Complaint to BBC

[Catiette]

I sent the complaint below to the BBC, and promised I'd post their response. It's comically disappointing, and has shifted me (more lurker than poster, cautious, & sensitive to how strongly both "sides" feel on this subject) from concerned to angry. If you have a complaints service, surely you have an obligation to read the submissions made to it, at least?! I'm trying to empathise with different perspectives and was quite genuinely interested in their response to my closing question.

The complaint:

"Long-term explicit bias on contended subject 

The inclusion of 2 trans-identified males in your list of 100 women is an explicit endorsement of what is, in reality, a contested political belief: that the word "woman" (and female and sex) should be redefined in law and day-to-day usage.

The Alison Bailey judgement of 2020 states that "belief on gender theory is a belief about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life, especially when reform of the law based on that belief may have significant practical consequences for women as currently defined in law" (commonslibrary.parliament.uk/employment-tribunal-rulings-on-gender-critical-beliefs-in-the-workplace/).

In the light of this, please would you explain how this decision corresponds to your guidelines on impartiality (www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/).

To pre-empt any disingenuous or facile suggestion that the proportion of 98 females to 2 trans figures upholds the standards outlined here (eg. "inclusive... broad perspective... range of views"), I would point out that the inclusion of ANY trans figures in a list of "women" must by definition align the titular "woman" with gender-based as opposed to sex-based identity.

By extension, this imposes this re-definition on each of the 98 females in the list (and also suggests that this is your perception of my own identity, as your reader). I do not share this view, perceiving my identity as a woman to be sex-based, and having no sense of a gender identity.

I support trans people and am genuinely pleased to see increasing recognition of their needs. However, could I suggest that a list of 100 transpeople would do more to value this marginalised group than an approach that, under the auspices of "inclusivity", actively denies members of another protected group, females, their own right to self-determination?

It took courage to send this. That, in itself, is frighteningly telling. Please do me justice in a meaningful response: how is this unbiased?"

The response:

"Thank you for getting in touch about the BBC’s 100 Women list for 2022.

Transgender women have previously been featured on the BBC 100 Women list many times, since the very first BBC 100 Women season was launched in 2013. The BBC 100 Women list also featured a transgender activist who identifies as non-binary in 2019.

Thank you once again for getting in touch.

Kind regards,

BBC Complaints Team"

It might have well said ‘pipe down’.

You have worded your complaint brilliantly.

Their response can be summarised as follows:

We are not going to engage with any of your points.
We do however point out that we have been doing that thing that you object to for several years now.

Just reread your letter as I like it so much. You even say 'long term'.

So their response is 'we neither acknowledge not deny the bias you describe but we do concede that it's long term'

Bias declared.

Fine. Then they should return the licence fee to those not members of their faith. Why should women fund this propaganda supporting their exclusion and oppression?

Their response doesn’t answer any of your complaint or questions. Just says they’ve been doing it for ages, as if that somehow makes it better.

Thwy’ve failed to deal adequately with the complaint.

It’s basically two fingers up at you, and a massive ‘fuck you bitch’.

Is there a procedure to complain about how they handled the complaint?

Presumably they thought just replying with 'whatever' would be too rude and dismissive.

Jesus that response is ridiculous. Not addressing any of your concerns, just basically sticking their tongue out and say 'ne ne, we've done it before - so there!' How fucking patronising and immature.

Featuring people in a category that don't belong there isn't fine and dandy, just because you've done it previously. They still don't belong there, or why bother having the specific category at all?

Thank you.

I didn't expect anything lengthy or detailed, but also not such outright dismissal! I really hope it's more a question of a poor overworked drone than censuring/censoring, but given that the "long-term" part was the actual heading - dutifully typed into their little "summarise your complaint in 50 characters" section - it's hard not to feel some disdain! And if so, then that kind of feels like ... well... bias!

I've sent a follow-up which repeats the initial concern, while making the points above. I gave my heading this time as "You didn't read my original complaint" - fairly direct, but also giving them the benefit of the doubt re: their motivation (I imagine they must get thousands of complaints each week...)

Brilliantly worded complaint OP. I wish I was half as eloquent as you.

Predictably hopeless response from the BBC.

They used a lot of words to say "fuck you" in their response. I'm not even disappointed, it's pretty much what I'd expect.

