How Ipso surrendered to the trans lobby

Two months ago, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) upheld a complaint against The Spectator for referring to Juno Dawson, a transgender author, as ‘a man who claims to be a woman’. It may have struck some as unfathomable. I was less surprised. As I read the news, it took me back six years to when I was lead author of a report for Ipso, examining how the press treats trans-related issues.

I have been a management consultant for more than 30 years so am used to being asked by institutions as varied as the BBC and the Football Association to help shape strategy. For Ipso’s project, it effectively asked me to mark its homework. Was the press treating trans issues respectfully, and did this have anything to do with previous guidance on reporting on such matters?

Ipso insisted I refer to Karen White, a male rapist, as ‘she’. I had no choice but to comply

One of the things that Ipso is most concerned with is accuracy. So the methodology I proposed – reasonably I thought – was to establish the ‘truth’ around trans issues in order to gauge how accurately the press was treating trans people.

At first Ipso was happy to agree with this approach. The pushback started when it became clear that our understanding of the baseline was disputed by the LGBT lobby.

Part of my reason for wanting to find out the facts was that I was aware there was much I didn’t know about the core issues in the trans debate. If that were true of me, a gay man, it was likely to be true of many on the Ipso board.

I wasn’t even sure why the label LGBTQ+ had been adopted. When the T was added to the LGB by Stonewall back in 2015, I was puzzled by the combination.