Press Council rules Daily Mail must not report that woman accused of domestic violence killing is transgender because it is 'irrelevant'

[QuietContraryMary]

"The Council considers that it was not relevant to the alleged criminal acts reported to identify the woman as being transgender. Although it provided some further identification of the woman, it was not necessary to do so. The Council considers that as being transgender was not relevant to the alleged criminality, prominently identifying the woman as transgender in the headline and again in the article could contribute to substantial prejudice towards transgender people."

www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/adj-1756/

Notes:

• This is the Press Council Australia though such 'logic' pervades the Western world
• The charges were subsequently dropped but at the time the tw was suspected of killing a man in a 'domestic incident' after breaking in. Domestic violence.
• The Press Council says that it is no more relevant that the 'woman' is 'transgender' than say 'white', so it should not be mentioned.
• This is odd, because what about the inconvenient fact that most crime is committed by men. Should we not also censor that because it might excite prejudice against men?
• Moreover in the context of a man being killed there's a very significantly difference in strength between a biologically male suspect and a biologically female one. No such differences pertain to say religion or race.
• One for the 'Daily Mail lies' ploppers I think. Daily Mail reported facts, and they were told not to.

This is odd, because what about the inconvenient fact that most crime is committed by men. Should we not also censor that because it might excite prejudice against men?
Moreover in the context of a man being killed there's a very significantly difference in strength between a biologically male suspect and a biologically female one. No such differences pertain to say religion or race.

Men, especially men in power, are really intent on telling us all that women are never, in any way, oppressed by men, aren't they?

Although it provided some further identification of the woman, it was not necessary to do so. The Council considers that as being transgender was not relevant to the alleged criminality,

This is so false it makes me angry.
The SEX of the perpetrator/alleged perpetrator is highly relevant.

-identification/provision of further information by the public (I've seen reports of male criminals where they show both "woman" and "man" pictures so they can remain vigilant, and maybe someone knows something important they need to share with police about a person's past before they transitioned)
-it might be that the victim or their family perceives that perpetrator as a man, and they should have the right to their reality being described

• MtF trans people retain male-pattern violence, AFAIK, and we should be kept aware of that

-female crime statistics will be skewed completely unless a distinction based on sex is made -the news should not be in the business of gaslighting their audience

I agree, sex is relevant. The crime needs to be recorded and reported as being committed by a male transgender person because otherwise the implications is that it has been committed by female person. And that simply isn't true.

It is relevant, though, isn't it? Both to catching criminal for whom the police are providing a description and to crime statistics.

This is really concerning. There isn’t always a picture of the criminal. If they just use the female name and she/her pronouns we can’t know.

I tend to think the transgender status is irrelevant, but that is not what is being said The sex of the perpetrator is generally relevent, so in this case the DM should simply have reported them as "male" rather than "transgender woman".

Having said that if there is clear evidence that a male who identifies as transgender is more likely to commit crime than a male who does not, then yes transgender status may be relevant.

Well if a woman commits a crime, I, for one, want to know if it was a male woman or a female woman. Because they are two discrete groups. It's relevant to me.

Aale woman should be simply reported as "male" imo

A male

Pointing out male violence is pretty important

The OP refers to Australia, but systems are not so different in the UK, perhaps.
E.g. in the UK, we have the UK prison system accepting that the man calling himself Karen White, despite being a rapist, was actually a woman, and was placed in a women's prison. And promptly went on to sexually abuse women who were locked in with him.

Yes indeed, pointing out male violence is pretty important. Especially when it is carried out by a man (regardless of his self-identity), and not a woman.

Otherwise, women are getting libellously recorded as being responsible for male-pattern crimes committed by men.

How about just reporting that they are a 'person' and not lying and misleading by calling a male a woman, if sex is not relevant?
Allow people to correctly picture exactly what sex that 'person' is, in all probability.

And then they'll be reporting on women becoming more violent. Using false statistics.

In the furore following the phone-hacking scandal I was all for regulation of the press by a body with strong powers to make the press stop misbehaving.

Since I became interested in the rise of the gender identity ideology, I realised that having a strong press regulator, which no doubt would end up with its own agendas and willingness to play politics (after all, who thought the Conservatives would have tried to put self-ID into law?) is a bad idea. If the kind of regulator I was thinking of had been put in place, The Times would have been silenced in its reporting and opinion pieces over the past year or so.

I hope we end up in a situation where a crime committed by a trans woman is recorded correctly, as being committed by a trans woman. Then people know the truth.

I think an outcome of this ruling might be that everyone who reads such a story will just assume that any report of a woman committing a violent crime is transgender. This could backfire against transgendered people.

If the sex of a person is not relevant then why aren't they simply called the person? By saying that a male should be called a woman they are saying it IS relevant. But the ideological rather than biological reality descriptor should be used.

The need is for male pattern abuse and violence to be identified.

Its a diversion to focus on whether a person is transgender as there are both males and females who identify as trans.

