The Spectator has been reprimanded by the press regulator IPSO for calling transgender author Juno Dawson “a man who claims to be a woman”, in a rare finding of a breach by the press of the ‘discrimination’ section (Clause 12) of the Editors’ Code of Practice (‘the Code’).
Dawson complained to IPSO that the Spectator breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Code in a comment piece by Gareth Roberts about Nicola Sturgeon and her stance on transgender rights and gender recognition laws in Scotland.
The complaint was partially upheld under Clause 12 of the Code, which states:
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.
It adds that journalists “must” avoid mention of these characteristics “unless genuinely relevant to the story”.
Gareth’s article noted that Sturgeon “was interviewed by writer Juno Dawson, a man who claims to be a woman, and so the conversation naturally turned to gender”.
In her complaint, Juno said that this was discriminatory under Clause 12, as she legally changed her gender in 2018 and was declared a woman in all legal matters by the Gender Recognition Panel. The complainant considered she was deliberately misgendered with the intention being to offend her.
IPSO’s investigation committee ruled that referring to the complainant as a man “claiming” to be a woman was “personally belittling and demeaning towards the complaint 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 Spectator had argued it had not breached Clause 12 because the reference to Dawson’s gender was “was relevant, as it put the remarks made by Ms Sturgeon into context”. It “did not consider this to be either prejudicial or pejorative”.
In a powerful defence of press freedom, the new Spectator editor Michael Gove, who was not at the magazine at the time of publication, criticised IPSO’s ruling, describing it as “offensive to the principle of free speech and chilling in its effect on free expression”.
Gove wrote that Roberts was “exercising his right to free speech and indeed expressing a view that many would consider a straightforward truth” in his piece.
“Gareth Roberts’s right to see as he finds and write as he sees must be defended,” he continued. “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.’”
Gove concluding his article by saying:
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.
Gove’s predecessor Fraser Nelson threatened to leave IPSO last year after another rare discrimination ruling – at the time, only the third breach of Clause 12 listed on the regulator’s website. Nelson objected to a ruling against The Sun over a Jeremy Clarkson column about Meghan Markle, saying he was concerned about its implications.
