SEEN in Journalism: The BBC and preferred pronouns

"Yes, i do say that about all human rights. what is your point?"

Really?

"The point of human rights is to recognize the inherent dignity, worth, and autonomy of every individual, ensuring that all people are treated with equality, fairness, and respect. Human rights provide universal standards for how people should be treated by each other and by the state, enabling individuals to live with freedom, safety, and the ability to make genuine choices, which is essential for building strong, inclusive societies where everyone can contribute and thrive."

"There are some basic organisational principles and categories the world over. Sex is one of them."

And what is your point?

Sex is real. Gender is a polite term often used by americans, largely, to describe or discuss it.

'Gender stereotypes' 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.

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

Yes, i do say that about all human rights. what is your point?

People who adopt trans identities are like everyone else. The world does not revolve around their own self perception or desires. We all exist in an existing web of arrangements, rules, codes and culture.

There are some basic organisational principles and categories the world over. Sex is one of them.

Hardly a neutral, well respected source = anything that threatens my world view

Are you disputing there's no such thing as gender as defined as the "behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"?

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

No! Crimes are simply recorded and reported and the standard is to report the name, age and sex, and sometimes ethnicity. That is it! Finger prints, saliva tests and mug shots are also taken.

Hardly a neutral, well respected source for your definition of 'self determination' .

Only if you believe in the concept of an innate gender identity would such a description even be applicable. We all know that sections of the U.S are fully captured...which is why males playing in female sporting categories is such a shit show there; and also why men are routinley locked up in women's prisons.

I don’t think that’s a workable basis for reporting.

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.

1. It doesn’t work in the specific, becuase other people are impacted by the decision (it’s not the kind of thing that the can be innocuously delegated to an individual). I think it’s corrosive in a wide range of cases but especially with crimes: i) Societally, ‘not our crimes’ (ie wrong to paint an intentionally misleading picture of the world), and ii) personally, take a rape victim and rape convict: why should the victim’s preference that the report should state she was attacked by a man be overridden by the perpetrator’s preference that the report should say she was attacked by a woman? (What are your thoughts on the rights and wrongs in that case?)

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

How do you respect the wishes of a dead man who murdered children?

I don’t think that’s a workable basis for reporting.

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?).
2. doesn’t work in the specific, becuase other people are impacted by the decision (it’s not the kind of thing that the can be innocuously delegated to an individual). I think it’s corrosive in a wide range of cases but especially with crimes: i) Societally, ‘not our crimes’ (ie wrong to paint an intentionally misleading picture of the world), and ii) personally, take a rape victim and rape convict: why should the victim’s preference that the report should state she was attacked by a man be overridden by the perpetrator’s preference that the report should say she was attacked by a woman? (What are your thoughts on the rights and wrongs in that case?)

Am I right so far?

Yes. Identification doesn't have to be according to one's sex or gender & the BBC should report on what that person has chosen to be identified with.

You’ve brought in quite a few new things now: reproductive traits, what someone believes their reproductive traits make them.

Let’s stick to your core definition unless you now think that’s inadequate.

You think:

Gender — behavioural/psychological traits+culture.

You recognise that gender can differ from sex.

You also seem to recognise that gender can differ from preference.

(I agree: our traits are not the same things as our preferences. We can prefer all we like, but our behaviour and our psychological traits are to a large degree independent of that).

You think preference wins for BBC purposes.

Am I right so far?

I don’t think you did mis-read, as that’s how I interpreted your answer too.
You’ve set out a definition of gender that depends on traits+culture. So, someone may be male (gender) even if they want to be described as female.
You want the BBC to respect their preference, not their gender, if those differ.
What surprised me is your willingness to concede that they can differ. To me it’s obvious that they can if we use a societal definition of gender. But often people on your side of the debate jump between different and often contradictory senses of ‘gender’ in the same conversation without seeming to notice. That’s why I was pleasantly surprised that you don’t.
I still disagree with you on what the BBC should do, of course!

You are confused. If you read my comment I explain that its up to the individual what they consider as their defining traits. IE if they believe their reproductive traits make them a woman or man then the BBC should use the appropriate pronouns according to their sex. For example if they had the behavioural/ cultural/ psychological traits that are associated to males but their sex is female & they want to be considered as female then the BBC should call them female.

