SEEN in Journalism: The BBC and preferred pronouns

So in your view, if Rachel Dolezal had been brought up in an African American family (for example if she'd been adopted or fostered into it), then everyone should have accepted her as being African American?

If Rachel Dolezal adopts behavioural traits culturally associated with African Americans (behaviours including putting herself forward for leadership positions in AA organisations, her style of hair and dress, her way of self-describing, who she associates with), and is psychologically committed to her identity (afaik sincerely), she more than passes even your new test for having her preference respected if she asks the BBC to describe her as AA.
Why would you want the BBC to disrespect her preference?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/12/comparison-transgender-people-rachel-dolezal

f Rachel Dolezal adopts behavioural traits culturally associated with African Americans (behaviours including putting herself forward for leadership positions in AA organisations, her style of hair and dress, her way of self-describing, who she associates with), and is psychologically committed to her identity (afaik sincerely), she more than passes even your new test for having her preference respected if she asks the BBC to describe her as AA.

Rachels 'behaviours' are learned/copied. They aren't organically influenced. Now whilst you might be able to copy female male behaviours its not quite the same as it being organically driven from IE genes/hormones. One can pretend to be violent or I can have a naturally occurring propensity for violence. Kind of the difference between an actor & the real life person they are portraying. What a CIS woman & trans woman have in common is their behaviours are naturally occurring inclinations.

Doezal is pretending to be African American as an actor would & was not raised in a black culture.

@Howseitgoin

But even if you think it’s an edge case, let’s look at such edge cases. Should the BBC refer to Rachel Dolezal as an African-American, or that Korean-plastic-surgery chap as a Korean? Why not? The rule you propose says they should, if you generalise it.
Apples & oranges. Because these examples don't hold duel possibilities like sex & gender do.

Sure they do. One can define race biologically, and there are also behavioural and psychological traits typically associated with a given race in the culture.

If Rachel Dolezal adopts behavioural traits culturally associated with African Americans (behaviours including putting herself forward for leadership positions in AA organisations, her style of hair and dress, her way of self-describing, who she associates with), and is psychologically committed to her identity (afaik sincerely), she more than passes even your new test for having her preference respected if she asks the BBC to describe her as AA.

Why would you want the BBC to disrespect her preference?

The parallels aren’t perfect, but the differences work in my favour not yours: race, when using a biological definition, really is a spectrum. Sex is not.

That second one.

Sex would kick “gender”’s arse in a duel.

Sex does not " run mostly off stereotypes". Sex is a measurable biological reality. Sex exists the world over, regardless of different 'gender' expectations and associations. It is a fundamental category in the organisation of life on earth.

You are avoiding your own actions & you know it.

Sex is readily observable and detectable in most circumstances...it is hardwired in to recognise the characteristics; though on occasion it may not always be readily observable and may be disguised via superficial presentations associated with the opposite sex such as clothing, hair style etc....even then, it is usually very easy to spot a male person..for the reasons stated above.

Clearly not:
www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11690234/women-bathrooms-harassment

Not all men are predatory fetishists, but it is males, generally, that are. Observed experience and statistics over long periods of time bear this out.

Like most stereotypical associations. See where this is going?

We have single sex spaces for women and girls in certain types of situation in which taking clear safeguardning measures is an obvious step that can be taken to ensure the privacy, dignity and safety of one's sex....when in intimate situations that revolve around nakedness; the body, and its biological function.

Irrelevant to the point that gendered associations are used as a sex distinction/

There needs to be an association of behavioural/psychological/ cultural with that preference remember?
Not the way you’ve been answering so far there doesn’t. You’ve defined gender in a way that depends on traits+culture. ie, not preference.

I gave you an example remember? Butch biological female, wants to identified as female because she believes her reproductive traits define her.

It’s a matter of their behaviour and psychology. There are lots of TW who behave and think in ways that are strikingly male-associated. Their gender is male, per you.

You may not be privy to all their personality traits.

You’ve then said that someone can have a certain gender but prefer to be called something else and the BBC should go with preference (not gender and not sex, if preference differs from these).

No. re read the comments. They can go with either sex or gender depends their associations & subjective values.

At that point, I really can’t see why consistency doesn’t demand that the BBC also call the nurse a doctor, if that’s what they prefer.

That's because you are missing the link of associations either way being necessary + subjective preference.

You may think such examples are rare, but I’d say it’s very common that someone prefers to be portrayed in a certain way in the media that the facts don’t support.
You don't know them personally so I doubt you could really make that judgement.

