Press Told That They Mustn't Print Facts.

[Old_Geezer]

MSM gets a fair amount of flak for bias and not reporting some news etc. but, looks like they may have little choice. Apparently, in the UK at least, it's not permitted to tell the truth, or it gets slapped down.

 

https://pressgazette.co.uk/the-wire/newspaper-corrections-media-mistakes-errors-legal/spectator-juno-dawson-ipso/

 

[New Judge]

“Had Gareth Roberts written 'was interviewed by writer Juno Dawson, a transgender woman, and so the conversation naturally turned to gender” there would not have been a problem”

“They can tell the truth but have to choose their words carefully,…”

But that surely is the problem, barry.

The truth is that Juno Dawson is a man who has decided he wants to be a woman. He has taken advantage of utterly absurd legislation which provides him with a piece of paper confirming his wishes. He is a man who claims to be a woman - that is the truth. Also true is that he is not and will never be a woman.

Because the law has decided that somebody holding a gender recognition certificate can assume the gender stated on that certificate “for all legal purposes”, it does not alter that. It’s an absolute absurdity. You might as well say that someone holding a certificate that says they are a horse can enter the Grand National or one that says they are a dog can enter Crufts.

The previous government was (rightly) castigated when it declared, by a Parliamentary statute, that Rwanda was a safe place. This was regardless of the facts and the legislation was passed so as to enable their “Rwanda Plan” for asylum seekers to work.

Whether or not Rwanda was safe was subjective and to determine by decree that it is was very much for the convenience of the government of the day to enable them to implement their plan.

This is different. Parliament has passed legislation which disregards a biologically immutable fact and it expects people and organisations to go along with that absurd notion. 

People can call themselves whatever they like; foolish governments can enact legislation which indulges their fantasies. But none of it alters any immutable facts and people – particularly journalists - should not have to “choose their words carefully” when simply relating those facts.  

[naomi24]

It's all in a word really so a change to the terminology used would provide clarity.   If we called a man who wants to be a woman a 'transgender man', everyone would understand that and there would be no room to dispute his gender.  The word 'woman' in these instances is misleading.

[New Judge]

"If we called a man who wants to be a woman a 'transgender man', everyone would understand that and there would be no room to dispute his gender."

I would prefer to stick to "a man who claims to be a woman", naomi.

There can be absolutely no confusion then.

[Canary42]

So presumably IPSO will now rebuke Answerbank for allowing naomi's common sense statement.

Ho ho ho !

 

[jackthehat]

The confusion is that Transgender Women = Men, whereas Transgender Men = Women.

I have no problem in referring to men in dresses as Transgender women, but they will always be he/him' anything else would be ridiculous.

[naomi24]

That's what I'm suggesting be changed, Jack. Men are men and women are women.  The two should not be confused.  

[naomi24]

I meant to add the 'trans' bit would denote someone who wishes to present themselves as the opposite sex.