Ms Denise Breen and Gript.ie

The Press Council of Ireland has upheld in part an appeal received from Gript.ie on a decision by the Press Ombudsman to uphold a complaint about an article it published.

Press Ombudsman’s Decision

On 12 December 2023 the Press Ombudsman decided to uphold a complaint made by Ms Denise Breen against Gript.ie about an article published in September 2023 on the grounds that it breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 8 (Prejudice) of the Press Council’s Code of Practice. The Press Ombudsman received several complaints about this article and has considered Ms Breen’s as the lead complaint.

Under a headline which claims that a named and well known Irish cancer charity was “used and abused”, the article is a comment piece framed around “culture wars”.  It claims an assertion made in an article published on the charity’s website is based on a “calumny perpetrated against Irish doctors” and on “nonsense” and that it will have “shaken people’s faith” in the charity.

The article upon which Gript.ie bases its commentary states that Ms Breen is “no ordinary woman”, that doctors assigned her male at birth but, despite surgery “to correct that error” she still has a prostate.  It describes her years of struggling with depression, her social and medical transition and her legal transition.  Gript.ie states that “Denise was male when she was born: Denise is male.  That is why Denise has a prostate. Women do not have prostate glands”.

Gript.ie claims the charity has been “used and abused” by “transgender activists” into publishing this “nonsense”.  It refers to the practice of capturing and infiltrating respectable institutions, “and then pissing that respectability away in order to advance your own little cause”. It accuses the activists of “vandalism” and of caring more about the “momentary thrill of seeing another institution fall to their whim” than about its work.  It accuses such activists of undermining the “life’s work” of the founder of the cancer charity and concludes that this was “utterly shameful”.

Ms Breen wrote to Gript.ie alleging breaches of Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 8 (Prejudice) of the Code of Practice. She questioned Gript.ie’s research: Had it attempted to contact her?  Had it spoken to medical personnel?  Was it aware that she was intersex?” She concluded that the publication had “no desire to achieve truth or accuracy”, had made no effort to obtain the facts and had misgendered her.  Citing the Gender Recognition Act of 2015, she stated that she is female and that the State has recognised and certified this.

Ms Breen said the article insinuated that she infiltrated the charity for her “own little cause”. She said this was untrue, and that in reality a close friend with prostate cancer had been supported by the charity, which in turn asked Ms Breen to support its “Blue September Campaign.” [an international movement to raise awareness about prostate cancer].

The complainant said the article breached Principle 8 because it was “written to stir up prejudice and cause offence to trans women and in particular me”.  She said the use of the term “ideological agenda” suggests an ulterior motive other than raising awareness of cancer risks”.  She objected to the claim that the alleged “institutional vandalism” is carried out on a whim and asked: “Where is the ‘whim’ in saving people from cancer?”

Ms Breen said she gave up time and privacy to accede to a charity’s request for help in reaching “a very small cohort of human society”.  She said Gript.ie's article had “stirred up huge hatred and bigotry against me and my family” and had "caused grave offence and emboldened a cohort to attack me and the wider transgender community".

Ms Breen’s letter elicited from the publication a request for further information about “what condition you have”, stating that it needed this for its response.  She responded that the publication should have obtained the facts before publication and proceeded with her complaint to the Office of the Press Ombudsman.

In a letter to Ms Breen, Gript.ie said it did not dispute “the legal accuracy” of her statements about gender, but that the law was not “the sole arbiter of truth” and that there were many who “assert that no law can change biological fact”.  It said the press had a right to scrutinise laws and participate in public debate. It said Ms Breen’s designation of her gender was confused.  It said its article was commentary and the author’s opinion was “clearly stated and labelled as opinion and not fact”.  It said Ms Breen’s claim that the article was published to stir up prejudice and cause offence to trans women was “flatly false”.

In its formal response to Ms Breen’s complaint to the Press Ombudsman, Gript.ie asked that additional comments be considered in conjunction with its earlier letter to her.  On Principle 1 it challenged Ms Breen’s statement that she was intersex, claiming she had not said this before and that the piece on the charity’s website said she had been determined to be male by doctors. It added that “activists” have claimed that far more people are intersex “than doctors have found”.  The publication said its article referred to the “biological reality that Denise is male” and would only be factually incorrect if it said she was “legally male”. 

On Principle 8, Gript.ie said the piece was about “organisational capture” by activists and that: “there were no personal comments made about Denise, outside of what we believe to be an accurate summary of her sex”.  It said it had asked her for more information about her gender, after she complained to it about the article, “in good faith”.  It questioned the legitimacy of Denise’s claim that she had been offended stating that she was an activist and may instead have wished to “control an ongoing public debate”.  

Decision

Principle 1 requires Press Council publications to strive at all times for truth and accuracy.  This article was published under a headline claiming a respected charity had been “used and abused”.  Gript.ie depicts the appearance of the article about Ms Breen on the charity’s website as an instance of what it calls organisational capture, a process whereby activists infiltrate a respected organisation and use it for their own ends, destroying its reputation in the process.  In her complaint, Ms Breen points out that in fact the charity, having already supported her friend, who had prostate cancer, approached her and asked her to contribute to a public awareness raising campaign.  

The Press Ombudsman considers that to describe this as infiltration or capture is misleading - the initiative for the article came from the charity which obviously trusted Ms Breen to make a responsible contribution to its campaign.  Publishers of opinions are not exempted from the requirement to base their comments on the facts insofar as they can be established.  Gript.ie has not shown that it strove to do so.  