But even if you think it’s an edge case, let’s look at such edge cases. Should the BBC refer to Rachel Dolezal as an African-American, or that Korean-plastic-surgery chap as a Korean? Why not? The rule you propose says they should, if you generalise it.

Apples & oranges. Because these examples don't hold duel possibilities like sex & gender do.

@Howseitgoin They can identify as they wish. However, it is journalists’ responsibility to report the facts correctly. If a biological man commits a crime, it should be reported that the crime was committed by a man, regardless of how he “feels”.
Otherwise it is factually incorrect.

Imagine that I sexually assault somebody and then decide to identify as a table.
Should BBC report that a table committed a sexual assault?

A male murderer of children no less!

It's an odd experience seeing men determined to remove the sex crimes of voyeurism and indecent exposure deciding it's a good strategy to spend endless hours on a parenting site of predominantly women. Exposing a total disregard for safeguarding, being a parent, being a woman and the need to safeguard children from predators and reckoning that this will result in everyone suddenly agreeing that girls and women must be compelled to undress in front of men 😅

As you point out, given the lack of any coherent intellectual, scientific or moral arguments for decriminalising sex crimes against women and girls, presumably this is the best they've got.

Sad times.

@Howseitgoin

There needs to be an association of behavioural/psychological/ cultural with that preference remember?

Not the way you’ve been answering so far there doesn’t.

You’ve defined gender in a way that depends on traits+culture. ie, not preference. It’s a matter of their behaviour and psychology. There are lots of TW who behave and think in ways that are strikingly male-associated. Their gender is male, per you.

You’ve then said that someone can have a certain gender but prefer to be called something else and the BBC should go with preference (not gender and not sex, if preference differs from these).

At that point, I really can’t see why consistency doesn’t demand that the BBC also call the nurse a doctor, if that’s what they prefer.

You may think such examples are rare, but I’d say it’s very common that someone prefers to be portrayed in a certain way in the media that the facts don’t support. But even if you think it’s an edge case, let’s look at such edge cases. Should the BBC refer to Rachel Dolezal as an African-American, or that Korean-plastic-surgery chap as a Korean? Why not? The rule you propose says they should, if you generalise it.

Sex does not " run mostly off stereotypes". Sex is a measurable biological reality. Sex exists the world over, regardless of different 'gender' expectations and associations. It is a fundamental category in the organisation of life on earth.

Sex is readily observable and detectable in most circumstances...it is hardwired in to recognise the characteristics; though on occasion it may not always be readily observable and may be disguised via superficial presentations associated with the opposite sex such as clothing, hair style etc....even then, it is usually very easy to spot a male person..for the reasons stated above.

Not all men are predatory fetishists, but it is males, generally, that are. Observed experience and statistics over long periods of time bear this out.

We have single sex spaces for women and girls in certain types of situation in which taking clear safeguardning measures is an obvious step that can be taken to ensure the privacy, dignity and safety of one's sex....when in intimate situations that revolve around nakedness; the body, and its biological function.

You want to blame anybody its yourself as you are just as complicit in stereotypical associations that decide in practice who is man or woman as everybody else.

what a load of utter nonsense

biology decides who is male or female yes even ppl with DSD

gender critical ppl believe in the abolition of gender stereotypes ie it's ok for men to wear dresses and make up - it doesn't make them
a woman because they perform stereotypes

"Spamming this thread with links to an American dictionary, which you apparently think overrides every other authority in the world, might not be the way to convince us.

You know words come from social usage right? Oh wait…
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/how-does-a-word-get-into-the-dictionary

"It's possible you may have missed the court cases where rape survivors were instructed to refer to their rapist as "she", and where BBC reporting included ridiculous phrases like "her penis". You might like to reflect on why most of us here are not impressed by this."

I don't make the social categorisational rules, I'm not that powerful…

You want to blame anybody its yourself as you are just as complicit in stereotypical associations that decide in practice who is man or woman as everybody else.

In my experience women completely get that.
Men - less so.

Honestly, the gall of some people, saying 'man/woman are social constructs' on a parenting forum of all places. What an absolute waste of time. Incredibly sexist too!

1. It doesn’t generalise (and I can’t see why sex/gender should be a special case). If I’m a nurse but want to be identified as a doctor, the BBC should refer to me as a nurse. (Do you agree on the nurse/doctor by the way?).

No. Because there's no justification involved in your example. There has to be a valid association involved.
But the ‘valid association’ that the medic would claim is preference. I prefer to be referred to as a doctor. It might even be really important to my self-perception that I be referred to as such.
Why shouldn’t the BBC respect that?

There needs to be an association of behavioural/psychological/ cultural with that preference remember?

