SEEN in Journalism: The BBC and preferred pronouns

You've flipped back to "sex" not "gender" here.

When you say "the argument that men are more prone to violence" that's people of the male sex, not anyone who identifies as a man.

That's a gender critical argument that women need private spaces away from people of the male sex, not people with a male gender.

We don't need to examine behaviour:

Of course you don't because facts are inconvenient to your 'belief' narrative.

Name and pronoun usage doesn't have to mean you're agreeing with their belief. It might just be a courtesy.

I agree here. It's courtesy like using someone's preferred nick name than name.

It can cause practical problems (passim) but in the end that might be worth it, because trans people really shouldn't be entitled to anything else (ie not cross-sex sex-based rights, and not the right to conceal their sex) so this - a mostly harmless social convention - and some anti-discrimination law might be all they end up with.

Kinda implicates everyone as undeserving given self determination is a human right…

So, as the people in these articles look male and there is no evidence that they have any personality traits associated with women, their gender is masculine.

Good to have cleared that up. Will inform the BBC.

...aaaaaand the gendered behaviour is back in the room.

We don't need to examine behaviour: this is purely about belief. And it's a very unusual belief system because it relates, not just to external reality, but to the nature of humans themselves.

Unless you're an air-traffic controller, it's easy to accommodate flat-earthers. Not so when you encounter someone who thinks they are the opposite of their actual sex.

Name and pronoun usage doesn't have to mean you're agreeing with their belief. It might just be a courtesy. It can cause practical problems (passim) but in the end that might be worth it, because trans people really shouldn't be entitled to anything else (ie not cross-sex sex-based rights, and not the right to conceal their sex) so this - a mostly harmless social convention - and some anti-discrimination law might be all they end up with.

What I would like to know is, do our visiting TAs have a rota (ok Bob you’re on Mumsnet on Tuesday, let’s see some good misogynistic chiding there; Alan you’re on all of next week, can your mum get you some more takeaway pizzas? Nah, don’t worry about washing) or is there just one of them who occasionally changes names? I think just one. They’ve all got the same bow-before-my-idiotic-and-incoherent-argument-women approach, none of them can present decent evidence and none seem to have any critical thinking skills.

OK let’s take you seriously. This is what you think should be respected in pronoun choice, and this should be done neutrally:
"The behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
So, would you say that mass shootings and a desire to murder (behavioural and psychological traits) are more typically associated with the male or female sex, in modern US culture?
So what gender is the killer?

One behavioural trait doesn't make up total personality. It's also up to the individual whether they consider their sex or gender a defining feature.

"I'm really glad that we are getting to the nub of the issue. Gender identity is just personality traits. Got there in the end."

Gender identity is a consequence of personality traits. Trans people don't make the rules on gendered associations to sex, wider society does. You do this yourself routinely in your day to day social interactions where you categorise sex based on archetypical gendered associations not reproductive traits in practice because you usually don't know what they are. Hence gender being a social construct. IE social categorisation.

OK let’s take you seriously. This is what you think a policy that neutrally seeks to correctly-gender people should be looking to as the test:

"The behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"

So, would you say that mass shootings and a desire to murder (behavioural and psychological traits) are more typically associated with the male or female sex, in modern US culture?

So what gender is the killer?

Although going back to the people in the articles mentioned, there is no evidence that they have any personality traits that don't conform to gendered expectations of their sex.

I'm really glad that we are getting to the nub of the issue. Gender identity is just personality traits. Got there in the end.

"I think the difference is between reporting somebody's belief and reporting a belief as though it is true."

Personality traits that produce gendered behaviours aren't a belief. The are a biological fact.

Are you suggesting your personality traits aren't 'real'? They only exist insofar as you believe them to?

I think the difference is between reporting somebody's belief and reporting a belief as though it is true.

"Jane believes that she has been saved by Christ and will therefore go to heaven" - reporting of a neutral fact
"Jane has been saved by Christ and will therefore go to heaven" - not reporting of a neutral fact.

There is added confusion when reporting on sex and gender using preferred pronouns, because it's not clear what is being referenced. Whether or not we find that irritating, sometimes that has no impact on the story, but in situations like those referenced on this thread, it obscures information in a way that makes the story unintelligible.

