January 26, 2023 - 7:30am
Accuracy is the cornerstone of journalism, especially when it comes to news reporting. If a man appeared in court, claiming to be a brain surgeon when he was actually a hospital porter, we wouldn’t expect a headline announcing ‘brain surgeon convicted of rape’. The same rule should apply to other obviously untrue claims.
Yesterday, at the High Court in Glasgow, a man was indeed convicted of rape — two rapes, in fact. He now calls himself Isla Bryson and ‘identifies’ as a woman, but until very recently his name was Adam Graham and he has not had surgery.
The court case was a mess, with prosecutors referring to Bryson throughout as ‘she’ while describing typical male pattern offending. ‘She’ apparently preyed on vulnerable women ‘she’ met online, and it took a brave Conservative MSP, Russell Findlay, to point out the blindingly obvious. ‘Rapist Adam Graham decided he was no longer a man AFTER appearing in court on rape charges’, he tweeted.
At a time when it has become routine for male defendants to be referred to in court reports as ‘she’, such a high-profile case presented newspapers and websites with a stark dilemma. The judges’ bench book, which consists of guidance rather than law, says it is a matter of ‘common courtesy’ to use the personal pronoun and name that a person prefers. Many women and some lawyers, however, think it is ridiculous — and insulting to rape victims — to enforce a pretence that a male defendant is female.
So what did editors and journalists do? Most, I’m afraid, settled for cognitive dissonance. ‘Glasgow court convicts trans woman of raping two women before her transition’, declared the Guardian. The paper could not even bring itself to mention Bryson’s ‘dead name’ — the one he was known by when he attacked the women — and it was left to the victims to correctly describe the rapist as ‘he’.
The Times said that ‘Bryson’ committed the crimes before ‘her’ transition, while called Adam Graham, but used the pronoun ‘she’. Several papers, including the Telegraph, avoided the issue by using nouns throughout their reports. The Sun took a different tack, highlighting the ridiculousness of describing a rapist with female pronouns in its headline: ‘Transgender woman with Mike Tyson face tattoo GUILTY of raping two vulnerable mums with “her penis”’.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis might be a first for me, but I applaud The Sun. Satire and ridicule might be the best approach for all this as reasonable debate is getting us nowhere.
What did The Sun have to say on this (though I can probably guess) ?
It’s quoted in the article, Peter.
It’s quoted in the article, Peter.
I had a chuckle at that, but a first for me, too. What a load of cobs this whole debate
The Sun had by far the best report on this, but even it used she/her pronouns for this bloke throughout.
If you applaud The Sun for its honesty then you’ll love, and be appalled, by this article on Wings, published a few days ago.
It’s a very long, deeply researched piece, and very disturbing, detailing how a small group of violent perverts have taken over the Scottish political establishment:
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-grooming-of-holyrood/#more-134417
“Against the assault of laughter nothing can withstand .”
What did The Sun have to say on this (though I can probably guess) ?
I had a chuckle at that, but a first for me, too. What a load of cobs this whole debate
The Sun had by far the best report on this, but even it used she/her pronouns for this bloke throughout.
If you applaud The Sun for its honesty then you’ll love, and be appalled, by this article on Wings, published a few days ago.
It’s a very long, deeply researched piece, and very disturbing, detailing how a small group of violent perverts have taken over the Scottish political establishment:
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-grooming-of-holyrood/#more-134417
“Against the assault of laughter nothing can withstand .”
This might be a first for me, but I applaud The Sun. Satire and ridicule might be the best approach for all this as reasonable debate is getting us nowhere.
Welcome to Nicola Sturgeons Scotland
Everything the critics warned about and we’re only a few weeks in.
But it is not just Scotland because it is being reinforced across the UK.
I have actually just read that Raab is changing the way it works in England, but I don’t claim to understand what it actually means
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework
I have actually just read that Raab is changing the way it works in England, but I don’t claim to understand what it actually means
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework
Firstly, it’s the nonsensical GRA 2004 passed by the UK government. It needs to be repealed.
Maybe not for much longer.
I wonder if this bloke realises he has the power to bring down the Scottish government with one inappropriate criminal action with another prisoner in the women’s prison where he’s held?
No, I don’t think raping a woman in prison will do anything, let alone bring down the government, because NOBODY CARES ABOUT WOMEN and OUR feelings, in prison or out.
This guy will rape, and rape, and rape, and the TRAs who enable him will simply write it off as “the cost of doing business,” and Scotland will go right on with its misogyny.
Agree, and society cares even less about the welfare of female prisoners. Infinitely more vulnerable than any trans identifying man, they are regarded (if they’re seen at all) as the lowest of the low.
Feminists created this mess. They perfected outrage politics and shaming their opponents – they also invented made up scientific ‘facts’ (remember nurture over nature) that people were bullied into pretending to believe – and now they are too cowardly to protect actual women’s rights because of the outrage machine.
Agree, and society cares even less about the welfare of female prisoners. Infinitely more vulnerable than any trans identifying man, they are regarded (if they’re seen at all) as the lowest of the low.
Feminists created this mess. They perfected outrage politics and shaming their opponents – they also invented made up scientific ‘facts’ (remember nurture over nature) that people were bullied into pretending to believe – and now they are too cowardly to protect actual women’s rights because of the outrage machine.
Maybe that’s what it takes.
No, I don’t think raping a woman in prison will do anything, let alone bring down the government, because NOBODY CARES ABOUT WOMEN and OUR feelings, in prison or out.
This guy will rape, and rape, and rape, and the TRAs who enable him will simply write it off as “the cost of doing business,” and Scotland will go right on with its misogyny.
Maybe that’s what it takes.
