On 21 May 2024 the Spectator published a piece by the writer Gareth Roberts called “The sad truth about ‘saint’ Nicola Sturgeon“. It described the former Scottish First Minister’s appearance at a literary festival, during which she was interviewed by Juno Dawson. Dawson is a natal male who has publicly stated he (I am relating pronouns to biology in this piece to avoid confusion) has transitioned from being male to female, had his penis removed and is in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate* (GRC).
Roberts quoted Sturgeon as saying: “I’ve had more abuse hurled at me over the issue of trans rights than probably any other issue I’ve discussed, including Scottish independence probably”. Sturgeon also reportedly repeated her opinion that “trans women are women”. **
In his article, Roberts called Dawson “a man who claims he is a woman”. Two days after the piece was published, Dawson complained about this to the Spectator, and a day later he complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), which regulates the Spectator. Dawson believed that Roberts had breached several clauses of the IPSO Editors’ Code.
According to IPSO, Dawson felt Roberts’ article:
– “was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 [Accuracy] to report that she was “a man who claim[ed] to be a woman”. She said that she held a Gender Recognition Certificate and was declared a woman in all legal matters by the Gender Recognition Panel.”
– “breached Clause 3 [Harassment] in its reporting that she was “a man who claim[ed] to be a woman” as she believed the author of the article had pursued a campaign against her. She added that she felt the words used within the article were designed to cause her suffering and to encourage others to harass her online.”
– “breached Clause 12 [Discrimination] as she considered the claim that she was “a man who claim[ed] to be a woman” to be discriminatory as she legally changed her gender in 2018. The complainant considered she was deliberately misgendered with the intention being to offend her.”
Interestingly, after receiving Dawson’s complaint, the Spectator offered a compromise in which it would publish, at the bottom of Roberts’ article, the following statement:
“Juno Dawson has contacted us to say that, having obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate in 2018, she is legally a woman”.
Perjorative and Prejudicial
This was not enough for Dawson, who pursued the complaint. After an investigation, IPSO’s Complaints Committee (pictured above) today decided that on the issue of accuracy:
– “the sentence in issue [“a man who claims he is a woman”] was sufficiently distinguished as being the columnist’s view that the complainant remained biologically male despite the transition process she had undergone rather than being a statement of fact about the complainant’s sex or gender as recognised under the Gender Recognition Act 2004″
On that basis, IPSOS threw this part of the complaint out. Note it was not because Roberts made an accurate statement, but because it was his opinion. The above finding suggests that if anyone at the Spectator (or any other publication regulated by IPSO) writes that Dawson is “biologically male” as “a statement of fact”, a complaint about accuracy could be upheld on the grounds that Dawson holds a GRC. Being charitable, this is confused thinking about the power of law to affect reality. Being less charitable, this is a perfect example of how gender ideology can turn peoples’ brains into wet cake. A GRC does not change a holder’s biological sex. It cannot. Nothing can, except magic. IPSO appears to be in thrall to magical thinking. That is not a good place for a regulator to be.
On the issue of harassment IPSO wrote:
“The Committee did not consider that this sole brief reference, in the context of a column discussing Nicola Sturgeon’s views on gender identity, could constitute harassment under the terms of Clause 3. There was no breach of Clause 3.”
But on the issue of Clause 12 – discrimination, IPSO ruled:
“The Editors’ Code protects the right to hold and express a wide range of beliefs, and the columnist was accordingly entitled to express beliefs about gender transition and biological sex. The Editors’ Code also requires, however, that “the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s… gender identity”. In the view of the Committee, referring to the complainant as a man “claiming” to be a woman was personally belittling and demeaning toward the complainant, in a way that was both pejorative and prejudicial of the complainant due to her gender identity, and was not justified by the columnist’s right to express his views on the broader issues of a person’s sex and gender identity given that this targeted her as an individual. The Committee upheld the complaint of discrimination under Clause 12 (i).”
The Spectator was ordered to publish a notification of this finding and repeat IPSO’s opinion that Roberts’ words were: “personally belittling and demeaning toward the complainant, in a way that was both pejorative and prejudicial to her gender identity and was not justified”.
