Michael Gove, the new editor of The Spectator, on truth and prejudicial or pejorative reference:

On 21 May this year we published an article by the brilliant writer Gareth Roberts headlined ‘The sad truth about “saint” Nicola Sturgeon’. Gareth was reporting on the former Scottish first minister’s appearance at a literary festival in Sussex. Ms Sturgeon was discussing the controversies which had attended her time in office – including her views on independence and gender recognition laws. Gareth noted that she ‘was interviewed by writer Juno Dawson, a man who claims to be a woman, and so the conversation naturally turned to gender’. 

Dawson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation aka Ipso.

It was claimed the words were inaccurate, a breach of section 1 of the Editor’s Code, which governs inaccuracy; a breach of section 3, which covers harassment; and a breach of section 12.1, which holds 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’. 

Ipso found there was no breach of section 1 or 3. Gareth’s words were not inaccurate and were not harassment. But Ipso concluded they were a breach of section 12.1. In its judgment, the article had included a reference to the complainant’s gender identity that the committee considered to be both pejorative and prejudicial.

As a general thing that is of course entirely possible. It can be true that someone is X and still be pejorative and prejudicial to say so. Imagine a dialogue:

“Why didn’t I get the promotion?”

“You’re a woman.”

But the thing about trans ideology is that there is no context in which it’s permissible to tell the truth about the sex of a person who claims to be trans. It’s never not seen as a provocation or insult or act of aggression.

The committee had expressed its concern that this reference was personally belittling and demeaning toward the complainant.

But that’s because the ideology has ruled that any and all such reference is personally belittling and demeaning. We don’t ever get to say it, even though it’s true.

Respecting the right of people to live as they wish, and exercising consideration and sensitivity towards them, is a virtue.

Well, that depends. What if people wish to live as murderers or rapists or abusers of children? What if men wish to live as women and thus take their jobs, promotions, prizes, competitions, and even their feminism? Gender ideology has taught us that there is no blanket rule that people have “a right to live as they wish.” As with most things, it depends.

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.

Quite so, and that’s a problem. It’s not all that “understandably” when you pause to remember that it entails giving away everything women have been fighting for for the last half-century and more.