The BBC has changed its reporting guide on gender

[Charliethefeminist]

So I had a nosey after the Australian axe attacker was described as female, and partially corrected quite quickly after complaints. It used to prescribe self-identification of gender. Now it says this:

www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20130702112133564

www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20130702112133564

So it refers to biological sex and how reporters can refer to it. I have no idea how significant this is. Thoughts welcome.

"Use sex to refer to a person’s physical development ..."

...No.

Try again.

Isn't that right though? It's an implicit acknowledgement that you can't change sex.

Take care with the term 'sex change'. It should not be used as a general description for a transgender person?

Really? Is it too much biological reality or are we all wrong? These are not people attempting to appropriate the opposite sex? They're just playing and we can cheerfully refer to them by their birth sex?

I don't understand it. But why have they changed it? Are they under pressure?

It does seem to be slightly more biologically accurate (or am I misreading this?)

Maybe with them being a news organisation they've realised that they have to - you know - report the news rather than make up the world as they would like it to be? Just a thought...

It does seem like they're allowing small traces of accuracy to creep into their reporting.

it may be appropriate to refer to their previous identity to help the audience....

The point is that it is ALWAYS relevant when the person commits crimes, particularly crimes of violence, indecency and fraud.

It's only irrelevant on certain "human interest" stories, like winning the lottery, or finding treasure on your allotment. or having a parrot that sings like Beyonce.

These changes of course fly in the face of all the demands about 'deadnaming' - that act of literal violence?
Maybe the Karen Whites and Ian Huntleys have helped move the agenda to a more honest position? Maybe the activists grip on the throats of the media is loosening slightly?

The point is that it is ALWAYS relevant when the person commits crimes

Is it? What about a traffic collision?

(Deliberately playing devil's advocate here, to help my own thinking on this as much as anything)

What about a traffic collision?

What crime has been committed?

Olenna, my point of view is, reporting basic facts is meat and drink, age, name, sex, address, married, single, parent job etc. There's no point in saying 35 if they're 45, live in Leeds if theylive in London, work in a pub if they work in a factory, are a woman if they're a man. Just pointless.

Better to say 'driver' or 'motorist'

I think that it might be relevant in a traffic collision. Certainly if there is any evidence that male/female drivers have different risk profiles.

It does seem like they're allowing small traces of accuracy to creep into their reporting.

Quick! Make it stop!

I'd say it might still be relevant in a traffic collision: Women are more vulnerable to injury/death in accidents, and men are more likely to be the cause of serious accidents, and to be driving in a dangerous manner.

Use sex to refer to a person’s physical development and gender to describe how they identify themselves.

What is 'physical development'?

What if you don't have a gender identity?

How does any of this relate to the law?

Charlie - I do agree! I was just probing theotherPamAyres' suggestion that someone's trans status was always relevant when reporting a crime.

I agree that it always is when reporting a violent crime, sexual assault (especially rape), grooming, fraud etc. Ie serious public safety crimes, where it's important for society to know who has committed these so that they can take steps to keep themselves safe.

I was trying to think of a crime where physical size and strength doesn't matter, and where there isn't the same public interest in knowing who the individual is. If someone is charged with failing to stop at the scene of a collision (a criminal offence), I'm not sure what the public interest is in knowing that they are (or are not) trans.

As I say, thinking out loud

Yes I think we are violently agreeing - a lot of stuff gets reported that isn't relevant. It's just information. If it's not accurate, it's not information. So why include at all when it's wrong?

If it's a traffic incident I don't care if sex or gender identity. I definitely don't care if someone is a parent or grandparent but the media love to put that in as though people who have proven their fertility are more valued and need to have that recognised.
If someone is being assaulted or killed or doing the assaulting or killing then their sex matters

Well, hallelujah for avoiding the dreadful 'assigned male at birth' nonsense.

We can pick holes in it, but I reckon they're reasonable guidelines.

I thinks it's a big improvement on the previous unquestioning Pro self ID guidance.

We can point to these guidelines when we complain.

This is good. Clumsy wording. I’d expect better. I assume ‘physical development’ means they can use male-bodied?

Y it must do. They can hardly bring themselves to say it outright but they've given permission for reporters to refer to a trans person's biological sex.