This insanity is all over, not just in Scotland. In California, rapists incarcerated in men’s prisons–where they rightfully belong–can now claim to be women, and the state goes along with this charade. OF COURSE, nobody asks the opinion of the women cellmate who must put up with one of these monsters once he’s locked away with her. Women have been IMPREGNATED by these guys, and STILL have no recourse.
As far as I am aware, rape is NOT a legitimate punishment for ANY crime, in California or anywhere else.
Check this report out, and weep…..
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-grooming-of-holyrood/#more-134417
Everything the critics warned about and we’re only a few weeks in.
But it is not just Scotland because it is being reinforced across the UK.
Firstly, it’s the nonsensical GRA 2004 passed by the UK government. It needs to be repealed.
Maybe not for much longer.
I wonder if this bloke realises he has the power to bring down the Scottish government with one inappropriate criminal action with another prisoner in the women’s prison where he’s held?
This insanity is all over, not just in Scotland. In California, rapists incarcerated in men’s prisons–where they rightfully belong–can now claim to be women, and the state goes along with this charade. OF COURSE, nobody asks the opinion of the women cellmate who must put up with one of these monsters once he’s locked away with her. Women have been IMPREGNATED by these guys, and STILL have no recourse.
As far as I am aware, rape is NOT a legitimate punishment for ANY crime, in California or anywhere else.
Check this report out, and weep…..
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-grooming-of-holyrood/#more-134417
Welcome to Nicola Sturgeons Scotland
this is happening routinely here in new zealand where we have self identification in law and a completely captured media and justice system. violent sex offending men (who identify as women) are described as women by the media without any mention of them being transgender. so our press tells us that we have women convicted of multiple rapes not just of women but of other men. and bizarrely violent assaults. and the average new zealander just thinks wow. crazy. some woman just violently raped two guys. that’s odd. except… it isn’t odd. it wasn’t a woman. these crimes are being committed by men. just as usual! and then these violent raping men are sent to women’s prisons where they have a captured and extremely vulnerable population of women to continue offending against. who aren’t protected because to do so would be ‘transphobic’. women in prison have no privacy from these men. not in shower blocks or anywhere else. they are just completely exposed and basically offered up as a sacrifice by the justice ststem. our crime statistics are going completely down the gurgler as the crimes are recorded as being committed by women. eventually kids here will grow up believing that women commit the worst sex crimes and are much more dangerous than men. because of the absolute lies told by our media and justice system. it would be a joke if it wasn’t so insanely dangerous, and wrong, and actually already happening.
Thanks for that. Do you have examples you can show us?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7275385/Paedophile-sex-little-boys-despite-knowing-HIV.html
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/116211253/jail-for-rotorua-hiv-hypodermic-needle-stabbing
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7275385/Paedophile-sex-little-boys-despite-knowing-HIV.html
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/116211253/jail-for-rotorua-hiv-hypodermic-needle-stabbing
Thanks for that. Do you have examples you can show us?
this is happening routinely here in new zealand where we have self identification in law and a completely captured media and justice system. violent sex offending men (who identify as women) are described as women by the media without any mention of them being transgender. so our press tells us that we have women convicted of multiple rapes not just of women but of other men. and bizarrely violent assaults. and the average new zealander just thinks wow. crazy. some woman just violently raped two guys. that’s odd. except… it isn’t odd. it wasn’t a woman. these crimes are being committed by men. just as usual! and then these violent raping men are sent to women’s prisons where they have a captured and extremely vulnerable population of women to continue offending against. who aren’t protected because to do so would be ‘transphobic’. women in prison have no privacy from these men. not in shower blocks or anywhere else. they are just completely exposed and basically offered up as a sacrifice by the justice ststem. our crime statistics are going completely down the gurgler as the crimes are recorded as being committed by women. eventually kids here will grow up believing that women commit the worst sex crimes and are much more dangerous than men. because of the absolute lies told by our media and justice system. it would be a joke if it wasn’t so insanely dangerous, and wrong, and actually already happening.
No offence, but the important story here isn’t the pronouns. It’s the fact this rapist could possibly be sent to a women’s prison. This is what we should be screaming about.
I’m probably in the minority here, but I don’t give two figs about pronouns. It’s a sideshow. It’s a distraction.
I don’t want someone’s ideology imposed on me, but if a dude wants to be called she, l don’t care. I just don’t want to be forced to say it.
However, I do find it annoying when the Daily Mail calls trans people “they.” This is an abomination of the language and causes confusion because it sounds like multiple people.
I think the article as a whole serves to illustrate how ludicrous the system/reporting is, and that you’re mistaken in thinking the focus is on pronouns
What would George Orwell have made of this?
I think he would have pointed out to Nicola Sturgeon, The Guardian etc that his 1984 with it’s wrong-think crimes was supposed to be a warning..not a hand book for policy.
I think he would have pointed out to Nicola Sturgeon, The Guardian etc that his 1984 with it’s wrong-think crimes was supposed to be a warning..not a hand book for policy.
What would George Orwell have made of this?
I think the point is that one absurdity flows into the other. The erosion of language and meaning makes it a lot easier to implement ridiculous policies like that.
Spot on.
Wittgenstein talked about the problem, and importance, of agreement in defining terms in argument or debate.
But in modern neo-Marxist, Antifa type, extremist theory the importance of being the one to control/define the terms used is the aim for them, and, as they see it, half the battle.
We should recognise this and challenge it everywhere we see it. Thankfully, it seems Sturgeon’s GRR bill is so egregious that, with leadership from the likes of Sharron Davies, JK Rowling, Julie Bindel and Joanna Cherry in the Scottish debate, a large majority of people are now recognising it and challenging it.
Spot on.
Wittgenstein talked about the problem, and importance, of agreement in defining terms in argument or debate.
