The Spectator magazine is censured for describing Juno Dawson as ‘a man who claims to be a woman’.

IPSO upheld a complaint of 'discrimination' against the magazine

I've often argued that those pushing back to the imposition of trans ideology have been made to do so with one arm tied behind their back.

The game has been rigged. For years, activist organisations have been quietly whispering in the ears of powerful people and institutions whilst preaching “no debate” in the direction of us mere plebs. This means that mantras such as “trans women are women” or falsehoods about human biology have become the consensus at the highest levels. And worse, anyone that disagrees with these claims aren't simply just ‘wrong’, but they must be denigrated as hateful too.

Put simply, a main point of contention right at the heart of this whole trans debate is this; in what ways can a biological man be reasonably considered a woman, if in any way at all?

This is a perfectly sensible thing to question, and the answer is far from trivial. It matters a great deal to our society, law, sport, women's rights, academic institutions, places of employment and more whether we agree that men can be women. And the people, usually women, attempting to make sensible noises about this question have been disadvantaged in ways too numerous to list here.

Just consider that before Elon Musk took over ’X’, women were having their accounts permanently banned for tweeting things such as ‘men aren't women’.

We also have instances of female victims of male violence being reprimanded in court for refusing to refer to their attacker by their new female pronouns. Furthermore, mainstream newspapers have altered the direct quotes of rape victims to avoid misgendering the rapist. Our state broadcaster, The BBC was also found guilty of doing this. Put simply, accurately describing reality in the direction of trans ideology is considered an act of thought crime.

This brings me to the latest instance of gender lunacy courtesy of one of Britain's longest running news and politics magazines, The Spectator. The Spectator published an article in May 2024 in which a transgender writer, Juno Dawson was described as ‘a man who claims to be a woman’.

Dawson complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) that this contravened a discrimination clause in the Editors’ Code of Practice.

From The Spectator:

The complainant said the article breached Clause 12 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.

IPSO considered 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 to her gender identity, and was not justified by the columnist’s right to express their views on the broader issues of sex and gender identity. As such, there was a breach of Clause 12 (i) on this point.

There is a lot to unpack here. It's worth noting that clauses relating to truth and accuracy were not claimed to have been breached, but rather the claim that Juno Dawson is a ‘man claiming to be a woman’ was found to be ‘discriminatory’.

It seems IPSO produces its guidelines from the assumption that the cult of gender has established some unalterable truth about a human’s ability to change sex. The claim that a transgender woman ‘is a man who claims to be a woman’ would be considered neutral, objective language in almost any other sphere of reporting. The only way this wouldn't be considered neutral language is if affirmation of trans identities is deemed the only acceptable way to report on this issue. This is a demand to affirm a deeply contentious ideology and some very dubious truth claims. And strangely, we are also seemingly being asked to consider that the word ‘man’ is a ‘pejorative’.

None of this is ‘discriminatory’ of course. Dawson’s right to exist, nor the right to identify however they want are not being questioned. What's happened here is that their feelings were hurt because a prominent publication refused to affirm their perception of themselves. And like any authoritarian, free expression in the direction of their worldview cannot be allowed.

On a positive note, I suspect Juno Dawson is now learning about the Streisand Effect. Thanks to Dawson's attempt to punish and censure a renowned magazine for accurately describing reality in a way that caused hurty feelings, more and more people will now be hearing about this ‘man who claims to be a woman’. And more and more people will be convinced it's necessary to speak in this manner just so long as they are told they are forbidden to do so.