Are you disputing there are very real behaviours cultural, or psychological traits that aren't associated with one sex?
Whether or not you argue that particular behaviours are associated with a sex (and differences in crime statistics suggest that some are), it does not mean that somebody who exhibits those behaviours is the opposite sex. It just shows that some characteristics are more common in one sex than the other. I'm sure this isn't the first time that this has been explained to you. See also height.
Just because something changes over time doesn't mean its not a fact.
I think you have outdone yourself there. This makes so little sense that I have no reply.

No one is suggesting trans people are the opposite sex because they exhibit their behaviours. Rather their gender identity identifies with the opposite sex. I'm sure this isn't the first time that this has been explained to you.

Just because something changes over time doesn't mean its not a fact.
I think you have outdone yourself there. This makes so little sense that I have no reply.

Is male violence not a fact then? Still waiting…

I really feel as though I'm arguing a certain person's position better than they are, even though I don't agree with them!

Gender norms and gender identity are two different things.

Are you disputing there are very real behaviours cultural, or psychological traits that aren't associated with one sex?

Whether or not you argue that particular behaviours are associated with a sex (and differences in crime statistics suggest that some are), it does not mean that somebody who exhibits those behaviours is the opposite sex. It just shows that some characteristics are more common in one sex than the other. I'm sure this isn't the first time that this has been explained to you. See also height.

Just because something changes over time doesn't mean its not a fact.

I think you have outdone yourself there. This makes so little sense that I have no reply.

Culturally contingent gender norms are quite varied, as is the degree of conformity to them. But gender identity is a neutral measure, insofar as it can be ascertained by asking the individual concerned.

The problem is that it's not very useful. It really only tells us whether they believe in gender ideology, and whether they are more than usually likely to defy gender norms for their sex (even that isn't a given!) or to have certain medical treatments.

Again nobody is 'respecting' sex, when they report it.

You could say the same about gender.

However, gender is not a 'neutral fact'. It is socially constructed and not constant.

You are confused. Just because something changes over time doesn't mean its not a fact.

Are you disputing there are very real behaviours cultural, or psychological traits that aren't associated with one sex?

Because if you are that's contradictory to the argument that men are more prone to violence hence a need for women's private spaces.

'

Again nobody is 'respecting' sex, when they report it.

However, gender is not a 'neutral fact'. It is socially constructed and not constant.

World Health Organization:

"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."

It would be the belief that a woman should not be able to vote on equal terms with men (UK, till less than 100 years ago), that a woman should not be able to leave the house (Afghanistan, now) or that football is a boy's sport (UK) or a girl's sport (US) or that boys should wear pink (until mid twentieth century) or pink is only for girls (late twentieth century to present).

FWS covered quite a lot more than Schedule 3 part 7 (service providers) as you very well know. Otherwise, I find myself in agreement with you for once, somewhat to my astonishment.

Media can use whatever names and pronouns they wish. Using cross-sex names and pronouns can undermine understanding, though, particularly since a) people sometimes 'detransition' (like the male victim in the headlined story, and b) when snippets of news stories are quoted, some information gets lost.

Nor do I agree with @Merrymouse about editorial flexibility, which could also undermine understanding overall, and in any case only ever gets used in practice to try to portray trans people in the best possible light.

My preference would be eg:

TW charged with crime X: Rosie, who is a TW (previously known as Dave, he was born male, but now claims to have a female gender identity) was arrested, etc, etc (he/him throughout)....

or (less preferred)

TW charged with crime X: Rosie charged with crime X. Rosie is a TW (previously known as Dave, he was born male, but now claims to have a female gender identity) and we will follow the social convention of using 'she/her' pronouns for him throughout this report. Rosie was arrested, etc, etc (she/her throughout, bonus points for juxtaposing them with the word 'penis' as often as possible)....

But, pick a lane. Don't flip-flop.

Sex is not an identity. It's as neutral a fact as age or blood type. Reporting a murderer's sex is neither a sign of respect nor disrespect.

That sex is not an identity is irrelevant. There's no special command that sex must be respected & gender identity shouldn't. Gender is also a 'neutral' fact see definition of Gegnder 2(b):

"The behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"

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

Sex is not an identity. It's as neutral a fact as age or blood type. Reporting a murderer's sex is neither a sign of respect nor disrespect.

"Please do explain how they are respecting the identities and preferences of these 'CIS' murderers."

Um, by using correct pronouns & not misgendering them.

Please do explain how they are respecting the identities and preferences of these 'CIS' murderers.

Not clear how you think trans people are helped by the BBC's dogged determination to respect the identities and preferences of murderers.

Given they 'respect' the identities & preferences of CIS murderers, consistency seems to make sense except of course for raging bigots…