But in modern neo-Marxist, Antifa type, extremist theory the importance of being the one to control/define the terms used is the aim for them, and, as they see it, half the battle.
We should recognise this and challenge it everywhere we see it. Thankfully, it seems Sturgeon’s GRR bill is so egregious that, with leadership from the likes of Sharron Davies, JK Rowling, Julie Bindel and Joanna Cherry in the Scottish debate, a large majority of people are now recognising it and challenging it.
I read the coverage in the Torygraph and their was one ‘they’ but otherwise referred to as ‘Bryson’ or ‘the rapist’. Not a ‘she’ in sight. I genuinely feel for any victim who has to describe what was done with ‘her pen i s’. That’s going to take time to get over.
Hilariously, Sturgeon was blowing her own trumpet again saying that there was no ‘automatic right’ for such individuals to be housed in a women’s prison. Well, must take a lot more than being a violent rapist without a GRC and therefore legally a man to get you excluded. I mean, how high is the bar? Serial killer? Cannibal?
I can’t stand the “they” either. It makes reading and speaking so convoluted. What is wrong with “it” as a neuter pronoun?
I certainly wasn’t condoning it, I assure you.
Exactly what I thought. Use it
Totally agree. I was alway told, when at school, that if possible put things in the plural if you either don’t want to state or don’t know the sex of the individuals. For example, instead of saying ” a doctor should be polite to his patients” say “doctors should be polite to their patients”. There was never any advice to use the plural pronoun when referring to a single person.
There is some precedent for using a neuter adjective to refer to a man and a woman, but you do need to go back to teh Anglo-Saxon period. This was when descrbing Adam and Eve, jointly, as naked, instead of using the male form of the adjective “naked”, as one would do in most languages that have gendered adjectives, the writer used the neuter form. This is slightly different from your idea, but it does give some history, in the English language, to your prposal.
I am think there is a place for gender neutral pronouns. Agree that ‘they/them’ is awkward grammatically.
I certainly wasn’t condoning it, I assure you.
Exactly what I thought. Use it
Totally agree. I was alway told, when at school, that if possible put things in the plural if you either don’t want to state or don’t know the sex of the individuals. For example, instead of saying ” a doctor should be polite to his patients” say “doctors should be polite to their patients”. There was never any advice to use the plural pronoun when referring to a single person.
There is some precedent for using a neuter adjective to refer to a man and a woman, but you do need to go back to teh Anglo-Saxon period. This was when descrbing Adam and Eve, jointly, as naked, instead of using the male form of the adjective “naked”, as one would do in most languages that have gendered adjectives, the writer used the neuter form. This is slightly different from your idea, but it does give some history, in the English language, to your prposal.
I am think there is a place for gender neutral pronouns. Agree that ‘they/them’ is awkward grammatically.
Pronouns have absolutely played an important part in normalising the more extreme policies, like sending male rapists to the female prisons. “She belongs in women’s prison” makes the sell much easier than “he belongs in women’s prison”. It aims to trick your brain into believing that you’re discussing an actual woman.
I agree with you up to a point; the problem is, though, that by using specific pronouns it starts to normalise something that is iopposed by the vast majority in the UK. As you say, you don’t want to be forced to use these inappropriate pronouns, but that is what is happening by this normalisation. I have met only one trans-gender woman, and I did refer to her as “she”, but there was no forcing me to do so, and she did not see the need to be “in your face” about her gender. It was noticable, though, that the women in the group avoided using thej lavatory when she was using it.
It seems to me that there are trans people who are so driven that they do go through massive changes and live like full-on women, usually not , as you say pushing their choice in any way.
The two things that seem have to changed is the Tranbs activists focussing massively on younger and younger children, all of us having been young children know how messy, fraught, and confusing growing up can be, without activist third sector, often extremist organisations (backed by govt in Scotland!) getting in your ear, and advocating keeping their little secret from your parents.
(That scenario is in the Scots GRR).
And the second is making it easier, and easier to proclaim your-self a woman.
The latest rules are so loose as to be non existent really.
None of this is doing any favours to those people who genuinely do feel trapped in the wrong identity or body, or women..or men
It’s criminal to force gender identity on children when that identity is still in flux.
It’s criminal to force gender identity on children when that identity is still in flux.
It seems to me that there are trans people who are so driven that they do go through massive changes and live like full-on women, usually not , as you say pushing their choice in any way.
The two things that seem have to changed is the Tranbs activists focussing massively on younger and younger children, all of us having been young children know how messy, fraught, and confusing growing up can be, without activist third sector, often extremist organisations (backed by govt in Scotland!) getting in your ear, and advocating keeping their little secret from your parents.
(That scenario is in the Scots GRR).
And the second is making it easier, and easier to proclaim your-self a woman.
The latest rules are so loose as to be non existent really.
None of this is doing any favours to those people who genuinely do feel trapped in the wrong identity or body, or women..or men
It’s a problem, because now when a transgendered person rapes, it is recorded as a crime committed by a WOMAN, and so WOMEN get blamed for what is clearly predatory MALE behavior.
Indeed, there’s a good piece somewhere where it was shown that MoJ female sexual assault stats have gone up significantly recently, and it’s because male sex offenders are identifying as women. There are so few women convicted of sexual assault that just a few trans-identifying men can skew the %ages massively.
Indeed, there’s a good piece somewhere where it was shown that MoJ female sexual assault stats have gone up significantly recently, and it’s because male sex offenders are identifying as women. There are so few women convicted of sexual assault that just a few trans-identifying men can skew the %ages massively.