With the definition of gender you are using, you recognise it’s possible that some people may be male (sex) and male (gender), yet prefer to be referred to as female.
(We might think of the type of TW who is very aggressive, sexually transgressive and macho as an example of this. Male sex, male gender, female preference).
What’s the valid association here that should guide the BBC? It’s just preference. Self-perception can’t be the test, or the nurse who perceives themselves as a doctor should be called a doctor.

That example is highly unlikely unless the person is mentally ill.

I would prefer specifying the person was attacked by a trans woman which is enough clarity. This obviously matters for prison housing/risk assessment, statistical & public interest purposes
Yes, I could just about live with “transwomen” + she in BBC reporting. I don’t like it, but someone’s going to be unhappy whatever the BBC goes with. But that needs to be the blanket rule then — no picking and choosing the ‘good’ TW who are women and the ‘bad’ ones who aren’t. And any cross-sex use of pronouns must then include a flag that they are cross-sex, even for the lovely TW from the telly. I think it’s a messy compromise but it reflects the fact that social convention is split on this. The facts aren’t split at all though and the BBC’s first loyalty must be to the facts.

But it's not really split in practice. If you consider the fact that in social settings we all mostly assume gender based on associations of stereotypical/archetypal gendered traits. We usually don't know for sure other people biological sex characteristics but categorise their sex anyway based on? Gendered traits. Hence 'man'/woman' are social constructs. There's no objective truth here other than social usage. Thats why 'sex' is defined by both reproductive & behavioural distinctions. See 1(a) & (b)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex

Absolutely. None of this justifies reporting based on someone’s feelings instead of reality. The purpose of reporting is to inform the public of what is going on. It’s an important element of democracy, and must not be corrupted.

@Howseitgoin

1. It doesn’t generalise (and I can’t see why sex/gender should be a special case). If I’m a nurse but want to be identified as a doctor, the BBC should refer to me as a nurse. (Do you agree on the nurse/doctor by the way?).

No. Because there's no justification involved in your example. There has to be a valid association involved.

But the ‘valid association’ that the nurse would claim is preference. I prefer to be referred to as a doctor. It might even be really important to my self-perception that I be referred to as such.

Why shouldn’t the BBC respect that?

With the definition of gender you are using, you recognise it’s possible that some people may be male (sex) and male (gender), yet prefer to be referred to as female.

(We might think of the type of TW who is very aggressive, sexually transgressive and macho as an example of this. Male sex, male gender, female preference).

What’s the valid association here that should guide the BBC? It’s just preference. Self-perception can’t be the test, or the nurse who perceives themselves as a doctor should be called a doctor.

I would prefer specifying the person was attacked by a trans woman which is enough clarity. This obviously matters for prison housing/risk assessment, statistical & public interest purposes

Yes, I could just about live with “transwomen” + she in BBC reporting. I don’t like it, but someone’s going to be unhappy whatever the BBC goes with. But that needs to be the blanket rule then — no picking and choosing the ‘good’ TW who are women and the ‘bad’ ones who aren’t. And any cross-sex use of pronouns must then include a flag that they are cross-sex, even for the lovely TW from the telly. I think it’s a messy compromise but it reflects the fact that social convention is split on this. The facts aren’t split at all though and the BBC’s first loyalty must be to the facts.

There's an awful lot of word salading going on to try & justify men who commit crime whilst claiming to feel like a woman - however it is that all women feel - being called she/her

the answer is still no

sex is immutable

gender is a load of performative stereotype bollocks which men can indulge in if they want but they're still men and should be referred to as such particularly when involved in a criminal offence

"Sex is real. Gender is a polite term often used by americans, largely, to describe or discuss it.
'Gender sterotypes' is the term that has arisen to describe culturally coded associations and behaviours....but is not the exact same thing as sex.
Displaying or peforming stereotypes does not alter one's sex or make you, in any way, the opposite sex to that which you are.

No one is suggesting its the same thing as reproductive biological sex but as you alluded to in your previous comment the world has organised principles one of which is social sex categorisation that mostly runs off stereotypes. You do this yourself when you assume sex in social situations when you don't know the sex characteristics of people around you. You effectively act as if gender is 'real' in practice. Hence dictionaries recognise behaviour as sexed due to social usage

b
: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex

Fixing stereotypes and making an identity out of them is regressive, not progressive.

Hardly consistent with claiming men are all predatory violent sex pests that women need to be closeted from.

How a criminal feels about themself or how they perceive themself is irrelevent when it comes to the reporting a crime.......though it may be a factor when it comes to court and the subsequent exploration of the mental and psychological portrait.