I can’t get past this truth thing. I can’t get past the fact that official bodies are telling us we have to lie about who is a woman and who is not. The IPSO ruling makes it horribly clear that we are under orders to lie. How did we get here?

IPSO itself is incoherent.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

So, surely, the press must take care not to publish assertions that some men are women.

And yet:

Findings of the Committee

9. The Committee first considered whether the article had breached Clause 1 in reporting that the complainant, who has a Gender Recognition Certificate, was “a man who claim[ed] to be a woman”.

10. When making its decision, the Committee had regard to the context: this was a comment piece, clearly distinguished as such by the inclusion of the columnist’s prominent byline, author’s illustration, and the tone, which expressed the author’s opinions of Nicola Sturgeon and her stance on transgender rights. The publication had explained that the author held gender critical views and asserted that these constituted a philosophical belief and were therefore protected under the Equality Act 2010.

But all that should be beside the point! The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, therefore the press should not be publishing claims that men can be women, nor should it be publishing specific claims by specific men that they are women, because they are not. It’s a question of truth. It’s not true that men can be women. It’s not true that trans women are women. It’s not true that Juno Dawson is a woman because he has a damn certificate.

The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Yes and it must also distinguish between lies and truth, between fantasy and reality.