Bias in Fact-Checking: an Irish example.
An article about the discourse around gender identity engenders little trust in the pre-bunking movement.
The Role of Fact-Checking in Public Debate
Fact-checking plays a crucial role in modern journalism. At its best, it helps the public navigate complex issues by evaluating claims with fairness and rigor. Like Jonathan Rauch I believe that shared facts are essential to social cohesion and democratic discourse. Journalism forms an important element in the ‘constitution of knowledge’.
However, establishing facts is not always straight forward. When fact-checking becomes selective or ideologically driven, it can distort debates rather than clarify them. More seriously it can undermine trust in the institutions which generate knowledge. Philosopher Dan Williams is sceptical about elements of the movement against misinformation, pointing out that ascertaining facts is more complex than it first appears.
A recent article on gender issues in Ireland, which presents itself as an analysis of misinformation, illustrates some of these problems. At Factchecking.ie Stephen McDermott of ‘The Journal’ presents an article: ‘Culture Wars in Irish Society’ that purports to be part of a ‘knowledge bank’. The claimed mission is to ‘reduce the noise levels and bring clarity to public discourse on the topics impacting citizens’ daily lives’.
Presumably this article on the topic of gender identity is part of a strategy of ‘pre-bunking’, or inoculation against the pandemic of misinformation. The problem is that this account of the “culture wars” is hopelessly biased. Rather than neutrally examining claims from different perspectives, it frames one side as fundamentally correct and the other as engaged in misinformation, conspiracy, or bad faith arguments. In doing so, it fails to recognize that reasonable concerns exist around gender identity policies and their societal impacts.
Framing Bias: Who is Given Credibility?
One of the most striking aspects of the article is how it presents different viewpoints. Concerns about gender identity policies, such as self-identification, medical treatment for minors, and fairness in sports, are framed as manufactured controversies rather than genuine policy debates. The article assumes that opposition to these policies has been largely imported from the UK or US, dismissing the fact that local voices, including feminists and medical professionals, have raised these issues for years.
Additionally, the piece does not quote gender-critical voices directly. Instead, it paraphrases their views in a way that makes them appear extreme or rooted in misinformation. By contrast, trans activist perspectives are presented as neutral or fact-based, even when they involve contested claims. This selective approach creates the impression that one side has reasoned arguments while the other merely spreads disinformation.
The article frames gender-critical terminology as a political marker, yet terms like ‘cis’ and ‘transgender’ are themselves recent neologisms. If their use is neutral, why does McDermott feel the need to add definitions? And if LGB is a political marker, how come LGBT is not?
In online spaces, anti-trans groups and individuals often seek to distinguish themselves using specific language.
This can include cis women referring to themselves as “adult human females”, members of the queer community calling themselves “LGB” (dropping the ‘T’ that refers to trans people).
Selective Fact-Checking and Omissions
Good fact-checking should assess all relevant evidence. However, this article selectively omits crucial context, particularly on medical issues. For example, it briefly mentions the closure of the Tavistock gender clinic in the UK but does not explore why the clinic was shut down. The Cass Review, which led to Tavistock’s closure, found that the evidence base for youth medical transition was weak and that many young patients had co-occurring mental health conditions that were not adequately addressed. By omitting this context, the article misleads readers into thinking that concerns about youth gender medicine stem solely from bad-faith actors rather than medical professionals.
Similarly, the piece claims that debates around self-identification laws in Ireland are driven by imported talking points. Yet, it fails to acknowledge that feminist and women’s rights groups raised concerns about self-ID from the start, pointing out its potential consequences for female-only spaces such as shelters, prisons, and sports. The article also dismisses concerns about fairness in women's sports without engaging with scientific debates about whether trans women retain performance advantages.
The "Imported Culture War" Trope
A particularly misleading aspect of the article is the suggestion that concerns about gender identity have been artificially imported from abroad rather than arising organically within Irish society. This claim itself mirrors the very conspiratorial thinking the article attributes to so-called "anti-trans" groups.
Ideas and debates about rights, identity, and public policy have always moved across borders, particularly in an era of global communication. To suggest that discussions about gender self-ID, youth transition, or the impact on women’s spaces are somehow illegitimate because similar discussions are taking place in the UK, US, or elsewhere is a deeply flawed argument. Human rights frameworks, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, explicitly affirm the right to share and exchange ideas beyond national boundaries. Dismissing local concerns as "imported" is a rhetorical move designed to delegitimize dissent rather than engage with it. Many gender-critical voices come from Ireland, including Helen Joyce, author of a bestselling account of the gender-critical case.
Furthermore, this trope ignores the historical reality that Ireland’s legal and social changes have frequently been influenced by international conversations. The same logic used to dismiss gender-critical perspectives as "foreign imports" could be used to undermine Ireland’s progress on issues such as same-sex marriage or reproductive rights, which were also part of broader global movements. The selective application of this argument reveals its function as a means of shutting down debate rather than engaging with it.
Loaded Language and Emotional Framing
Another way bias manifests is through emotionally loaded language. The article frequently uses terms like “conspiracy theorists,” “bad actors,” and “moral panic” to describe those who raise concerns about gender identity policies. By contrast, it describes trans rights activists in neutral or sympathetic terms. This creates an implicit moral divide: one side is misinformed or malicious, while the other is simply advocating for fairness and equality.
A particularly revealing example is how the article discusses the concept of “gender ideology.” It claims that critics portray trans rights as being “forced upon society by shadowy elites.” While some fringe voices may use conspiratorial language, many gender-critical activists-including feminists and academics-argue that gender identity ideology represents a fundamental shift in how we understand sex and rights, with significant policy implications. Dismissing these concerns as conspiracy theories is a rhetorical tactic that avoids substantive engagement.
Misrepresentation of Public and Political Debate
The article also distorts political realities. It implies that opposition to Ireland’s Gender Recognition Act (GRA) only emerged years later, fuelled by foreign influence. However, debates about the GRA occurred at the time of its passage, with some arguing that self-identification could create conflicts with women’s rights. The fact that concerns did not gain wider attention until later does not mean they were absent from the start. Notably, at least one of the politicians involved in passing the act has expressed regret about not looking at the issue more deeply.
The idea that Enoch Burke is a widely lauded figure among gender-critical campaigners is misleading. While Burke gained media attention for his refusal to use a student's preferred pronouns, much of the gender-critical movement in these islands comes from a left-leaning or centrist perspective, despite constant framing as far-right. Figures like Helen Joyce, Kathleen Stock, and J.K. Rowling represent a broad range of political viewpoints, none of whom align with Burke’s brand of religious fundamentalism.
The piece further claims that Ireland is overwhelmingly accepting of trans people and that concerns about self-ID and gender ideology are not widely held. While it is true that Irish society is generally tolerant, surveys show that opinions on gender identity policies are more complex than this article suggests. Many people distinguish between support for trans individuals and support for specific policies, such as gender self-identification without safeguards.
What a More Balanced Article Would Look Like
A well-balanced article on this topic would acknowledge the complexity of the debate. It would recognize that:
Concerns about youth transition and puberty blockers are not baseless but rooted in medical uncertainty, as highlighted by the Cass Review. As the gold standard of research in this area it is interesting that opposition to it is treated differently to opposition to climate science.
The fairness of trans women competing in women’s sports is an open question in sports science, not a settled issue dismissed by all experts.
Feminists and women’s rights campaigners have long raised concerns about the implications of self-identification laws for female-only spaces, and these concerns deserve to be addressed seriously.
Misinformation exists on both sides of the debate, including exaggerated claims about suicide rates among trans youth and misleading narratives about widespread discrimination.
Conclusion: A Call for Better Journalism
McDermott’s article falls short of Factchecking.ie’s stated mission to be "free of political, commercial, or ideological influence." Rather than neutrally evaluating competing claims, it frames one side as unquestionable fact and the other as misinformation. This not only distorts the debate but also undermines the very purpose of a 'knowledge bank.' Instead of reducing noise and clarifying public discourse, it reinforces polarization and erodes public trust in journalism.