If you’ve been reading Gript for a while, you’ll likely be familiar with our editorial policy of not using so-called ‘preferred pronouns’ when referring to trans-identified individuals.
Contrary to what you may have heard, this is not because we “hate” people who believe they are transgender (although in this writer’s view the very concept is a nonsense), but because we have taken the decision to operate from a standpoint of biological reality when it comes to the whole gender debate.
Yes, the fact that something like the concept of gender which has no physical basis in reality has become somewhat of a battering ram for the left is tiresome beyond expression at this point, but I for one choose to base my world view on what a legal counsel might call “islands of fact”.
We know – as we have always known and every culture knows – that there are only two sexes (no prizes for guessing what they are) and yet in the UK a man who claims he is a woman was successful – in part at least- in a complaint he made against a journalist for simply making a statement of fact: that he is a man who claims to be a woman.
The man in question, author Juno (James) Dawson, made a complaint against UK based publication The Spectator after it carried the article I speak of which was written by journalist Gareth Roberts.
Dawson – who has written rather controversial books usually recommended for children aged 12-16 such as This Book is Gay (a sex manual for minors) and What’s the T (basically a manual on transgenderism) – made a complaint to the UK’s Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), that regulates print and digital media.
He claimed that the factual statement that he is a man who claims to be a woman breached section 1 of the Editor’s Code, governing inaccuracy; a breach of section 3, covering harassment; and a breach of section 12.1, which says that ‘The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability’.
Here is the offending paragraph taken from an article about former Scottish MP Nicola Sturgeon:
“At Charleston, she was interviewed by writer Juno Dawson, a man who claims to be a woman, and so the conversation naturally turned to gender. ‘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, so it has been really, really difficult,’ she told Dawson, taking the opportunity to restate that ‘trans women are women’ and that ‘people should be able to live how they want to be’. I think what she means here is that men should be allowed to assume the rights of women at their whim, but that doesn’t sound quite so reasonable, does it?”
Thankfully, Ipso rejected Dawson’s claims in respect of breach of the editor’s code and the code covering harassment, but it upheld his claim of a breach of section 12.1.
While Dawson’s feelings – the feelings of a grown man – may have been hurt, it is ridiculous in this writer’s opinion to say that a journalist simply making a statement of fact about him constitutes an act of “prejudice” or that it is “pejorative” in any way to say something that is objectively true.
How is it “pejorative” to accurately say someone is a man when there is nothing wrong with being a man. Some of my favourite people are men, as I’m guessing are some of yours.
As for Robert’s statement, “I think what she means here is that men should be allowed to assume the rights of women at their whim, but that doesn’t sound quite so reasonable, does it?” – this is also a reflection of objective fact.
Lawmakers in the UK and Ireland have decided that any man can walk into the relevant government office and be given a piece of paper – the magic Gender Recognition Certificate – that ipso facto gives him access to all and every women’s space and all of our sex-based rights.
This law is perhaps where we can find an example of actual “prejudice” and a “pejorative” attitude towards women and girls.
Womanhood is not long hair, a skirt, or acrylic nails.
The very fact that many media outlets use ‘preferred pronouns’ should tell you everything you need to know about their dedication to remaining politically objective.
In my view so-called ‘trans inclusion’ seems a lot less about protecting people who are experiencing what was referred to as gender dysphoria until about five minutes ago and a lot more about a desire to control speech and even the very thoughts in our heads.
Juno Dawson has the right to wear whatever he wants and grow his hair long. He does not have the right to dictate the speech and thoughts of others.
The fact that a press ombudsman seems to think that he does have that right is disturbing.
We’re all supposed to be equal, but is a man who claims to be a woman more equal than the rest of us?