Broadcasters must air views that trans women are women, says Ofcom

So Ofcom wants GB News to lie!

What use are Ofcom really given they are infiltrated by biased gender ideology like all left wing institutions.

Look at the sheep attending Glastonbury at the weekend ....The chanting of kill the IDF, the revelling, the clapping of the INSANE.

They should just live a day in the life of women under Hamas!

It's like rationality has gone out of the window. Common sense and the ability to reason is dead!

I believe the BBC, and any other broadcaster, absolutely should present these views but as "there are people who claim that..." (not "believe" that, I don't think many of them do actually believe it). It is important that as long as this cult exists in the mainstream it continues to be reported on.

Not helped by most media’s compliance and refusal to platform critical voices. The utter capitulation of the media, the law, and health services have shocked me to my core, shattered my belief system.

No elite climate scientists dispute it. Some third and fewer second tier scientists appear to do so, with many paid by coal and oil companies.

Oh dear, then they are in breach of the law, by describing it as a "women's" network and including men.

@MassiveWordSalad The Supreme Court indeed only decided on the definition of women in the Equality Act. Whether it included men or not. Whether the term woman in other contexts/acts includes men must be decided in a separate process. If there was a constitution that mentioned women as a separate class, this might be easier. Or not, as we're seeing in Germany right now, where activists are trying to insert gender identity(!) into the constitution as a protected characteristic.

@MassiveWordSalad Interesting quote.

So, by extension, they're laying claim to the right to determine when news may have some bearing on the Equality Act, and when it simply doesn't at all?

Sorry, OfCom, but, logically, any article has potential relevance to the Equality Act.

Because the Act distinguishes the sexes to enable justified discrimination between them (single-sex spaces), and the identification and prevention of illegal discrimination. And what is which, and which is what, is determined in law, not reportage.

Calling a transwoman a woman in any and all of the following contexts could obscure discrimination on an micro level - unless Ofcom is claiming esoteric knowledge of each and every context - and a macro one - by misrepresenting facts that may otherwise reveal trends over time:

business, sport, finance, education, clubs, representation on public boards(!), societies, politics, crime, poverty, entertainment, war, travel, technology...

The whole point is, the distinction must always be made between male/female for sex discrimination to be recognisable!

Totally agree with all of this.

Most people who've accepted the "trans women are women" etc narrative aren't idiots. They've just been listening to the wrong people and haven't interrogated those voices. The lumping together of LGBTQ+++ has been a powerful force on the TRA side.

Jesus a €10,000 fine?? That’s dystopian 😱

True true

To the subject in hand.

What the hell does this mean?

“But Ofcom said the Supreme Court only ruled on the definition of a woman in terms of the Equality Act and not on its meaning in other contexts.”

Sometimes a woman is an adult human female, but sometimes ?????

They really are captured. I wonder if this will change at all once the SC guidance is finalised? So many organisations are using this as an excuse to not change anything.

I would like see broadcasters say “some people believe men can be women” when trans issues are discussed.

edited to remove stupid link thingy

And, as Salad and others point out, you're in the wrong forum anyway, Trish - you're showing yourself up by suggesting we're hypocritical for not discussing this here, because here exists solely for the issue under discussion. Your posts in this context are not unlike insisting on discussing abortion on The Litter Tray, or Gardening.

I know, I know, all those the arguments for not engaging - but I never know whether to laugh or cry when I see posters shooting themselves in the foot like this.

If you really care about changing minds and winning hearts, Trish, you surely must see that you're turning people off meaningful engagement here, and creating an impression of polemic instead of considered argument?

(Alternatively, if you really care about de-railing the thread, you're doing a damn good job tbf, and apologies to readers that I spent a post helping. No more!)

From the article:
"Ofcom’s response also suggests that broadcasters should use a person’s preferred pronoun."

As long as that person doesn't have a GRC, do they have a leg to stand on, legally?
If a person isn't naturalized, he's not British (yet).

In Germany we now have a law that punishes misgendering of transitioned people with a GRC with up to 10,000 €. GRCs are now very easy to obtain. I have thought of adding an asterisk to every false-sex pronoun and honorific in written communication (gender activists are spelling women "Frauen*" to include men).

