Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Trans Journalists Association Style Guide- what can/cannot be said

67 replies

Winesalot · 10/07/2020 10:07

I have linked an archive link so I hope it works.

This is where the state of journalism ‘should be’ in the eyes of this association. I can see a lot of areas that are problematic here.

  • don’t mention criminal history unless transperson agrees to have it released
  • don’t dead name or ask previous names (mmmm... way to hide said past transgressions)
  • don’t mention women unless it means transwomen as well
  • don’t even say ‘identifies as’ just say ‘is’
  • and don’t give a platform to terfs, truscum (I hate that word) or trans medievalists.
  • don’t give misinformation about sports (ummm.... there is plenty of peer reviewed information that proves there IS issues but they say ignore it)
  • don’t give emphasis on detransistioning

If you talk to terfs never call them feminists.

There is so much wrong here. There are some relevant points too that would apply when talking about anyone else. I have to pop out but thought to quickly put this up for those who may not have seen it.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200705235423/transjournalists.org/style-guide/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20200705235423/transjournalists.org/style-guide/

OP posts:
SunsetBeetch · 10/07/2020 12:49

That is insane. I understand trans: being one sex but feeling like you should be other: but feeling like something that doesn't actually exist in nature? How is that allowed? Seems like we're getting very close to transhumanism.

Falleninwiththewrongcrowd · 10/07/2020 12:44

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Original poster
Winesalot · 10/07/2020 12:23

This 'style guide' does however explain just why so many people feel confident at firing off the 'phobic' claims. It reinforces that anything that does not enthusiastically affirm the trans narrative is completely hateful and phobic even when the questions are completely relevant and should be asked for the benefit of all people such as: health, women's rights, sports etc. It simply reinforces the no debate crack down.

OP posts:
Original poster
Winesalot · 10/07/2020 12:17

And in contrast, why is it, that people who are dead are having their pronouns decided for them when they aren’t alive to advise what they are, and that’s ok?

I agree that this is being done far too much. I think that activist groups take far too many liberties when they rewrite people's history after that person has died. It is like Dr James Barry/ Margaret Bulkley 's history is being claimed by the transgender community.

OP posts:
DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong · 10/07/2020 12:15

@SunsetBeetch

What sort of medical care do non binary people need? Do they get blue hair dye and septum piercings on the NHS?
Sadly, these days the female NB people seem to want double mastectomy (and sometimes low dose testosterone) and the male NB people (less common than female NBs) want oestrogen for softer skin and breasts and hair removal (and sometimes Adam’s apple shaving or vocal chord surgery).

There are even NB options for genital surgery - don’t google ‘penile preservation vaginoplasty’ unless you are absolutely sure you want to see it!

Original poster
Winesalot · 10/07/2020 12:14

If someone wanted to a film biography of someone famous, say Caitlyn Jenner, does this mean that the film makers would have to refer to Jenner as Caitlyn while covering the section on winning gold at the Olympics, unless Jenner gave permission otherwise?

I guess so. And you would normally, I guess, with a clarifying they won this gold as whatever name they used on the Olympic records so people can reference it themselves. It does get murky.

OP posts:
NotBadConsidering · 10/07/2020 12:08

I don’t know why I’m bothering to ask this question because the answer is always “there’s no logic to this batshittery” but ask anyway. Take this section:

writing about someone in the past

Use someone’s current name and pronouns when writing about that person in the past, unless they tell you differently.

If someone wanted to a film biography of someone famous, say Caitlyn Jenner, does this mean that the film makers would have to refer to Jenner as Caitlyn while covering the section on winning gold at the Olympics, unless Jenner gave permission otherwise?

And in contrast, why is it, that people who are dead are having their pronouns decided for them when they aren’t alive to advise what they are, and that’s ok?

wrongsideofhistorymyarse · 10/07/2020 11:58

They can fuck the fuck off to the far side of fuck and when they get there fuck off some more.

SunsetBeetch · 10/07/2020 11:56

What sort of medical care do non binary people need? Do they get blue hair dye and septum piercings on the NHS?

Cascade220 · 10/07/2020 11:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DancelikeEmmaGoldman · 10/07/2020 11:51

The idea of not bringing up past crimes is an interesting one; women who have committed crimes never escape.

There’s an Australian women who featured in the Underbelly TV series. In 1994 she applied to join the police academy but was later expelled for not disclosing her past as a prostitute. I don’t think there’s been a news item about her since, which hasn’t referred to her as an ex-prostitute, even though its been a quarter of a century. Is it different for women then?

Given that many of the transwomen with criminal convictions seem to have them for violent crimes or sexual assault, it’s sinister to insist that no mention be made of past crimes.

RufustheRowlingReindeer · 10/07/2020 11:38

@Beamur

*If you talk to terfs never call them feminists But terf stands for trans exclusionary radical feminist...Pfft. Idiots.*

This made me laugh. DOH!