100% agree
Thing is pronouns are a major bloody story when they’re included in crime statistics. Hence the sudden increase in the percentage of sexual offences by ‘women’
I think the article as a whole serves to illustrate how ludicrous the system/reporting is, and that you’re mistaken in thinking the focus is on pronouns
I think the point is that one absurdity flows into the other. The erosion of language and meaning makes it a lot easier to implement ridiculous policies like that.
I read the coverage in the Torygraph and their was one ‘they’ but otherwise referred to as ‘Bryson’ or ‘the rapist’. Not a ‘she’ in sight. I genuinely feel for any victim who has to describe what was done with ‘her pen i s’. That’s going to take time to get over.
Hilariously, Sturgeon was blowing her own trumpet again saying that there was no ‘automatic right’ for such individuals to be housed in a women’s prison. Well, must take a lot more than being a violent rapist without a GRC and therefore legally a man to get you excluded. I mean, how high is the bar? Serial killer? Cannibal?
I can’t stand the “they” either. It makes reading and speaking so convoluted. What is wrong with “it” as a neuter pronoun?
Pronouns have absolutely played an important part in normalising the more extreme policies, like sending male rapists to the female prisons. “She belongs in women’s prison” makes the sell much easier than “he belongs in women’s prison”. It aims to trick your brain into believing that you’re discussing an actual woman.
I agree with you up to a point; the problem is, though, that by using specific pronouns it starts to normalise something that is iopposed by the vast majority in the UK. As you say, you don’t want to be forced to use these inappropriate pronouns, but that is what is happening by this normalisation. I have met only one trans-gender woman, and I did refer to her as “she”, but there was no forcing me to do so, and she did not see the need to be “in your face” about her gender. It was noticable, though, that the women in the group avoided using thej lavatory when she was using it.
It’s a problem, because now when a transgendered person rapes, it is recorded as a crime committed by a WOMAN, and so WOMEN get blamed for what is clearly predatory MALE behavior.
100% agree
Thing is pronouns are a major bloody story when they’re included in crime statistics. Hence the sudden increase in the percentage of sexual offences by ‘women’
No offence, but the important story here isn’t the pronouns. It’s the fact this rapist could possibly be sent to a women’s prison. This is what we should be screaming about.
I’m probably in the minority here, but I don’t give two figs about pronouns. It’s a sideshow. It’s a distraction.
I don’t want someone’s ideology imposed on me, but if a dude wants to be called she, l don’t care. I just don’t want to be forced to say it.
However, I do find it annoying when the Daily Mail calls trans people “they.” This is an abomination of the language and causes confusion because it sounds like multiple people.
Abraham Lincoln once posed this question to an audience: If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Several people responded, “Five!”
“No, replied Lincoln, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”
QED
Bryson can call himself whatever he wants. Before the law, he is ( should be ) an “XY” male. A man. Period.
I’d not seen this quote before; very apposite.
Thank you for that quote.
I wonder what the newspapers would do if the convicted perpetrator simply referred to himself/herself as “innocent”?
I am no scholar, but I have found this in the origin of this quote:
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/11/15/legs/
it seems that Lincoln did iindeed say that, but he didn’t create it.
I’d not seen this quote before; very apposite.
Thank you for that quote.
I wonder what the newspapers would do if the convicted perpetrator simply referred to himself/herself as “innocent”?
I am no scholar, but I have found this in the origin of this quote:
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/11/15/legs/
it seems that Lincoln did iindeed say that, but he didn’t create it.
Abraham Lincoln once posed this question to an audience: If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Several people responded, “Five!”
“No, replied Lincoln, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”
QED
Bryson can call himself whatever he wants. Before the law, he is ( should be ) an “XY” male. A man. Period.
I suggest those opposed to the nonsense of using wrong pronouns stop using the expression LGB’T’.
If you use the T you are effectively supporting the use of nonsensical pronouns; and supporting the notion that whether one is male or female was a choice ‘assigned’ at birth. You are also supporting the notion that a child might be’ in the wrong body’.
Everyone who claims to be T is already either gay or a heterosexual autogynephile. Trans isn’t a sexuality, it’s a performance within a sexuality.
I wouldn’t even blame homosexuals (gays) for Trans behavior. I think there is something different in trans psychology, at least in the psychology of autogynephiles.
And anyone who claims to be B is just a greedy heterosexual. That leaves L and G who are homosexual, hence, only two basic categories of sexuality exist.
I wouldn’t even blame homosexuals (gays) for Trans behavior. I think there is something different in trans psychology, at least in the psychology of autogynephiles.
And anyone who claims to be B is just a greedy heterosexual. That leaves L and G who are homosexual, hence, only two basic categories of sexuality exist.
I suggest those opposed to the nonsense of using wrong pronouns stop using the expression LGB’T’.
If you use the T you are effectively supporting the use of nonsensical pronouns; and supporting the notion that whether one is male or female was a choice ‘assigned’ at birth. You are also supporting the notion that a child might be’ in the wrong body’.
Everyone who claims to be T is already either gay or a heterosexual autogynephile. Trans isn’t a sexuality, it’s a performance within a sexuality.
It’s utterly depressing isn’t it? But this is the logical conclusion to the rabbit hole of woke nonsense that this country and many of its journalists have disappeared down. That a double rapist, who only declared that he thinks he’s a woman AFTER being arrested. is being sycophantically referred to by almost ever single media outlet as ‘she’.
This man in his bad wig, with a bulge in his leggings, toting a pink suitcase to court with a rainbow scarf attached is, yes, a woman if he says he is. And now he’s been sent to A WOMEN’S PRISON. A double rapist is now locked up with a load of vulnerable women. You couldn’t contrive a more tragic and farcical situation if you tried. A fox has been ushered into the hen house, because he says he’s a hen.
People tried to warn Nicola Sturgeon that this would happen, but oh no, a sexual predator would never do something so cynical as to use her wonderful new piece of legislation to abuse women.