Dawson’s Y Chromosome
The Editor of the Spectator, Michael Gove, did as he was required. He also wrote a piece for the magazine, published today, called “In defence of Gareth Roberts“, where Gove stated:
“When Gareth Roberts wrote that Juno Dawson is a man who claims to be a woman, he was exercising his right to free speech and indeed expressing a view that many would consider a straightforward truth. Dawson may have a Gender Recognition Certificate but no piece of paper, whatever it may say, can alter biological reality. Parliament may pass laws, but they cannot abolish Dawson’s Y chromosome.”
“Respecting the right of people to live as they wish, and exercising consideration and sensitivity towards them, is a virtue. Society has, understandably, sought to accommodate and make changes to ensure people who wish to live as trans women, even though they were born biological males, have every opportunity to find the happiness they seek in their assumed identity. Juno Dawson is no exception. But Dawson cannot dictate how others think, nor decide what language others use when they describe the reality they see.
“Gareth Roberts’s right to see as he finds and write as he sees must be defended. It may be offensive to some and difficult for others. But as George Orwell argued: ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.’ And upholding the right to speak freely on questions of gender identity and gender reassignment is not some quixotic cause to be defended as a matter of purist principle. It has saved lives. It is only because campaigners and journalists have pursued the truth, in the face of vehement opposition and attempts to silence them, that wickedness perpetrated in the name of gender ideology has been exposed and stopped.
“The activities undertaken by NHS clinicians at the Tavistock Clinic to reassign the gender of children involved unquestioning affirmation, chemical interventions to halt and delay the onset of natural puberty and set children on the pathway to surgical mutilation. It was only thanks to the campaigning and investigative work of journalists that this scandal was uncovered and the Tavistock closed down. The testimony of victims of these practices, such as Keira Bell, is heart-breaking. Subsequent work by the distinguished paediatrician Hilary Cass laid bare the unethical, unscientific and unsupportable nature of what had been going on.
“We trust our readers to make up their own minds on vital and sensitive questions of moral and ethical importance. We believe that individuals are better able to do so if they can read and hear from writers and thinkers who ask uncomfortable questions. We will continue to give free thinkers and brilliant writers such as Gareth Roberts a platform. And we will resist any effort to pressure them into conformity with another’s morality. For The Spectator, free speech is not a cause among many others which we may champion – it is the essence of our existence.”
Biological Reality
It is beyond comprehension that a press regulator should be trying to limit an author’s right to free expression over a statement of fact about a biological reality on the grounds that it is discriminatory, rather than untrue. The matter, whilst obvious to some, is not settled in law. The Supreme Court is currently trying to work out whether a GRC merely allows someone to embrace a “legal fiction” that they have changed sex for the purposes of assuaging their own mental distress, or whether it confers fundamental rights of sex-hood upon them. If the court decides the latter, it might give Dawson a route to suing Gareth Roberts for misgendering him or perhaps attempt to have him arrested for hate crimes. Judging by IPSO’s finding against the Spectator, maybe they would support this direction of travel.
Gender ideology advocates three things which are, at the very least, controversial. The first is the internal distortion and external mutilation of healthy bodily tissue to assuage mental distress. The second is the celebration thereof. The third is social or formal sanction against those who think this might not be the best idea.
If we cannot express honestly-held opinions about this in the regulated media without fear of censure, we are fucked.
* Section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act states that when a person obtains a GRC, “the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).” The meaning of this clause is both confusing and hotly contested (being the subject of many hours discussion at the Supreme Court). The words “sex” and “gender” are used interchangeably in the same sentence, despite meaning very different things, and the supposed catch-all phrase “all purposes” has exceptions, particularly when it comes to same-sex services/spaces, parenthood and inheriting property/titles. Nonetheless, a GRC is a significant document.
** We don’t know if this now does or doesn’t include Isla Bryson, who last year Sturgeon seemed to contend had the gender of “rapist”.
Full disclosure: I have bought (three times), read and thoroughly enjoyed Gareth Roberts’ excellent book “Gay Shame: The Rise of Gender Ideology and the New Homophobia“. I have bought, but have yet to read Juno Dawson’s book “What’s the T?: The no-nonsense guide to all things trans and/or non-binary for teens“.
Comments are moderated. Try to keep it interesting and informative rather than abusive and defamatory. The moderator’s decision is arbitrary and final.
If you would like to receive future blog posts and newsletters in your email inbox you can sign up for free, here. Your email address will be stored securely and confidentially, never given to a third party and will only be used to inform you about things I think are interesting.
To find out more about this website, have a look at the About page.
Leave a Reply