🐿

Thank you for pointing that out. And my response if you read it is that life begins at fertilisation at which point sex is determined. If we think there are exceptions to science in order to claim abortion is not killing we have no credibility against those who claim there are exceptions to immutable biological sex. Trans is the same "my body my choice" ideology. Please read original comments not just the most recent ones

The topic of this thread is Broadcasters must air views that trans women are women, says Ofcom It's in the title if you forget

The topic of this thread is “Broadcasters must air views that trans women are women, says Ofcom”

It is one of many threads within the discussion forum “Feminism: Sex and gender discussions”. There are many other threads within this forum discussing many other subjects.

What you are trying to do is effectively barge into a group of people discussing one thing and change the subject of the conversation to something different. Rude in real life and rude here.

It is so easy to start your own discussion, have at it!

Please note that I have engaged here on the off-chance that you really don’t get it. And, as ever, for the lurkers.

My main concern about reporting on this subject is this:

The mandate to present both sides of the argument exists so that viewers and readers are fully informed and able to engage in the democratic process.

As such, in a discussion piece about transwomen, this is appropriate.

However, in a news report about a transwoman - whether a victory in sports or a sex attack, for example (and we see both) - "both sides" isn't possible. The report either 1) presents the TW as a woman, using "she"/"woman" (and we've even seen "female") throughout, or 2) as a TW.

1) The former may be courteous and respectful to the TW and the so-called trans community. But it's disrespectful to some women. And, importantly, it withholds information from women that impacts on their ability to make informed decisions about their votes and, sometimes, their health and their safety.

2) The latter is disrespectful to some transwomen, who would prefer to be classed as women.

Meanwhile, surveys have shown that a good portion of the population don't understand 2), whereas they do understand 1).

To me, the arguments for 1) far outweigh those for 2). I mean, of course they would, given my perspective in this debate - but the point is that I can't see that there are any more arguments for 2). So why is 2 so often favoured?

I really, really resented the BBC's use of 1) before the last general election. A key issue was views on transwomen in women's spaces, self-id etc. And the proactively prevented women from accessing the information necessary to develop accurate, informed opinions about this.

And we've seen the extent to which this issue can influence elections, in the US.

So how can that be right?

In news reports, a choice must be made, and I can't see sufficient justification for withholding facts.

Whether what you say about elite scientists is true or not, the fact or otherwise of anthropogenic global warming is pure science. If Ofcom concludes that the informed consensus shows acceptance of that scientific fact - like the world being a sphere - then that’s that.

But the trans debate, such as it is, is not about pure science. The analogy doesn’t work.

Hi @MassiveWordSalad. The topic of this thread is feminism. If people want to call start a thread called "Pro Abortion Feminism Only" they are free to do so . I have no idea what the majority view is here. But The point of a conversation forum is not that the majority ( which you claim without having surveyed) dictate that the minority must be silent. Surely those who are pro abortion and feminist would welcome the opportunity to explain to me that abortion does not kill girls? And has not specifically and particularly been targeted at killing girls on an industrial scale. China, some Asian cultures for example. So lets debate the facts. Not try to silence viewpoints. Have a great day

You seem to be attempting a derail. Not a particularly good one as this reply doesn’t really have much to do with your original ‘point’. One star: would not recommend.

And Bluesky zzzzz

You’re being completely unreasonable. Tv broadcasts ranges of opinion, right and wrong, on every subject. As it should. This is a debate about censorship, not the legalities of womanhood. Not that I’d touch GB news with a barge pole.

It’s so widespread that I don’t think it’s necessarily about ‘simpletons’. Women in particular are raised always to ‘be kind’, as you know. It’s ingrained and drilled into us. Most centre-left parents, asked what the first lesson they would teach their children would be, would say ‘be kind’. And that falls particularly on girls, I suspect.

And as you also know, people widely conflate homosexuality/gayness and trans. And erroneously believe that any criticism of trans ideology is a criticism of homosexuality.

They also conflate gender non-conformity and the trans movement. Whereas we know that trans-identifying men often displaying a highly sexualised parody of womanhood (if they’re not dressing like their mothers).

They also believe that the gender ‘revolution’ is the new social justice campaign.

It’s interesting, though, how so many of the trans activists are young women. A whole study in itself.

My concern is that in our little info bubble we know that this stuff is regressive and dangerous to women and children. Then outside the bubble, the world, and our institutions, think it’s simply progressive and civilised and kind.

Above was for @TrishTeres I don’t know why the quote wasn’t included.