A man who possesses a functioning male organ being sent to a women’s prison for incarceration seems completely ludicrous, but might result in him having the time of his life whilst making many women very happy and content. If consensual, of course. God help us all.
A man who possesses a functioning male organ being sent to a women’s prison for incarceration seems completely ludicrous, but might result in him having the time of his life whilst making many women very happy and content. If consensual, of course. God help us all.
It’s utterly depressing isn’t it? But this is the logical conclusion to the rabbit hole of woke nonsense that this country and many of its journalists have disappeared down. That a double rapist, who only declared that he thinks he’s a woman AFTER being arrested. is being sycophantically referred to by almost ever single media outlet as ‘she’.
This man in his bad wig, with a bulge in his leggings, toting a pink suitcase to court with a rainbow scarf attached is, yes, a woman if he says he is. And now he’s been sent to A WOMEN’S PRISON. A double rapist is now locked up with a load of vulnerable women. You couldn’t contrive a more tragic and farcical situation if you tried. A fox has been ushered into the hen house, because he says he’s a hen.
People tried to warn Nicola Sturgeon that this would happen, but oh no, a sexual predator would never do something so cynical as to use her wonderful new piece of legislation to abuse women.
Journalists report this way not because “they need a backbone” but because they are fully bought in. Both the Times and the Telegraph recently changed their rules about below the line readers’ comments to ban comments made under a pseudonym, because this is perhaps the topic which energises readers the most, and both newspapers regularly turn off comments under articles featuring the issue. Newspapers don’t want low status opinions expressed on their platforms, and know that many readers will not be willing to risk intimidation or threats to their jobs by stating their real opinions under their own names.
There’s still loads of pseudonyms on the Telegraph BTL.
Thanks. I only have the Times, but was advised the same thing had happened in the Telegraph. The Telegraph is even more inclined to turn off comments from the “gammon” subscribers they despise.
The latter is certainly true!
Times is too expensive for me Mr La-de-dah! 🙂
The latter is certainly true!
Times is too expensive for me Mr La-de-dah! 🙂
Thanks. I only have the Times, but was advised the same thing had happened in the Telegraph. The Telegraph is even more inclined to turn off comments from the “gammon” subscribers they despise.
I have had the same email from Unherd. I have now cancelled my subscription.
What email? Am I being dim?
Just guessing, but are they referring to people commenting using pseudonyms?
I know it’s one of the things the government (well, state bureaucracy) is trying to ban with the online harms bill – no more anonymity.
I actually agree with this – if you have something to say the own it. I know people will say that the “thought police” will come around, well, let them. If you honestly want to change anything then it’s necessary to stand up, or anything you say will be ignored. Contrary to what is believed by many, we still live in a free-ish society and there are organisations, like the Free Speech Union, who will offer protection.
The world is littered with talented authors who used pseudonyms for a variety of reasons – I can’t see what’s wrong with George Eliot, George Orwell, Mary Westmacott, Robert Galbraith et al.
I have never understood the need for most writers. Female writer before the 20th century I can understand (although Jane Austen managed) and those who want to divide two different types of writing (such as Ruth Rendell aka Barbara Vine) maybe, But why did Eric Blair need to write under a pseudonym?
Possibly because he was a civil servant?
And Austen didn’t originally publish under her name.
Possibly because he was a civil servant?
And Austen didn’t originally publish under her name.
They weren’t blethering on social media. They were writing books. You can still write a book calling yourself anything you like.
I have never understood the need for most writers. Female writer before the 20th century I can understand (although Jane Austen managed) and those who want to divide two different types of writing (such as Ruth Rendell aka Barbara Vine) maybe, But why did Eric Blair need to write under a pseudonym?
They weren’t blethering on social media. They were writing books. You can still write a book calling yourself anything you like.
Yes, Paypal cancelled all subscriptions to the Free Speech Union, mine included but most of the papers kicked up such a fuss Paypal reinstated them.
Wasn’t that the pits? But talk about seeing the emperor naked – vast corporate wants to control customers. Who would hav thort hem hem
Wasn’t that the pits? But talk about seeing the emperor naked – vast corporate wants to control customers. Who would hav thort hem hem
Completely agree. Time was when anonymous letter writers were considered the lowest of the low. Now, bizarrely, there seems to be this idea that everyone has the right to comment anything they like on anyone, anonymously, and not being allowed to do that is ‘censorship’. Utter cobblers.
The world is littered with talented authors who used pseudonyms for a variety of reasons – I can’t see what’s wrong with George Eliot, George Orwell, Mary Westmacott, Robert Galbraith et al.
Yes, Paypal cancelled all subscriptions to the Free Speech Union, mine included but most of the papers kicked up such a fuss Paypal reinstated them.
Completely agree. Time was when anonymous letter writers were considered the lowest of the low. Now, bizarrely, there seems to be this idea that everyone has the right to comment anything they like on anyone, anonymously, and not being allowed to do that is ‘censorship’. Utter cobblers.
I actually agree with this – if you have something to say the own it. I know people will say that the “thought police” will come around, well, let them. If you honestly want to change anything then it’s necessary to stand up, or anything you say will be ignored. Contrary to what is believed by many, we still live in a free-ish society and there are organisations, like the Free Speech Union, who will offer protection.
Just guessing, but are they referring to people commenting using pseudonyms?
I know it’s one of the things the government (well, state bureaucracy) is trying to ban with the online harms bill – no more anonymity.
What email? Am I being dim?
There’s still loads of pseudonyms on the Telegraph BTL.
I have had the same email from Unherd. I have now cancelled my subscription.
