BBC misgendering in article about "Staying warm: What does an unheated room do to your body?"

[howmanybicycles]

The article says that the body works hard to keep the core at 37C and describes a number of ways our bodies do this. It's written from the perspective of a male bodied person Then it says that "this would happen even more quickly if I were a different gender".

But what is their evidence that if a person had the same body but a different gender identity, this would happen more quickly? Or that it would not happen quicker for me because despite having a female body, like most adult human females, I don't identify as a woman.

Should we be calling out the BBC on their inconsistent use of the term gender? Would that help them see the damage they do when they use it in ways which woman find offensive?

Ya think?

Try Neptunian gender. I imagine that Neptune would be very cold so maybe you would find today steaming hot.

Didn't we have a poster who was Neptunian gender? Maybe they can come back and explain.

I've even tried putting on an Elsa dress and putting Olaf on my gas bill.

Nothing.

Its baffling.

The mention of 'another gender' makes this article quite unclear.

You seem to be making an assumption here, however, this language lacks any precision to draw the conclusion that you have given the current use of language that a journalist and editorial team use. And the BBC has pushed the use of 'gender' to mean gender identity rather than sex, so while you might find it self explanatory, it really isn't given the background.

James doesn't mention what gender they are so how are we supposed to know which one they aren't?

'If I were a different gender' is weirdly worded and unclear. Which genders might the author mean? How many genders are there and how do they affect how our bodies feel the cold?

'If I were female' or 'if I were a woman' or 'if I was the opposite sex' or even 'if I was the opposite gender'. Any of that would clearly mean that the author is discussing biological sex.

But the BBC is using coded, genderwoke language even in a scientific article. One that wants to make a point about how biological sex impacts your reaction to cold temperatures. But can't, because the BBC has rendered the key words verboten or meaningless.

CAn you explain what you mean what you mean by that? What is complicated and how do you think it is OP making it so?

I understand the article written by James Gallagher and find it a interesting.

I don't unfortunately understand the issues raised by the op

James doesn't mention what gender they are so how are we supposed to know which one they aren't?

Hmm, I'm going to guess male!? Clues are in his name, his photos....!

You don't understand them? Did it occur to you then that perhaps the issue is that you don't understand them, rather than that OP was in the wrong somehow?

I identify as a genius. Does that mean I get colder more quickly or more slowly?

But that is the point, isn't it? You're not supposed to assume James is a male name, or that James physical appearance is male. Perhaps James identifies as female? OR non-binary. Or as bigender. OR agender. OR gender fluid.

You're not supposed to assume James is a male name, or that James physical appearance is male.

But why not ?

I've literally just told you why not.

I thought the whole article was a bit misleading. If the temperature falls in the home, you wear more clothes, not the open shirt and shorts like he is wearing to measure the awful effects of the cold. An unheated room only does that to your body if you're not taking precautions. (My home is around 14C tonight, and I'm perfectly fine, because I'm wearing plenty of clothes. Obviously, I don't think it's ideal.)

www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/this-transgender-woman-has-a-full-beard-and-she-couldnt-be-h Here is Alex Drummond. One might be forgiven for assuming this person is a man. Now take James, in the article. Some people have assumed this is a man, they present as typically male but we cannot be sure, without being told, now, can we?

Omg sorry THEY.

James doesn't tell us so how can we know what the other gender is?!

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints

Like a previous poster, I’ve also complained about their confusing use of language in this article. #sexnotgender

If anyone else is irritated please use the link above to complain too.

Because that's transphobic and literal violence.

Christ, what a twat.

"If all you ever see is trans women who completely pass and are completely convincing as natal females, then those of us who just don't have that kind of luck won't have the confidence to come out."

Are there ANY transwomen who completely pass and are convincing? Vanishingly small number. The delusion is strong.

Also: ""I'm widening the bandwidth of how to be a woman." By having a penis and a beard and XY chromosomes?

Yes.
Also given than James is sometimes used as a female name it would be helpful for them to specify if they are going to relate to another gender.

Of course they don't. They are a woman. And they know it. I have brown hair. I don't identify as a brunette, I am one. Yeah I read the article. Its rubbish. It basically says that a man who identified as a woman would get cold quicker. It needs to say 'someone of a different sex' or 'a woman'.

You can click through to his twitter account from the article. When I looked yesterday, a few people had commented on him not understanding the difference between sex and gender. They also noted the fact that the whole experiment was shit really as he was wearing shorts and a t-shirt, when most people would put a jumper on of it was 10 degrees.

I’m going to identify as a man for the next 3 months to keep a bit warmer. Great tip.

Gender means sex. It always has.

it also means masculine feminine etc when used in the context of a language eg French.

By taking this stance and going along with a new merged definition of sex and feelings you are buying into the narrative and allowing the term to be redefined.

this journalist has used it to mean sex in the way that most of the population has used it for centuries. That’s a good thing, not a bad thing