Gript.ie dismissed the complainant’s assertion that she is female, insisting: “Denise is male” and stating that “women do not have prostates”.  

Ms Breen states that babies that are intersex may have “both sets of genitals and none”.  The website article states that in Ms Breen’s case doctors took the decision to assign her the male sex.  The Press Ombudsman finds that she has a right to depict this as an error.  We are not told the basis for the doctors' decision. The charity published Denise's story to promote cancer awareness – not to investigate the anatomical details of what Gript.ie refers to as her “condition”. The relevant point is that she has a prostate.  Ms Breen was under no obligation to use the term intersex in the charity’s website article, and nor does her doing so in her complaint contradict what she says about her gender in that article.   

Ms Breen states that she has transitioned, medically, socially and legally.  Doctors as well as lawyers have recognised that Ms Breen is a woman.  For Gript.ie to refer to the “biological reality that Denise is male” is misleading and a distortion.  

Principle 1 requires publications to correct any inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report.  In response to Ms Breen’s complaint, Gript.ie stated that it was open to conciliation but only if Ms Breen gave it further information about her “condition”.  This was a wholly inadequate offer.  The Press Ombudsman agrees with Ms Breen that research should precede publication rather than follow receipt of a complaint.

The Press Ombudsman finds that Gript.ie has breached Principle 1 of the Code of Practice.

Principle 8 states that the press shall not publish material “intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against an individual or group” on the basis of their belonging to a range of categories designated for protection under international human rights laws.  These include gender.  Ms Breen asserted that the article published by Gript.ie was written with this intent and that it had succeeded.

Throughout its article Gript.ie uses aggressive and vulgar language, the cumulative effect of which is derogatory and intentionally offensive.  It claims the charity has been “used and abused”.  It says Ms Breen is a man, dismisses her account of her gender history as “nonsense” and accuses the charity of publishing a “calumny” against doctors by reproducing it. It characterises as capture and infiltration, a publication process that was in reality based on respect and trust.  Gript.ie describes the “pissing…away” of hard-won reputations.  It speaks of “vandalism” and depicts what has been done as “shameful”.  It describes the charity as ending up “bleating at you” and ridicules it for accepting there are women “wandering around” with prostates and testes.  

Gript.ie claims that it only referred to Ms Breen personally in relation to what it believed to be “an accurate summary of her sex”.  It attempts to frame its other commentary in a broader context of what activists do to capture institutions.  However, the Press Ombudsman notes that Gript.ie explicitly presents the cancer charity as an example of an organisation falling foul of this process.  The charity is said in Gript.ie’s article to have made a blunder.  Since it was Ms Breen who told her story for publication on the charity’s website, she is largely held responsible for the alleged damage done to it.  The commentary is largely directed at her.   

The Press Ombudsman finds nothing to contradict Ms Breen’s assertion that she gave up her time and privacy to accede to a charity’s request for help in reaching “a very small cohort of human society” from the risk of prostate cancer. The Press Ombudsman finds that Ms Breen collaborated with the charity not as alleged by Gript.ie to advance an ideological agenda, but in the interests of public education about cancer risks.  The Press Ombudsman finds that the article was written using language intended to be offensive and liable to stir up hatred against Ms Breen personally and against transgender people.  She finds Gript.ie has breached Principle 8 of the Code of Practice.

Appeal to the Press Council of Ireland

Gript Media appealed the Press Ombudsman’s decision to the Press Council of Ireland on the grounds that there was an error in the Press Ombudsman’s application of Principles 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and 8 (Prejudice) of the Code of Practice.

At its meeting on 3 April 2024 the Press Council considered the appeal on the grounds relied upon and on the information, documentation and submissions made by both parties to the appeal.

Appeal Decision

The Press Council upheld the appeal in part, while also rejecting it in part.

The issues raised are matters of acute public disagreement and controversy.  While some are addressed legally, in particular under the Gender Recognition Act, on others there is no settled social consensus.

In regard to Principle 1, the Press Council rejected Gript’s claim that the Press Ombudsman had erred in her application of it in relation to the assertion of ‘organisational capture’.   It agreed with her conclusion that describing Ms Breen’s article on the charity’s website as evidence of infiltration or capture by her or others was misleading, given the circumstances as set out by her, and that Gript had not striven for truth and accuracy in this respect. It therefore agreed that the Ombudsman had not erred in her application of Principle 1 of the Code in this respect.

The Press Council upheld Gript’s appeal against the Ombudsman’s decision regarding its description of Ms Breen as biologically male.  It took into consideration the fact that the article was an opinion piece, and that the press is entitled to express strong views and opinions on a matter on which there are conflicting opinions.  Bearing this in mind, the Press Council decided that it was not sufficiently clear that a definitive conclusion could be reached such as to demonstrate that the article had breached Principle 1 in this respect, and accordingly that the Press Ombudsman had erred in her application of it.

It agreed with the Press Ombudsman that Gript’s offer of conciliation if Ms Breen gave it further information about what it described as her “condition” was “wholly inadequate”.

In regard to Principle 8, the Press Council agreed that the vulgar and aggressive language used by Gript, as quoted by the Press Ombudsman, was almost certainly intended, and certainly likely, to cause grave offence to Ms Breen. It therefore rejected that aspect of the appeal.  However, it decided that the Press Ombudsman had not demonstrated sufficiently that the article, while highly critical of campaigners for transgender rights, was likely to stir up hatred against transgender people as a whole.