"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.'

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.

This is all very worrying. As you say, this is not really "Be Kind 2.0" but rather "No Debate 2.0". It seems they are plotting again.

We now have separate threads on:

Stonewall shenanigans/finances
3x threads re Amnesty meltdown
Diversity Role Models thread (I want to keep track of where these activists pivot once the new KCSIE is in force)
Stonewall "Proud Employers" thread
long- running series of threads re NHS audit/lawbreaking
Andy Burnham thread which is fairly new
UN Women threads
Be Kind 2.0 and activists' tactics thread

among various others, including, I think, one on the Lemkin Institute.

And it seems that this new No Debate 2.0 could tie them all together. It always starts by controlling language and shutting down debate. If the activists are positioning themselves to influence the new government (and one of Andy Burnham's key strategic advisors is Neal Lawson from Compass https://www.compassonline.org.uk/ ) - how are we going to keep track of it all, so we can head them off at the pass?

I'd like to add some of this recent info to the Be Kind 2.0 thread, but I'm wondering if all of this needs its own thread? Or could THIS current thread serve?

I think we will need to be able to find the information easily.

It’s DEFINITELY #NoDebate 2.0. I wonder if there is any coincidence in timing with the Amnesty report?

Also @BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp take a look at the 2024 thread I linked about “the disinformation industry” earlier.

Yes, just had a quick look. This could be starting again, or maybe I'm just feeling pessimistic today? The Burnham government will either crash and burn, or will take over and settle in for the next however many years. If they do crash and burn, I think there is a genuine probability of a minority Reform government after that. Rock and a hard place.

I think there’s likely to be a renewed effort to get this stuff on the agenda, new broom and all that.

I don't think I believe in coincidences. But, I've been mainly watching the foot soldiers and where they're going, with occasional dips into some of the Regular Characters (Stonewall, Government, CS, NHS, a couple of the smaller think tanks). It appears we're going to have think bigger. I suppose this is what Sex Matters, et al., are doing. But MN is bigger, and has more "watchers."

This comes up as an issue every now and again. First of all even if you / MNHQ decided this is how we should use MN / FWR not everyone would agree or would even be aware.

Look at the still ongoing repercussion of MN high handedly saying those of us who are gender critical should be siloed off so that "nice" feminists could be in a space free of terfy attitudes.

Also, it would lead to incredibly long and tedious threads. Most of us dont have time for this. I know there are a few long threads on specific issues for those who have strange interests, ie main stream political parties! Although in fact I think having political parties having their policies and behaviour put under the sharp eyes of feminists is a good thing.

The main problem is the forum software. If it was one of those that allows sub threads within a thread it might make it easier to navigate. Assuming everyone using FWR agreed with the sub thread groupings! And each thread would have to have the option for trolls and thread subverters to agree to use.

Isn't there a phrase about "herding cats"?

I'll keep going with the Be Kind 2.0 thread for now. It may be that we'll have occasion to need a new No Debate 2.0 thread at some point. No doubt someone on here will know when the time is right.

Sometimes I feel like I'm following something that is moving through molasses, breaking up as it goes, then something like this pops up.

It's definitely herding cats at the moment, and some days I just don't have time to catch up!

Yes I 100% agree. This is a concerted attempt to reframe Genderist demands in a way that allows them to sidestep FWS and Forstater.

I think the defense is what it has always been - don't play their game by trying to refute the arguments as they are framing them because they rigged the game when they stole the word "woman"

Keep the focus on the undeniable reality of female bodies and female people, the historic fact of our disempowerment and exploitation, and the injustice being reclassified against our will as people with a certain type of mind, and of preventing us from talking about our lived experiences.

What I do not know is how to be in the room to make that defense.

I’m fully supportive of a #NoDebate 2.0 thread - I think it’s a great idea, and those who don’t want to post on it can just scroll on by, can’t they?

Which is exactly how the case which led to the Supreme Court judgment was framed in 2018, it was something like “like a thief in the night, the Scottish government stole the word “woman”. The first attempt to sneak a genderist definition of woman into a new law, I think.

What I do not know is how to be in the room to make that defense.