Journalists report this way not because “they need a backbone” but because they are fully bought in. Both the Times and the Telegraph recently changed their rules about below the line readers’ comments to ban comments made under a pseudonym, because this is perhaps the topic which energises readers the most, and both newspapers regularly turn off comments under articles featuring the issue. Newspapers don’t want low status opinions expressed on their platforms, and know that many readers will not be willing to risk intimidation or threats to their jobs by stating their real opinions under their own names.
It may be OK to go along with a lie if you are friendly with someone but supporting a lie in court should be completely unacceptable. In court it should be Isla, formerly known as Graham and he should be referred to as he throughout.
It may be OK to go along with a lie if you are friendly with someone but supporting a lie in court should be completely unacceptable. In court it should be Isla, formerly known as Graham and he should be referred to as he throughout.
It is becoming increasingly clear that there is a need for a prison which only houses prisoners who do not identify with their biological sex.
Put them all in the same place.
Devil’s Island perhaps?
In this life AND the next.
In this life AND the next.
Devil’s Island perhaps?
It is becoming increasingly clear that there is a need for a prison which only houses prisoners who do not identify with their biological sex.
Put them all in the same place.
Amen to that.
Add to the list Alex Massie who couldn’t help him(?)self either, as many commenters pointed out.
How can you hope to sort this mess out if you can’t even state the problem?
Amen to that.
Add to the list Alex Massie who couldn’t help him(?)self either, as many commenters pointed out.
How can you hope to sort this mess out if you can’t even state the problem?
Do keep up. The primary purpose of identity politics has always been to create contradictory and insoluble problems, with an emphasis on insulting, provoking and offending those who dissent.
The law of the land has been systematically and deliberately subverted to that end, from New Labour onwards. The judiciary and police have been systematically and deliberately politicised so that when such conflicts arise, they are automatically handled in an ideologically defined manner.
This is a wholly planned situation. No part of this is accidental, nor is any part of it due to folly or lack of intelligence. It is exactly what its authors intended.
Do keep up. The primary purpose of identity politics has always been to create contradictory and insoluble problems, with an emphasis on insulting, provoking and offending those who dissent.
The law of the land has been systematically and deliberately subverted to that end, from New Labour onwards. The judiciary and police have been systematically and deliberately politicised so that when such conflicts arise, they are automatically handled in an ideologically defined manner.
This is a wholly planned situation. No part of this is accidental, nor is any part of it due to folly or lack of intelligence. It is exactly what its authors intended.
This bloke is clearly a perverted bampot. But does Sturgeon realise that if he ‘hassles’ any women in this women’s prison, and a women’s prison does sound like a rapist’s ideal ‘playground’, it’ll reflect pretty badly on the Scottish government?
Their future could depend on the good conduct of a bloke who has raped two women and claimed to transition for access to more women. That’s a lot of power in the hands of one pervert.
If such an event does happen, I think it could bring the Scottish government down, which would do us all a favour
Rejoice!
Yet another Culloden Mr Stewart,
Every cloud…though I see Sturgeon has now dodged the potential risk by moving the prisoner to the male estate. Pity, sometimes a bad thing for one is worth the good thing for many.
I took a look at this on Wings over Scotland and it would seem that the segregated unit in Cornton Vale has communal showers and houses mentally ill and pregnant women. Still, some idiot comedian (pally with Sturgeon, it would seem) was actually defending putting him there on that ghastly Debate Night programme.
I took a look at this on Wings over Scotland and it would seem that the segregated unit in Cornton Vale has communal showers and houses mentally ill and pregnant women. Still, some idiot comedian (pally with Sturgeon, it would seem) was actually defending putting him there on that ghastly Debate Night programme.
Every cloud…though I see Sturgeon has now dodged the potential risk by moving the prisoner to the male estate. Pity, sometimes a bad thing for one is worth the good thing for many.
Sturgeon is far too ego driven to back down.
Except the Scottish government will, no doubt, pay for his full transition & then claim it was all OK now!
Call me cynical, but I have ZERO faith that any harm to any woman ANYWHERE will reflect back on any government that causes such harm.
that’s so funny and spot on! But pretty goddamn tragic too. Hey ho, it’s a crazy mixed up modern world… which is what I USED to like about it…
Rejoice!
Yet another Culloden Mr Stewart,
Sturgeon is far too ego driven to back down.
Except the Scottish government will, no doubt, pay for his full transition & then claim it was all OK now!
Call me cynical, but I have ZERO faith that any harm to any woman ANYWHERE will reflect back on any government that causes such harm.
that’s so funny and spot on! But pretty goddamn tragic too. Hey ho, it’s a crazy mixed up modern world… which is what I USED to like about it…
This bloke is clearly a perverted bampot. But does Sturgeon realise that if he ‘hassles’ any women in this women’s prison, and a women’s prison does sound like a rapist’s ideal ‘playground’, it’ll reflect pretty badly on the Scottish government?
Their future could depend on the good conduct of a bloke who has raped two women and claimed to transition for access to more women. That’s a lot of power in the hands of one pervert.
If such an event does happen, I think it could bring the Scottish government down, which would do us all a favour
The final paragraph of this article asks why Journalists are going along with this nonsense.
The answer is surely that most Journalists are a little pink around the edges – they themselves are of the “Starmer persuasion” and unable to define men and women any more.
I’m afraid as the public we get what we deserve (unless you read Journalists such as the ones who write for UnHerd 🙂 )
The final paragraph of this article asks why Journalists are going along with this nonsense.
The answer is surely that most Journalists are a little pink around the edges – they themselves are of the “Starmer persuasion” and unable to define men and women any more.
I’m afraid as the public we get what we deserve (unless you read Journalists such as the ones who write for UnHerd 🙂 )
Have just read the from page of the metro. This is a gem:
“Tr@nsgender woman found guilty of r@pe committed when she was a man.”