I was thinking how does this work

But then i remembered that whole articles can be written about women without actually saying women...

So......

BobbinThreadbare123 · 10/07/2020 11:35

Hah I thought it was an actual thing! Nothing surprises me about this topic any more! Grin

Original poster
Winesalot · 10/07/2020 11:32

What the hell is a trans mediaevalist?!

My auto correct error. But it has brought a note of levity to the thread.

OP posts:
DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong · 10/07/2020 11:31

Can we find similar guides for writing about other protected groups? Disabled people perhaps? Or people belonging to certain religions?

Would be interesting to compare and contrast and also to find out how wide spread this kind of instruction is?

BobbinThreadbare123 · 10/07/2020 11:30

What the hell is a trans mediaevalist?!

Original poster
Winesalot · 10/07/2020 11:26

many stories about trans youth focus on their bodies and medical care (i.e. puberty blockers, binders, hormones, etc.) and highlight the risks of transition-related care. This contributes to a hyper-focus on trans bodies and medical care.

ummmmm...... no. It shines the light on safeguarding, and the fact that there is a narrative that says that there is no health issues relating to this care . (ie. puberty blocker, binders, hormones, etc.) So, what this group is saying is to continue to hide these risks so parents and children don't get accurate information or see warnings that there are problems.

The more I read this guide, the more I think it must be the opposite to what journalism is actually supposed to be. I'd believe it was satirical if I had not seen with my own eyes the 'phobic' claims levelled at any one questioning all these aspects.

OP posts:
Original poster
Winesalot · 10/07/2020 11:19

“Detransition” narratives often feature people who thought they were trans or experiencing gender dysphoria and later figured out they weren’t without medical treatment. These stories should not be used to question established medical standards that give trans people bodily autonomy, which are laid out by the internationally recognized World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

ie. I read this as these people are obviously not worthy of mentioning nor is the abuse and rejection they receive (because just knowing that to desist would mean loosing close friends could never be a reason some people who are questioning their transition don't desist). They are certainly NOT worth tracing and talking to for the purposes of studies that review the current treatments or to get an understanding of misdiagnosis or anything really in this group's eyes. All they do is spread misinformation and make people think that not all is rosy in the bubble.

OP posts:
sleepyhead · 10/07/2020 11:18

It's weird (/s not really) how they use all the issues of "transmedicalists" - dysphoria, suicide, self harm to say how oppressed trans people are...

... and yet in the next breath say that's not really got anything to do with being trans. So not dysphoric, suicidal, self-harming. So why do they need the special treatment and endless validation exactly?

Wahhhh I'm so different and vulnerable! Wahhh don't say I'm different and vulnerable!

Kantastic · 10/07/2020 11:18

Holy shit what journalist worthy of the name could read that and not realise that the people who wrote it are trying to hide something?

DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong · 10/07/2020 11:11

@Collidascope

I hate the term "deadname." It's just another element of drama that suggests trans people are constantly teetering between life and death (either through suicide or murder or being literally killed by words). And almost suggesting that the life they lived before transitioning wasn't a real life. As though they were a ghost up until that point. Really winds me up.
Yes. And then they try and stop transwidows naming themselves as such!

Like, if you call it a dead name, what do you expect? ¯\(ツ)/¯

Original poster
Winesalot · 10/07/2020 11:10

Seriously, this document must be written by a misogynist.

While there’s no good data, a Swedish study found only 2.2 percent of participants who sought gender-affirming medical care regretted their transition. This is lower than the rate of people who regret their abortions. This is also much lower than the rate of people who are dissatisfied with their nose jobs and other cosmetic surgeries, according to various studies. Unlike many elective plastic surgeries, transition-related care is lifesaving.

My italics.

I cannot imagine a feminist writing this. It is a disgusting comparison. It is like Bergdorf writing that GC feminists believes only women have uteruses and because a lot of women can't have children and does that mean that they're less women because they're no longer of use? (Projection much?)

OP posts:
DuDuDuLangaLangaBingBong · 10/07/2020 11:09

Transmedicalists are what the general public believe all trans people to be!

The trans people FWR finds areas of agreement with are all trans medicalists (aka truscum). Buck Angel, Scott Newgent, Mars, Rose of Dawn, Fionne Orlander, Blair White etc.

They are the ‘out group’ in trans circles, the in group are people that believe a penis can be a female sex organ Confused

Collidascope · 10/07/2020 11:08

I hate the term "deadname." It's just another element of drama that suggests trans people are constantly teetering between life and death (either through suicide or murder or being literally killed by words).
And almost suggesting that the life they lived before transitioning wasn't a real life. As though they were a ghost up until that point. Really winds me up.

aliasundercover · 10/07/2020 11:08

TLDR:

Don't tell the truth.