Apparently it was actually not only the DM but also Nine News, that were told not report facts because people might be offended by them

www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/adj-1755/

Separately - and you'll laugh, I know you will - the very same Press Council has been taken to a human rights tribunal by a transgender lobby group for being biased AGAINST transgender people. twitter.com/australian/status/1092908753110863872

So in other words:

1. TRAs submit complaints to Press Council to censor all inconvenient facts
2. TRAs submit complaints about Press Council being transphobic in order that the Press Council becomes even more aggressive in censoring things that TRAs don't want people to be told.
3. TRAs ensure that 'reality' is exactly what they say it is. Black is white. Love is hate. And if you don't agree there are some human rights complaints, civil actions, policemen, etc, to shut you up.

This is why I absolutely refuse to put a gap in the word transwoman. Trans is not an adjective because an adjective has to be attached to an appropriate noun and “woman” is not an appropriate noun.

I feel we need to resist any attempts to use “transgendered woman” or any other such slippery attempts to try to force us to imply that woman is appropriate here. The only transgendered woman is a transman.

nauticant

I agree completely. I’ve had a similar process of reflection and mind changing about quite a few things I thought were good over the last 18m or so. It’s been an interesting and disquieting process and it’s lead me to question my politics and views on a lot of stuff.

This is why I absolutely refuse to put a gap in the word transwoman. Trans is not an adjective because an adjective has to be attached to an appropriate noun and “woman” is not an appropriate noun.

I feel we need to resist any attempts to use “transgendered woman” or any other such slippery attempts to try to force us to imply that woman is appropriate here. The only transgendered woman is a transman.

This. But it's why I personally refuse to call them any sort of woman at all, because it props up the whole web of lies that is gender identity ideology. I believe it's brought us to where we are today. People will do what's right for them of course, but it's so liberating not to play along, as far as humanly possible.

Its gaslighting.

nauticant and babelfish I haven't entirely change my view about the accountability of the press. I think there should be more of a distinction between what is 'speech' or 'expression' and what is simply exploitation and abuse, otherwise complete freedom just leads to a race to the bottom to increase sales. I really don't want to move through a world surrounded by hardcore porn and rotting heads on spikes.

Yet in practice self-centred, inhumane perverted men seem to have all the excess time and money to devote to getting to the heart of regulatory bodies and centres of power (because women are stuck doing the majority of the cleaning, catering, clerical and caring labour or are busy coping with and recovering from the pain, shame and humiliation of living under male dominance), so these men will eventually take over anything set out to even up imbalances of power, then use it to widen inequalities.

It is vital to have a thriving feminist movement with women alert to these take over attempts.

The power of TRA groups on the media and cross party MPs is extraordinary.

See James Kirkup on Home Affairs enquiry into hate crime:
(extract)
"The other column that [Stephen Doughty MP] was so interested in also concerned children. In particular, he was struck by the Times’ headline using the phrase “trans lobby”. This, for reference, was on a column that argued that a number of changes in policy and convention are being made at the urging of groups advocating things that they say would benefit transgender people which, the columnist suggested, were not in the best interests of children. “You will understand why that is a particular concern, given the previous use of “gay lobby”, “Jewish lobby” and all of those sorts of things,” Doughty said. “Do you think the use of the phrase “trans lobby” is an appropriate one?”

As it happens, Dr Carmichael in her lecture said some things that seem relevant here:

“Gender has become amazingly topical and we have to be really careful not to assume that anyone is exploring or questioning their gender is going to want to change their bodies in line with that. The extremes on either side are not helpful. We need to look at the grey areas in between. To do that we need to be able to talk and discuss these issues. All too often stakeholders become lobby groups.”

She did not name any stakeholder. But her words might be relevant to a charity called Mermaids. Mermaids is a charity that describes itself as “a support group for children and young people with gender dysphoria and their families”. Its CEO, Susie Green describes herself as “parent to a daughter who was born male.” Mermaids is a relatively small charity (it had income of £127,000 in the year to March 2017) with a big reach. It has prominent backers and its advice and recommendations have been absorbed and adopted by many public bodies." (continues)

concludes:
"[Stephen Doughty MP], meanwhile, describes as “extreme” and “hate material” an article which observes that some people lobbying for changes in the name of transgender people are advocating things that might not be in the best interests of children. I have never met Doughty but have generally heard good things about him from colleagues: bright, committed, thoughtful and so on. So I must assume that he was having an off day when the committee met last week. It happens to us all, after all.

Surely a bright, thoughtful chap like him didn’t mean to imply that it was his job as Member of Parliament to tell newspapers what they can and cannot write? Surely he had no intention of acting as if it is in any way appropriate for a politician to decide what is and is not acceptable for journalists to say, and how they say it? And I can only hope that it was by a simple accident that he singled out by name a female journalist and suggested that her employers stop her saying the things that she thinks – because Doughty happens not to like her saying those things?

As I say, I must assume that he meant none of these things, that he had no such moronic and bullying intent when he spoke and acted as he did. I assume that Doughty is an honourable politician determined to do his job in a democracy and ensure that matters of public policy are debated fully and honestly, whether or not some people find such debate offensive. Because, as I am sure Doughty knows, there is no right not be offended and if we ever let hurt feelings stop us discussing matters of public interest on the basis of the facts, everyone loses."

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/why-are-some-mps-trying-to-shut-down-the-transgender-debate/