I don’t think you did mis-read, as that’s how I interpreted your answer too.

You’ve set out a definition of gender that depends on traits+culture. So, someone may be male (gender) even if they want to be described as female.

You want the BBC to respect their preference, not their gender, if those differ.

What surprised me is your willingness to concede that they can differ. To me it’s obvious that they can if we use a societal definition of gender. But often people on your side of the debate jump between different and often contradictory senses of ‘gender’ in the same conversation without seeming to notice. That’s why I was pleasantly surprised that you don’t.

I still disagree with you on what the BBC should do, of course!

That’s really interesting. I thought your view would be that TW’s preference to be called ‘she’ should be respected because they are all women (gender).
But in fact your view is that TW’s preference to be called ‘she’ should be respected because they prefer it, even the ones who are men (gender).
Gender here being something objectively determinable from their traits + the culture.

Sorry but I misread your comment. The BBC should respect their wishes.

That’s really interesting. I thought your view would be that TW’s preference to be called ‘she’ should be respected because they are all women (gender).

But in fact your view is that TW’s preference to be called ‘she’ should be respected because they prefer it, even the ones who are men (gender).

Gender here being something objectively determinable from their traits + the culture.

My view. BBC should use gender neutral pronouns when someone is trans and suspected to or has commited a crime.

If their sex or gender identity is of little or no interest then preferred pronouns are okay. (Jane told police she saw eight badgers yesterday).

"Sex is not 'respected' it is reported and recorded.
Gender is an ephemeral construct, not a material or measurable fact."

You act like an offender identifying as trans or someone is known as trans can't be reported as such because some people don't believe in gender identification. Whether you believe their identification to be false doesn't change how they have identified themselves.

It's great bedtime reading. Sends you straight off to the land of nod 😴

Where's that don't engage with interruptions sign?

These are "dead cat on the table" arguments.

"Well, if someone displays behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with males, but wants to be referred to as female.
Should the BBC mis-gender them in that circumstance?"

Of course they should. Peoples individual values are subjective. Some may see reproductive characteristics as defining others not.

"That's nice. Maybe tomorrow you can write an article on Wikipedia that will overrule the Supreme Court and allow you into the ladies."

Seems like the people who complain about others being 'offended by reality' are now 'offended' by the dictionary….😂

"'Defining features' are decided by other people, not by the person being defined.They cannot possibly say what defines them in the eyes of others.
Only a self absorbed narcissist would say something like " Well, this is my defining feature""

Yes & no. Personally people decide their defining features. Socially there are gendered categorisations based archetypical associations to one sex. And For most of us in social situations where we don't know for sure the reproductive characteristics of a person we tend to assume sex based on those associations.
So in the practical sense, sex is usually categorised by stereotypes not reproductive characteristics. You do this yourself & unconsciously.

Views on what individuals see as a personal defining feature whether reproductive or social categorisations are entirely subjective. IE an opinion of which we all have a right to.

I hope you're amusing yourself, Dictionary Boy.
You might like to read the Supreme Court judgment in FWS v The Scottish Ministers. The reasoning is set out very clearly, so clearly that even the muppets at Translucent could understand it if they bothered to read it.

As opposed to the muppets that believe legal definitions supersede social definitions? 😂

"'Self determination' is not an absolute human right...it is liberal western construct. We all exist in the context of a culture and a society and also within a web of relations and obligations on which we are inter-dependent."

You could say that about all human rights. In any case here is HR's justification.

"Self-determined gender is a cornerstone of a person's identity. The resulting obligation of States is to provide access to gender recognition in a manner consistent with the rights to freedom from discrimination, equal protection of the law, privacy, identity and freedom of expression.
The lack of access to gender recognition negates the identity of a person to such an extent that it provokes a fundamental rupture of State obligations. Denying someone the legal recognition of their gender negatively impacts all aspects of their life: their right to health, to housing, to access social security, to freedom of movement and residence; and it also fuels discrimination, violence and exclusion in social settings, including educational and work environments."
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/ie-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/struggle-trans-and-gender-diverse-persons#:~:text=Self%2Ddetermined%20gender%20is%20a,including%20educational%20and%20work%20environments.