WTAF!!
Have just read the from page of the metro. This is a gem:
“Tr@nsgender woman found guilty of r@pe committed when she was a man.”
WTAF!!
I will not vote for any party that persists with this trans/woke nonsense. XY is male and always will be, even if the male genitalia are removed and a GRC says it is female. Real XX women everywhere are potentially at risk from deviants posing as trans women – in hospitals, schools and colleges, prisons, gyms ……. . Do we have to wait for some high profile women to be raped before this lunacy is exposed and stopped?
I will not vote for any party that persists with this trans/woke nonsense. XY is male and always will be, even if the male genitalia are removed and a GRC says it is female. Real XX women everywhere are potentially at risk from deviants posing as trans women – in hospitals, schools and colleges, prisons, gyms ……. . Do we have to wait for some high profile women to be raped before this lunacy is exposed and stopped?
This would make a fine comedy sketch if it wasn’t real.
This would make a fine comedy sketch if it wasn’t real.
I first thought this in relation to Eddie Izzard, who used to say that, “They are not women’s clothes, they are my clothes, I bought them.” Who could have argued with that? Yet now he called himself “she”. He did not do so as a harmless quirk. To be polite or compassionate, some of us might have indulged that. Male transvestism is one of the most venerable of British eccentricities. But Izzard was using feminine pronouns as a pretext for accessing women’s single-sex facilities. Therefore, and however regretfully, we did have to insist against it.
And now, this. A rapist in a women’s prison. Keep saying that until it quite sinks is. A rapist in a women’s prison. Concede the pronouns, and you would be conceding this. Therefore, we must resist without compromise. Oh, and why did Adam Graham become Isla Bryson rather than Isla Graham? As well as having been born in the wrong sex, had he also been born into the wrong family? The ones who turn out to be wrong ‘uns have a strong propensity to having changed their surnames as well. Watch out for that one.
I first thought this in relation to Eddie Izzard, who used to say that, “They are not women’s clothes, they are my clothes, I bought them.” Who could have argued with that? Yet now he called himself “she”. He did not do so as a harmless quirk. To be polite or compassionate, some of us might have indulged that. Male transvestism is one of the most venerable of British eccentricities. But Izzard was using feminine pronouns as a pretext for accessing women’s single-sex facilities. Therefore, and however regretfully, we did have to insist against it.
And now, this. A rapist in a women’s prison. Keep saying that until it quite sinks is. A rapist in a women’s prison. Concede the pronouns, and you would be conceding this. Therefore, we must resist without compromise. Oh, and why did Adam Graham become Isla Bryson rather than Isla Graham? As well as having been born in the wrong sex, had he also been born into the wrong family? The ones who turn out to be wrong ‘uns have a strong propensity to having changed their surnames as well. Watch out for that one.
If you see the full pictures showing the leggings, you can clearly see his p***s. Not even trying to hide it.
Because he clearly has no incentive to do so.
Because he clearly has no incentive to do so.
If you see the full pictures showing the leggings, you can clearly see his p***s. Not even trying to hide it.
This morning on the BBC the reporter referred to him as “he/she”. I suppose better than just “she”, but still covering themselves.
Delighted and amazed that they actually decided to call this monster a “he” AT ALL.
Delighted and amazed that they actually decided to call this monster a “he” AT ALL.
This morning on the BBC the reporter referred to him as “he/she”. I suppose better than just “she”, but still covering themselves.
I believe a woman can be convicted of rape if she is an active accomplice. Otherwise this article is spot on. The judges are wimps (as they were when allowing Muslim women to give evidence with their faces covered).
I believe a woman can be convicted of rape if she is an active accomplice. Otherwise this article is spot on. The judges are wimps (as they were when allowing Muslim women to give evidence with their faces covered).
The judges’ bench book, which consists of guidance rather than law, says it is a matter of ‘common courtesy’ to use the personal pronoun and name that a person prefers. Many women and some lawyers, however, think it is ridiculous — and insulting to rape victims — to enforce a pretence that a male defendant is female.
And yet the pretence can be acceptably enforced outside of a courtroom?
And pronouns as identifiers have now become common nouns as classifiers (calling he a she means man/male to woman/female)? No. And proper nouns as name-tags have now become common nouns as classifiers (Adam becomes Isla means from the class of man to the class of woman)? No. And common nouns have become proper nouns as name-tags (repositioning men into the distinct class of women)? No. This is the abuse of language at the grammatical level.
I noticed the little caveat in the preceding paragraph He now calls himself Isla Bryson and ‘identifies’ as a woman, but until very recently his name was Adam Graham and he has not had surgery.
What has surgery got to do with it? To identify as a woman is to live as a woman. But to live as a woman is to exist as an adult female human being. Sex is immutable.
The judges’ bench book, which consists of guidance rather than law, says it is a matter of ‘common courtesy’ to use the personal pronoun and name that a person prefers. Many women and some lawyers, however, think it is ridiculous — and insulting to rape victims — to enforce a pretence that a male defendant is female.
And yet the pretence can be acceptably enforced outside of a courtroom?
And pronouns as identifiers have now become common nouns as classifiers (calling he a she means man/male to woman/female)? No. And proper nouns as name-tags have now become common nouns as classifiers (Adam becomes Isla means from the class of man to the class of woman)? No. And common nouns have become proper nouns as name-tags (repositioning men into the distinct class of women)? No. This is the abuse of language at the grammatical level.
I noticed the little caveat in the preceding paragraph He now calls himself Isla Bryson and ‘identifies’ as a woman, but until very recently his name was Adam Graham and he has not had surgery.
What has surgery got to do with it? To identify as a woman is to live as a woman. But to live as a woman is to exist as an adult female human being. Sex is immutable.