Agree. One of my biggest frustrations is how many of our politicians just won't listen and won't act. They don't want to make the tough decisions. Goodness knows, they could definitely be making more money doing almost anything else, so why are they in politics in the first place?

I've come to the conclusion that politics actually only attracts either idealists who don't last long, or narcissists who want to be in politics just for the power. There are very few ordinary people in politics. Those with a conscience don't stick around, on the whole.

If government won't act, who is left? The lobbyists. I shall be watching what Andy Burham does very closely.

Ok, if you don't mind, I'm stealing all of this for the Be Kind 2.0 thread. It is, after all, a tactic (or two). If a new No Debate 2.0 thread starts, I can easily move stuff across if necessy.

It's The Emperor's New Clothes but with a new ending, where the child who shouted out, and the child's parents, are arrested and never seen again. And over the next few days, people who were standing near to them in the crowd also start to disappear...

That really is chilling Eresh.

'Intent to cause harm' is merely 'it inconvenienced my agenda to have that truth drawn to people's attention'.

Decided on by the powerful to suppress and control others to achieve their aims.

This is yet another way of forcing women to be unable to even mention or speak out to protect themselves when men use and abuse them. It is the abuser's hand over the victim's mouth. There is something seriously wrong with people who think like this. They would be a whole lot happier living in North Korea for a start.

And everyone else is made terrified to speak.

Oh look its a totalitarian dictatorship.

I thought the lib left were all passionate about colonialism/slavery etc and being so very virtuous?

Doesn't it just show what works though? What is most feared, what does the most damage to evil agendas?

Sunlight. Truth. People speaking it. Making other people hear it. Pointing it out. They're desperate to find a way to make it stop.

They only tackle the one with the ball. So we know what we need to do a whole lot more of.

It is true that a lot of misinformation was spread about Khelif. So many people were claiming, and continue to claim, that Khelif is trans-identifying, which is false.

In fact Khelif explicitly denied this and said (in Arabic): "They don't have the right to say that I am transgender. This is a big insult to my family, to the honour of my family, to the honour of Algeria, to the women of Algeria and especially for the Arab world."

This misinformation gets in the way of explaining the actual problem, which is that Khelif is male, with the testosterone-driven advantage this confers in sports.

Same as the whole "trans athletes in women's sports" framing. It's incredibly misleading. Hergie Bacyadan, a woman who identifies as a man, was competing in women's boxing at the Paris Olympics at the same time as Khelif. No-one had a problem with this, because Bacyadan is female.

Anyway sorry I know everyone in this thread knows this, just wanted to have a little rant.

Wow that is the most deliberately misleading take on the Khelif debacle I have ever read. Talk about disinformation... I doubt the authors of the report would see the irony though.

Apart from that now we know that the seven academics are not only happy with a man getting a gold medal for punching women... they also want to silence those of us who point it out.

It never ceases to baffle me how some educated women are enthusiastically trying to dismantle women's rights.

White feminist guilt, perhaps?
If so, the fact that they're also bringing down women like Allison Bailey and Jennifer Melle seems to have escaped them.

Without disagreeing that this is another BeKind and worthy of a thread, I am remembering how the Scottish government deprived women of the right to assert that they were being subjected to discrimination and harassment.

First, they separated women off from all the other categories that were to be protected from Hate. They assured us that we would get our own special provision. They said that was what Women’s groups wanted. Tame handmaidens like Engender, presumably. Helena Kennedy’s group worked on that for years, presumably trying to shoehorn trans identifying men in.

Then ScotGov decided to abandon the separate provision, leaving women with nothing while all the other groups had legal protection.

In order to do something, the idea of adding sex in as an extra category to the Hate crime legislation was mooted. But somehow that wasn’t acceptable. I forget why, probably because pesky women might point out some truths or it would be deemed unacceptable to Scottish Trans, Engender or any of the other paid yes-people.

So what I’m wondering is whether we need a frontal attack where we demand that sex realist positions be treated with respect and protected too? Why aren’t our governments making sure disinformation isn’t being used against sex realism? Ask for what we want.

Yes I know all this rubbish needs undermining but pointing out that if you believed in it it should definitely include women’s rights too seems important.

As I said, they don’t mention women’s rights at all in the categories of disinformation.