Antonine Wall, etc) ended and a much colder period ensued - no factories were pushing out CO2 etc at the time.

And the average temperature of the country in 1215 was 5 degrees higher than today. I read a book about the Magna Carta (or however you spell it).