Your complaint was brilliant, are you going to follow up with them? I wouldn't be able to leave it alone. They've tried so hard not to engage I'd feel compelled to keep emailing just to piss them off.

Consider yourself lucky actually getting a response. I complained to the BBC a while back ( forgotten what I complained about!!) I didn't even get an acknowledgement!!

Good letter OP.

Unfortunately, this is the standard response. I wrote to Tesco, as did many people about their sponsorship of the Diva Lesbians when they included a male who is a campaigner for legalising extreme porn and made offensive comments victim blaming female eggshell skills as a Top 100 lesbian. They ignored the substance and sent a standard reply.

They will be told to keep in the script and I don’t think these days they even bother to send on to the respective teams responsible for the decisions.

I'm not surprised, Georgeskitchen and Helleofabore.

Nonetheless, I sent the follow-up below on a point of principle - this merits more than a second's cut-and-paste, and I'm still genuinely interested in an answer to my question (long-term feminist, wannabe freelancer, fascination with the media... and a growing sense of unease - not even so much that our rights seem to be crumbling around us as that questioning anything related to this, however indirectly or unintentionally so, can be met with such opprobrium: I want to hear a rational defence of these trends, to understand the thinking... just to know there IS some thinking... Please?)

"You didn't read my original complaint!

Re: (case number)

Your response to my carefully-worded query, which I clearly described as a concern about "long-term bias", was simply to assert that this bias has existed "since 2013". It would be hard to make it more obvious that you didn't actually read my complaint.

Such explicit dismissal of a well-intentioned, thoughtful query has compounded my nascent concern about systemic bias against a significant proportion of women. A more meaningful response would mean a lot to me.

From original complaint: 'Long-term explicit bias on contended subject ... The inclusion of 2 trans-identified males in your list of 100 women is an explicit endorsement of what is... a contested political belief: that the word "woman"... should be redefined in law and day-to-day usage... The Alison Bailey judgement of 2020 states that 'belief on gender theory is a belief about a... substantial aspect of human life, especially when reform of the law based on that belief may have significant practical consequences for women as currently defined in law'... To pre-empt any disingenuous or facile suggestion that the proportion of 98... to 2... upholds the standards outlined here (eg. 'inclusive... broad perspective... range of views'), I would point out that the inclusion of ANY trans figures in a list of 'women' must by definition align the titular 'woman' with gender-based as opposed to sex-based identity... I support trans people and am genuinely pleased to see increasing recognition of their needs [but your list] actively denies members of another protected group, females, their own right to self-determination... It took courage to send this.... Please do me justice in a meaningful response: how is this unbiased?'

Your response: 'Transgender women have previously been featured on the BBC 100 Women list many times, since the very first BBC 100 Women season was launched in 2013. The BBC 100 Women list also featured a transgender activist who identifies as non-binary in 2019.'"

Good for you! Keep at them!

I was just about to say that this is one for Step 3 of the Beeb's complaint process, but you've already done it. Good luck!

Well done op

If Ofcom any use or are they captured too?

They really don’t care that they treat women like this. Awful organisation. Have complained before and got similar. Mick Lynch was great on Radio 4 yesterday. He called the BBC out for not supporting the working class and their lack of impartiality.

The inclusion of 2 trans-identified males in your list of 100 women is an explicit endorsement of what is, in reality, a contested political belief: that the word "woman" (and female and sex) should be redefined in law and day-to-day usage

Point taken, but it’s a political list. There are 25 activists including a Palestinian activist , climate activist and campaigners against gender-based violence. Why is the BBC endorsing these political campaigns?

I'd be tempted to say that they used to broadcast the Black and White Minstrel Show but presumably have seen the error of past decisions.

Making a bad decision in the past doesn't excuse making bad decisions now.

Your complaints are both excellent. Well done for repeating the challenge.

Keep at it, OP. The BBC has issues with impartiality. I'm 100% behind the idea of an even-handed national broadcaster but ours is sliding towards 'not fit for purpose '.

I understand your anger. It sounds like a standard response. I understand Stonewall have a strong influence on the BBC. There’s even a podcast from the NIBBC “Nolan Investigated” covering these issues of gender identity. (Available in BBC Sounds).
I think you have done brilliantly by posting a complain. they probably need to g ey millions more, or a petition should be made to the government. After all the BBC is funded with our taxes.
I haven’t looked at the list myself, but I understand that not even the queen made it to the list?