Trans Journalists Association Style Guide- what can/cannot be said

[Winesalot]

I have linked an archive link so I hope it works.

This is where the state of journalism ‘should be’ in the eyes of this association. I can see a lot of areas that are problematic here.

• don’t mention criminal history unless transperson agrees to have it released
• don’t dead name or ask previous names (mmmm... way to hide said past transgressions)
• don’t mention women unless it means transwomen as well
• don’t even say ‘identifies as’ just say ‘is’
• and don’t give a platform to terfs, truscum (I hate that word) or trans medievalists.
• don’t give misinformation about sports (ummm.... there is plenty of peer reviewed information that proves there IS issues but they say ignore it)
• don’t give emphasis on detransistioning

If you talk to terfs never call them feminists.

There is so much wrong here. There are some relevant points too that would apply when talking about anyone else. I have to pop out but thought to quickly put this up for those who may not have seen it.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200705235423/transjournalists.org/style-guide/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20200705235423/transjournalists.org/style-guide/

many stories about trans youth focus on their bodies and medical care (i.e. puberty blockers, binders, hormones, etc.) and highlight the risks of transition-related care. This contributes to a hyper-focus on trans bodies and medical care.

ummmmm...... no. It shines the light on safeguarding, and the fact that there is a narrative that says that there is no health issues relating to this care . (ie. puberty blocker, binders, hormones, etc.) So, what this group is saying is to continue to hide these risks so parents and children don't get accurate information or see warnings that there are problems.

The more I read this guide, the more I think it must be the opposite to what journalism is actually supposed to be. I'd believe it was satirical if I had not seen with my own eyes the 'phobic' claims levelled at any one questioning all these aspects.

What the hell is a trans mediaevalist?!

Can we find similar guides for writing about other protected groups? Disabled people perhaps? Or people belonging to certain religions?

Would be interesting to compare and contrast and also to find out how wide spread this kind of instruction is?

What the hell is a trans mediaevalist?!

My auto correct error. But it has brought a note of levity to the thread.

Hah I thought it was an actual thing! Nothing surprises me about this topic any more!

@Beamur

*If you talk to terfs never call them feminists But terf stands for trans exclusionary radical feminist...Pfft. Idiots.*

This made me laugh. DOH!

I was thinking how does this work

But then i remembered that whole articles can be written about women without actually saying women...

So......

The idea of not bringing up past crimes is an interesting one; women who have committed crimes never escape.

There’s an Australian women who featured in the Underbelly TV series. In 1994 she applied to join the police academy but was later expelled for not disclosing her past as a prostitute. I don’t think there’s been a news item about her since, which hasn’t referred to her as an ex-prostitute, even though its been a quarter of a century. Is it different for women then?

Given that many of the transwomen with criminal convictions seem to have them for violent crimes or sexual assault, it’s sinister to insist that no mention be made of past crimes.

What sort of medical care do non binary people need? Do they get blue hair dye and septum piercings on the NHS?

They can fuck the fuck off to the far side of fuck and when they get there fuck off some more.

I don’t know why I’m bothering to ask this question because the answer is always “there’s no logic to this batshittery” but ask anyway. Take this section:

writing about someone in the past

Use someone’s current name and pronouns when writing about that person in the past, unless they tell you differently.

If someone wanted to a film biography of someone famous, say Caitlyn Jenner, does this mean that the film makers would have to refer to Jenner as Caitlyn while covering the section on winning gold at the Olympics, unless Jenner gave permission otherwise?

And in contrast, why is it, that people who are dead are having their pronouns decided for them when they aren’t alive to advise what they are, and that’s ok?

If someone wanted to a film biography of someone famous, say Caitlyn Jenner, does this mean that the film makers would have to refer to Jenner as Caitlyn while covering the section on winning gold at the Olympics, unless Jenner gave permission otherwise?

I guess so. And you would normally, I guess, with a clarifying they won this gold as whatever name they used on the Olympic records so people can reference it themselves. It does get murky.

@SunsetBeetch

What sort of medical care do non binary people need? Do they get blue hair dye and septum piercings on the NHS?

Sadly, these days the female NB people seem to want double mastectomy (and sometimes low dose testosterone) and the male NB people (less common than female NBs) want oestrogen for softer skin and breasts and hair removal (and sometimes Adam’s apple shaving or vocal chord surgery).

There are even NB options for genital surgery - don’t google ‘penile preservation vaginoplasty’ unless you are absolutely sure you want to see it!

And in contrast, why is it, that people who are dead are having their pronouns decided for them when they aren’t alive to advise what they are, and that’s ok?

I agree that this is being done far too much. I think that activist groups take far too many liberties when they rewrite people's history after that person has died. It is like Dr James Barry/ Margaret Bulkley 's history is being claimed by the transgender community.

This 'style guide' does however explain just why so many people feel confident at firing off the 'phobic' claims. It reinforces that anything that does not enthusiastically affirm the trans narrative is completely hateful and phobic even when the questions are completely relevant and should be asked for the benefit of all people such as: health, women's rights, sports etc. It simply reinforces the no debate crack down.

That is insane. I understand trans: being one sex but feeling like you should be other: but feeling like something that doesn't actually exist in nature? How is that allowed? Seems like we're getting very close to transhumanism.

I only wish disabled people had such powerful advocates in the media or elsewhere.

Having said that I do think you have a right to be wrong and people who would otherwise treat you well might use the ‘wrong’ language. While I would like to be treated better I want it to come from a place of empathy not fear.

I also think the most chilling aspect of this is silencing trans people who don’t agree with them.

mobile.twitter.com/Ayishat_Akanbi/status/1279934982258135041

If someone wanted to a film biography of someone famous, say Caitlyn Jenner, does this mean that the film makers would have to refer to Jenner as Caitlyn while covering the section on winning gold at the Olympics, unless Jenner gave permission otherwise?

I am wondering if Caitlyn would have to be played by a trans actress throughout all her decathlon years.

I do think you have a right to be wrong and people who would otherwise treat you well might use the ‘wrong’ language. While I would like to be treated better I want it to come from a place of empathy not fear.

I don't think that you will find many dissenters to your thinking here. And yes, if only people with disabilities had this power.

How incredibly presumptuous--"don't interview anyone who disagrees with me."

From the guidance: Is at least one of those transgender people not a white transgender woman?

Many diversity guides ask something along the lines of "is at least one of those panellists not a white man?" or other wording intended to highlight a need for colour and sex diversity. This reference to "white transgender woman" as non-diverse "default" trans person equivalent to "white man" in other contexts is a very revealing admission about whether the authors of this document actually believe that TWAW. Normally, we'd jump to have more women's voices, right?

They define it as Transmedicalists are a fringe part of the trans community who believe that experiencing gender dysphoria and seeking gender-affirming medical care is a prerequisite of being trans.

The 'trans umbrella' has done a huge diservice to the transexual people it is supposed to protect. This is the biggest hypocracy of the whole movement.

The whole, don't discuss detransitioners makes me think of Scientology.

Its very sinister.

The 'trans umbrella' has done a huge diservice to the transexual people it is supposed to protect. particularly since this guide also mentions don’t give a platform to ‘truscum’ which is the vile name they give to transsexuals who disagree with them.