"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.'

My comment was in relation to the suggestion that more people were being active against TRA infiltration.

They clearly aren't.

As it said over and over again without the DT and Times we would hardly have any info.

And just to repeat that fact that a report like this was even commissioned (but not yet published?) indicates that any number of articles in the DT and threads on FWR have not shifted the entrenched TRA dominance.

And this is most perfectly illustrated by the fact that the Government, yes the people who are meant to be in charge have managed to spin out enacting a supreme court ruling.

Why is it that reports like this are still being commissioned?

Just as with Amnesty why did no one check on its factual accuracy ie the lumping of LGB in with very other if not opposite concepts?

Even with the work of SM, FWS and so on, has the arrow on the dial shifted at all in favour of women's sex based rights.

Why is it that reports like this are still being commissioned?
**
Just as with Amnesty why did no one check on its factual accuracy ie the lumping of LGB in with very other if not opposite concepts?

I really don't have the answers to these questions. You'll have to ask them.

Even with the work of SM, FWS and so on, has the arrow on the dial shifted at all in favour of women's sex based rights.

Yes. Think back to where we were before the SC ruling, and that could have gone either way. We have work to do, and lots of us are doing what we can. But we are moving in the right direction.

That doesn't mean we can't celebrate that this document was leaked. If the authors, and others like them, are more concerned now that their nonsense will be leaked, perhaps they'll be less likely to try this avenue again. And, whichever avenue they choose next, we'll be there. Too many people SEE now.

Yes agree

Plus Labour don’t need to be cosseted in any way.

They mean things like talking about the grooming gangs or Cologne NYE 2015. Truthful but harmful. They also probably mean talking about rapists who identify as women. Truthful but harmful.

It’s an omnicause/nudge theory report as pp have said, not a trans rights activism one. That’s a side benefit for them.

I find this 'intent to cause harm' clause very disturbing. Who gets to decide what the intent is?

That’s the thing, isn’t it. To me, having shadowy Orwellian agencies who decide some truth is not to be spoken is more harmful than that truth being spoken.

That's particularly disturbing - echoes of non-crime hate incidents. But also, who gets to decide where the harm itself is? Most issues come down to some perceived conflict of rights, and where most harm lies is usually a judgement call. I don't want shadowy authorities deciding for me who's deserving of protection from harm, at whose corresponding expense. That's the line taken by a litany of abusive regimes - we did it for the greater good.

Is that an example of

where the content is true, but the purpose is to cause harm.

It really is!

I really fear and resent the growing acceptance of the idea that Western governments who want to manipulate/surveil the psychological state of their fellow citizens are still somehow considered 'the good guys' in comparison to countries like Russia, China and N Korea.

Western governments, particularly within the EU, are employing the techniques of authoritarian regimes and just because Western governments aren’t as overtly overbearing in their manipulation and surveillance doesn’t mean they are preserving the norms of democratically elected politicians.

There are organisations monitoring and manipulating absolutely. They are concerned people will realise their laws aren’t good.

Another article for the thread:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/65be642ca61b7bcc

Demonising free, frank debate about the consequences of “diversity” has nothing to do with tackling misinformation…

The report proposes a programme of “psychological inoculation” in schools. Kids must be taught to develop “psychological resistance against future manipulation”, it says. Reading that sent a chill down my spine. It’s pure 1984 – the inculcation of kids with what the intellectual elite considers to be correct-think, but which looks to the rest of us like bunkum and ideology.

The outgoing government said the report was “independent” and did not represent official policy. It’s not good enough. Our new PM Andy Burnham should expressly distance himself from this government-commissioned tyrannical claptrap.

I know, if you look at their main sources their focus is on Russian, Chinese and Iranian originating “disinformation”. Completely agree with you.

I think Andy Burnham does have the opportunity to present himself as “honest, down to earth bloke” in comparison to the soulless technocrat Starmer was perceived as. This has Starmer’s Labour all over it, not forgetting of course that it all happened under the Tories too.

Archived: https://archive.ph/6vLJN

This report confirms how sinister the term “misinformation” has become. My sceptic antennae go into overdrive whenever I hear that word, because I know I’m about to witness an act of censorship dolled up as a valiant strike for truth.

Me too, Brendan, me too.

I think she’s a social scientist or similar. That said, there are even some vets who have swallowed this bullshit. Sadly. And the department at Edinburgh is very heavily captured.

In section 5.2.2 I saw
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.

So it's not all bad is it? Not read any of the references. Only as far as page 60.

But more harmful to suppress the truth.

Surely these academics must know this if they’ve ever done any social science research. Research tells us how anti-disinformation legislation is predominantly championed by authoritarian regimes but also such laws are increasingly passed by flawed democracies. Ultimately, the legislation allegedly designed to combat misinformation ends up acting as instruments of censorship.

I agree but I think that the sort of people who write reports like this believe they, and their ideological comrades, have the correct morality to wield the legislation properly and avoid all potential pitfalls and that negative outcomes would only affect the morally impure.

And they're also only thinking of solving a short-term problem, they're not thinking of how someone ideologically opposed to them would use the same tools.

If it’s ‘anti Labour’ to highlight this sinister path of travel, what does that say about Labour?

Would we not all be ‘anti Labour’ if they adopt this fully?

Yes, true. Govts rarely consider how laws they pass with the best of intentions (ahem) can be enforced for a different result by a govt with the most authoritarian of intentions.

I’m starting to read the report but if the authors had remained focused on false information (as its original scope) and not mission creeped into truthful but harmful information, they could have side stepped the imposition of their own agenda of right thinking.

False information is genuine concern when you think about foreign interference in national elections or children who have died from some TikTok challenge or a President advocating drinking bleach to prevent covid.

However, by using some of the examples they’ve chosen, and by selective extrapolation of the EU’s EDMO reports, and ironically amplifying those particular issues, they’ve moved from discussing facts into (their RSOH) normative moralising around TQ++ issues. Undermining their whole report.

It’s a wasted opportunity as well as an arrogant waste of taxpayers money and their time.

After the Russian Revolution everyone was running scared of Communism, so we ended up with Hitler, Mussolini and McCarthyism.

Now people are running scared of the Far Right and it's not Reds they think are under the bed, it's Donald Trump, Tommy Robinson and Reform. So there is danger of an authoritarian, witch-hunting Left.

First you invent the enemy and then you propose the solution to deal with the enemy you invented.

"The classic "reaction-solution" dynamic, often referred to in politics and rhetoric as a manufactured crisis or false flag. It is a psychological and strategic manipulation where a person or group creates the very problem they then uniquely offer to solve, ensuring their control over the narrative."

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken." Carl Sagen

The 'far right' meme is the invention, the far right have never even come close to gaining power, in this country at least, but the Left have used it to gain more and more power over the decades.