I asked in the Times online what was the worst that could happen to The Times if they had declined to be part of this farcial deference.
As I haven’t had a reply, does anyone here have an answer?
I have written to them to ask this – unanswered!
They all fall back on following the IPSO guidelines.
https://www.ipso.co.uk/resources-and-guidance/transgender-guidance/
(Obviously written by Stonewall or some other activist lobby group)
The guidelines say “This guidance provides editors and journalists with a framework for thinking through issues around the reporting of transgender issues and includes examples of relevant decisions by IPSO’s Complaints Committee.”
So the media are simply avoiding falling foul of the IPSO Complaints Committee. It’s IPSOs slavish adherence to gender ideology that’s causing the problem.
However, there are public interest and truth defences the media can use but are obviously not inclined to expend the effort on using.
I have written to the Spectator. I am still waiting…
I have written to them to ask this – unanswered!
They all fall back on following the IPSO guidelines.
https://www.ipso.co.uk/resources-and-guidance/transgender-guidance/
(Obviously written by Stonewall or some other activist lobby group)
The guidelines say “This guidance provides editors and journalists with a framework for thinking through issues around the reporting of transgender issues and includes examples of relevant decisions by IPSO’s Complaints Committee.”
So the media are simply avoiding falling foul of the IPSO Complaints Committee. It’s IPSOs slavish adherence to gender ideology that’s causing the problem.
However, there are public interest and truth defences the media can use but are obviously not inclined to expend the effort on using.
I have written to the Spectator. I am still waiting…
I asked in the Times online what was the worst that could happen to The Times if they had declined to be part of this farcial deference.
As I haven’t had a reply, does anyone here have an answer?
I see that a decision has been made not to send him to a women’s prison.
Would that be because a pair of gelding shears has been smuggled into Cornton Vale already and detected in time?
Would that be because a pair of gelding shears has been smuggled into Cornton Vale already and detected in time?
I see that a decision has been made not to send him to a women’s prison.
Thanks, good article and a calm analysis. It’s frightening when you end up agreeing with The Sun
Thanks, good article and a calm analysis. It’s frightening when you end up agreeing with The Sun
The Sun had it right.
The Sun had it right.
We need brave journalists and politicians to fight against government endorsement of optional gender identity in the instance of criminal activity.
We need brave journalists and politicians to fight against government endorsement of optional gender identity in the instance of criminal activity.
Is it really the case that rape is defined by the use of a p***s in British law? Where I come from, the definition is a lot broader. Also: won’t prisons for either sex have a separate area for transgender people? That’s also the case in my corner of the world.
That is the definition in UK law. If it’s not a p***s then it is assault by penetration. There are segregated cells and areas in prisons but these are usually used for the protection of at risk prisoners. We have no specific trans areas in prisons.
Where are you – Brazil?
Yes, Brazil. That’s also the case here for at risk prisoners, and the understanding is that trans people are part of this group. Since prisons are run by state governments, not every place has the highest standards and mess ups do happen, but the guidelines are to keep them in specific areas.
If trans identifying male prisoners are housed in the male prison estate then I’d agree that they should be treated as at risk but they should stay in the male prison. If they’re housed in the females prison estate they *are* the risk.
If trans identifying male prisoners are housed in the male prison estate then I’d agree that they should be treated as at risk but they should stay in the male prison. If they’re housed in the females prison estate they *are* the risk.
Yes, Brazil. That’s also the case here for at risk prisoners, and the understanding is that trans people are part of this group. Since prisons are run by state governments, not every place has the highest standards and mess ups do happen, but the guidelines are to keep them in specific areas.
That is the definition in UK law. If it’s not a p***s then it is assault by penetration. There are segregated cells and areas in prisons but these are usually used for the protection of at risk prisoners. We have no specific trans areas in prisons.
Where are you – Brazil?
Is it really the case that rape is defined by the use of a p***s in British law? Where I come from, the definition is a lot broader. Also: won’t prisons for either sex have a separate area for transgender people? That’s also the case in my corner of the world.
Might as well post it here too.
I have actually just read that Raab has changed the way it works in England, but I don’t claim to understand what it actually means
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework
After reading it myself it’s a remarkably vague and obtuse exercise in obfuscation. It would seem to prevent the likes of ‘Bryson’ being placed in the ‘female estate’, even while the sentence remains undecided.
It is very vague, even the closing. Sentence where it says something like, “except in the most extreme circumstances” can mean what you like.
I think they may have cobbled something together for this occasion.
It is very vague, even the closing. Sentence where it says something like, “except in the most extreme circumstances” can mean what you like.
I think they may have cobbled something together for this occasion.
Fudge, though at least it does mention genitals being a no no.
It doesn’t define transgender – it seems that we have de facto self-id in operation. If that’s the case then we should repeal the GRA entirely.
I think the genitals issue is a distraction because this is actually saying that they’re ok with women being put in danger of sexual assault by a man in prison as long as he can’t actually rape them.
Women also sexually assault women although may be not as often as men sexually assult men.
Women also sexually assault women although may be not as often as men sexually assult men.
After reading it myself it’s a remarkably vague and obtuse exercise in obfuscation. It would seem to prevent the likes of ‘Bryson’ being placed in the ‘female estate’, even while the sentence remains undecided.
Fudge, though at least it does mention genitals being a no no.
It doesn’t define transgender – it seems that we have de facto self-id in operation. If that’s the case then we should repeal the GRA entirely.
I think the genitals issue is a distraction because this is actually saying that they’re ok with women being put in danger of sexual assault by a man in prison as long as he can’t actually rape them.
Might as well post it here too.
I have actually just read that Raab has changed the way it works in England, but I don’t claim to understand what it actually means
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework