Jeremy Vine’s justification for calling a rapist “Karen”

I think it was on either the 6:30 or 7:30 news on Wednesday evening, so it would have either been the Steve Lamaq or the Mark Riley show. Pretty sure it was on weds.

Badstyley can you link that?

I saw this on a discussion yesterday, but can't find any proof of it. I am also confused because he is continuing with treatment.....wonder who is paying for that.

Not saying you are wrong, but I have been trying to find it and can't

And not a peep about the fact that he (KW) was pretending to be a woman to get access to female victims.

There was a brief report about it on 6music news the other night. They referred to ‘Karen White, a transgender woman.’ Then throughout as she.No mention of biological sex, but they said that ‘she’ had committed sexual assaults after being moved to a female prison. It was all very confusing and misleading. If I wasn’t all too familiar with the case I would have no idea what the hell they were on about. It was just woman woman woman, and she she she throughout.

I also think referring to this person as "Karen" raises awareness of this issue. They can invite comment and debate without even mentioning it themselves.

Vine's justification is also very neutral and does not make reference to his personal beliefs about this, so the discussion cannot be steered towards whether or not Vine is a transphobe.

@Notacluewhatthisis that's so lovely to hear - until you have that example as it a good thing I hadn't thought of it that way.

MN makes me question and qualify my opinions and beliefs and that's why I come here - can't make sense out of people in RL!

I used to work at the BBC, not in editorial as such but the guidelines were strictly followed. The use of surname is an interesting point and I think they have made it clear in articles online that White went by other names - male names - before but Vine would be told to use preferred pronouns even if he personally disagreed with doing so.

Personally, I find referring to this rapist as 'her' or 'Karen' is actually turning out to be a good thing.

It seems to be raising people's awareness. I work for one of the larger supermarkets in their offices and our whole floor was talking about this yesterday. The conversation were are around the danger of self id and crime stats reporting as well as the danger men like this pose to women.

It actually made my day to see so many people peak trans.

The floor below has a trans woman working there and she was the most vocal about why self id should not be ok. She wishes to present as a woman, be referred to as she and just be treated the same as anyone else. She doesn't insist on using the women's bathrooms and lots to use one of the many accessible toilets we have instead. She is a lovely person and I have no problem calling her by her name or she.

She was horrified by this and has been by other similar stories. She doesn't believe women should make room for her. Yesterday was a good day at work because this rapist was referred to as she over and over again.

I hope you're right Captain but sadly, I reckon a large sway of the population aren't aware that only men can rape. I believe many people are very blurred on this issue.

And mentioned her penis, Even jeremy Vine.

I don't think they will this time Truck pleanty of newspapers have published Karen Picture.

Mumsnet is a bubble of well-informed women capable of critical thinking. Sadly, the world at large invariably isn't the same and many, many people have no idea of the legal definition of rape. They will hear Karen and rapist and believe that a woman has raped someone. The finer points will be lost on them.

It's clear the aim is to highlight that this person is "female". A surname alone won't do that

The public don't seem to be agreeing do they, in fact more and more of the public goodwill is disappearing.

The BBC writes: ' And it is a standard of our journalism to refer to a subject by their preferred pronoun.'

PPs, you are spot on when you say that 'White' won't show the BBC's commitment to honouring White's claim of womanhood. If they say "Karen" enough times they hope it just might come true.

And monkeys might fly out of my butt.

rememberatime Fri 12-Oct-18 20:54:59

It's clear the aim is to highlight that this person is "female". A surname alone won't do that.

We could hope* that what JV and IW are doing is drawing attention to the nonsense of having to refer to a male rapist as 'she'.

*I'm an optimist

There is so much double speak that it's so incredibly difficult to see the truth and to see those that are pushing the truth.

I was listening to Jeremy on the radio and he was saying she. I think a lady said he but Jeremy corrected her and said she needs to be called she, but it does sound as if Jeremy was really struggling. At the end he did slip up and say he and apologised quickly correcting it to she. I don't think my brain would cope with using the wrong pronouns. Too confusing.

I also find it difficult to read about the case because my brain wants to read he when i see the pictures and know the subject matter, and I am trying to read she. It's like when they do that trick and the coloured words are written as the wrong colour, so say they write blue but it is in red font. The brain knows what it wants to see.

I don't see it as matey. I see it as the only way they have of highlighting the absurdity.

Referring to this male rapist by only the feminine first name they chose for themselves sends the message that JV does not consider them to be female, as he does not report on women in that way.

The way we use first name only, surname only, or both, including or dropping titles, sends strong messages regarding status and respect.

I heard it, and, yes, I thought it was to point out the absurdity. It was also noticeable that Becky's voice jarred with the name, and while Becky's chromosomes are unknown to me, I would assume, and all other listeners could perceive, there is likely to be a y in there.

I think the tide is turning, slowly, and debate is opening up.

It's clear the aim is to highlight that this person is "female". A surname alone won't do that

Is It?

Or is it the only way they have of highlighting the absurdity if the situation?

Because that alone is going to peak a few people who hadn't given it much thought at all...

www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/

I’d be interested to know where broadcasting guidance says that you need to call any rapist and child abusers by their first name?

Also it’s been reported in other media today that this child abuser and woman rapist has no GRC. Assuming this is correct... he is still legally a man. No need to call him anything else?

Well, I'd be ok with Vine referring to Karen White as 'Karen the rapist'.

I don’t think Ian Huntley is ever referred to as Ian either.

The only British criminal commonly referred to by a forename is Jack the Ripper.

It's clear the aim is to highlight that this person is "female". A surname alone won't do that.

it's a warped sense of being respectful to the person's new gender and it's sick.