Are Transwomen male or female? Ask the BBC

I am pretty confused by the BBC's stance

It seems to me that the BBC could be holding one of two positions.

That the question of whether self-id trumps sex is a matter of opinion and Justin Webb was biased by voicing an opinion on this matter. This is my reading of the wording of their judgment. By this logic, it is then open season for complaints to the BBC on the many many articles that endorse without balance the opposite opinion (ie self-id trumps sex) for being biased in favour of the opposite opinion

2nd alternative - that self-id always takes precedent over sex to the extent that sex is no longer mentionable and that this is such a settled fact that it does not need any consideration of balance. If this is the BBC's position then there is no need to consider alternative opinions and indeed any voicing of them is considered bias.

If it is the second one then I guess then that is a matter for way above the heads of the complaints people and one for writing to MPs, FOIs etc on exactly when this became BBC policy that any mention of sex is automatically bias.

Male/female can refer to either gender or sex.

Well they bloody well shouldn't. Gender has its own perfectly good terms, 'masculine' and 'feminine', without diluting the specific meaning of male and female.
Of course this linguistic shift is entirely deliberate by the colonisers.

Anyone whose body is formed around the production of small gametes is a male, even if he was born without a penis, has lost his penis or has had his penis removed.

Anyone with a penis is a man. Simples

It would be ludicrous to see any media source as having 'the facts' about everything.

The problem here is what people consider to be subjective belief. This is where Forstater cam be problematic as it specifically says that 'sex is immutable' is a belief not a fact. But what is the option when sex is being defined as nothing to do with a complete body and a whole person, and is stated to be (eg) something assigned at birth, or a 'collection of data points' that is mutable?

Any person with a penis is male.

First they came for "man" and "woman"

Edited to add: Then they came for "male" and "female".

Now look on the web and you will find plenty of people and stes that claim transwomen are biologically female

Male/female can refer to either gender or sex. say what now?

So close to cancelling my licence fee.

But Cbeebies is needed.

Male/female can refer to either gender or sex. 'Biologically male' denotes biological sex.

By that reasoning, 'male' or 'female' should probably always be distinguished by stating either 'of male gender' or 'biologically male'. Using just the words 'male' or 'female' is now too ambiguous in modern life.

[Caveat: this only seems to apply to humans. Animals can still be referred to as male or female and everyone knows what that means. For now...]

Unbelievable, outrageous and frightening that referring to a biological male as male is not allowed.
Does anyone have ideas on how to escalate this? How can this be allowed to stand? Do we write to MPs? Or the BBC Board?

A world where the Daily Mail has the facts, and the BBC and Guardian continue to brainwash...

wtf is supposed to be the difference between 'male' and 'biologically male'?
The latter is mere tautology, 'male' is a purely biological descriptor.

Imagine if he said said something as plain and unglamorous as saying 'a man'.

No rainbows. No glitter or Otherness. Just.....a man.

🤣 A good idea. And get very angry and file a complaint if the BBC takes up the story and happens to report that we are part of a cohort who are actually women.

So, is the BBC position that the only way to describe a transwoman is by never alluding to that person's sex? It's impartial to just not talk about it? Deleting pronouns is impartial. Staying silent is impartial. Turning a blind eye is impartial.

I'm not sure they've thought this through.

Exactly

Cases alleging discrimination can only be brought relating to the "protected characteristics" in the Equality Act 2010.

Those who drafted that Act did not anticipate having to make "telling the truth" and "stating facts" protected characteristics.

It is the new BBC English that once was so revered

The famous BBC are also now even basing their language standards on the sort of English used by Greater Manchester police. (This is accordingly to the BBC themselves in their response emails to those complaining about some of their recent reports.)

It was not been established by the Maya case that she could talk about the reality of sex because it is ‘true’. Only because it is a reasonable belief. ( I think. I am not in the legal profession.)

Yep.

Beliefs are protected, stating verifiable facts isn't.

Perhaps for the same reason schools don't usually have a ban on bullfighting, because no one realised it might actually be needed?

Simon Edge bang on the money, as usual.

Unfortunately I think that would be him giving his personal ‘belief’ within in his BBC role. That is not allowed.

It was not been established by the Maya case that she could talk about the reality of sex because it is ‘true’. Only because it is a reasonable belief. ( I think. I am not in the legal profession.)

👌🤣

I am hoping that this decision may in fact be a good thing - an unequivocal statement of restrictions on stating facts which may force a rethink from the BBC. Daily Mail and Telegraph have both written about it.