Inaccurate BBC story - Trans identified male

[WineIsMyCarb]

Bbc Sussex has described trans identified male murderer as 'woman' throughout story, with no reference at all to his sex or trans identity.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp00de3r3qro

If you wish to complain about this inaccurate reporting of a male's violent crime, the bbc's complaints link is here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints

😂😂😂

I was worried about the speculation on the thread after the recent mistake a poster made in missexing someone, but I guess if the DM has said this person is a transwoman, they must have some evidence.

Plus this person has photos accessible on their FB and, well….

I've sent various courteous, thoughtful complaints, and have been fobbed off with responses ranging from the rudely dismissive to the totally indifferent (often to the content of my complaint!) And then there was Scarlet Blake. And now this.

I feel almost sick with distress that the BBC does this. It's utterly demeaning and downright dangerous. It's also undemocratic.

I'm losing patience. Could I suggest a new tack?

Dear BBC Complaints,

Many women remain undecided how to vote in the General Election. The deciding issue for us is how our legal and political rights may be affected by a change in government.

In order to judge whether or not we agree with Labour's stance that transwomen should be accommodated in a majority of single-sex spaces, it is necessary for us to know whether trans women tend to follow male or female patterns of violence and sexual violence.

As our national broadcaster, with a mandate to report facts accurately, please would you clarify that the individual in the above report is a transwoman. This provides the nation with information necessary to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, while using terminology that is respectful both to the individual in question and all of your readers.

If this is not editorial policy, please would you explain why, with explicit reference to your mandate to inform the public and thereby enable our democracy to function in a genuinely inclusive way.

I would be especially interested in the rationale behind your policy to favour the self-descriptor 'woman' over the impartial and unambiguous term 'trans woman'. Unlike 'woman', the latter respects all parties: the individual in question, women who wish to retain a collective noun for their sex class, and other readers struggling to follow the current debate and undecided how to vote.

Best wishes,

Catiette

There is nothing impartial, unambiguous, precise or accurate about the term 'transwoman'.

But it is at least more honest than using the term 'woman' to describe a male person.

Using the word "transwoman" is a political statement that is short of total capitulation to the TRA cause. They want you to write "trans woman" as two separate words because this is required by TWAW beliefs, whereas "transwoman" implies TWANRW. So even speaking the unspoken truth that this perpetrator is trans requires a decision about whether to put the space in the middle.

Don't I know it!

One of things that upset me writing the above was fully recognising that, in all my (probably perceived as in some way bigotted) emails, I'm actually STILL making strategic concessions: anticipating they may dismiss anything else as 'phobic' or ill-intentioned, I offer the olive branch of transwomen (and am prepared to do so in my own daily life, though I'm increasingly reluctant to do the same with pronouns almost entirely BECAUSE of the liberties the BBC & police etc. have taken - nice work, both, in hardening my natural left-wing tolerance into cynical wariness). Like pronouns, transwomen itself is still potentially offensive and materially damaging to so many women and our rights. It's in itself an an indication of our collective generosity in letting it become mainstream in the first place - because now, we belatedly realise, it was a linguistic step towards giving up our spaces and our very name.

Ironies pile on ironies pile on ironies in this debate.

Edited to reply to both of the above.

@JellySaurus - don't I know it!

One of things that upset me writing the above was fully recognising that, in all my (probably perceived as in some way bigotted) emails, I'm actually STILL making strategic concessions: anticipating they may dismiss anything else as 'phobic' or ill-intentioned, I offer the olive branch of transwomen (and am prepared to do so in my own daily life, though I'm increasingly reluctant to do the same with pronouns almost entirely BECAUSE of the liberties the BBC & police etc. have taken - nice work, both, in hardening my natural left-wing tolerance into cynical wariness). Like pronouns, transwomen itself is still potentially offensive and materially damaging to so many women and our rights. It's in itself an an indication of our collective generosity in letting it become mainstream in the first place - because now, we belatedly realise, it was a linguistic step towards giving up our spaces and our very name.

Ironies pile on ironies pile on ironies in this debate.

@OpusGiemuJavlo - yup.

You'll see I use both in the above. Couldn't decide between strategic use of the term they approve and I DO find personally offensive - the space - or the term I choose to accept without it, itself a generous concession in the current context.

The worst of all these ironies is: I think the BBC has been second only to these fora in peaking me - its readiness to lie to the population at women's expense, and then defend doing so publicly as an implied moral good, has terrifed and infuriated me in equal measure.

In reply to OldCrone · Today 07:34
'The Daily Mail seems to be the only paper covering this story which mentions that this 'woman' is actually a man.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13480347/Trans-woman-70-appears-court-accused-murdering-husband-samurai-sword.html

I believe “Trans woman” is also misleading and confusing. It contains the word woman because and is either not understood or misunderstood by a lot of people.

It is terrible that this dreadful crime will be included in statistics as a crime committed by a female, and there have been quite a few lately. Even the police, while appealing for witnesses, seem to describe the alleged offenders as 'women' when they are men identifying as women. So, for example, if the police say the suspect is a woman but a witness says she saw a man attacking a woman, then would the witness's testimony be discounted because the police were looking for 'a woman'?🤔

And in court, imagine a woman victim of rape committed by a man who identifies as a woman, having to relive the ordeal by answering intimate questions, for example about whether her attacker referred to as 'she', inserted 'her' penis. She has to answer that yes 'she' inserted 'her' penis. She will be asked to respect the stated identity of her male attacker. This has happened. Unbelievable!

And the final insult to women: when the perpetrator is sent to prison he can request to go to a women's prison!

There are also other considerations which I won't go into here.

I will just say I am very sorry for the victim of this attack and for his family. He looks like a nice guy.

Oops. Double-posted. Unsure how.

I complained. Bit annoyed that you have to put your phone number as well as email address even if you select don't want a response. What's that about?

Jotajil

And in court, imagine a woman victim of rape committed by a man who identifies as a woman, having to relive the ordeal by answering intimate questions, for example about whether her attacker referred to as 'she', inserted 'her' penis. She has to answer that yes 'she' inserted 'her' penis. She will be asked to respect the stated identity of her male attacker. This has happened. Unbelievable!

I believe the bench guidebook has changed and victims are now allowed to refer to the accused as they perceive them.

When Joanna is sentenced will the BBC report that a “woman” has been sent to a male prison?

Reported
Again
same old 💩different day

You have to wonder, how do the true believers, the ones who say "but women commit violence as well" and genuinely believe male and female rates of violence are about the same, feel when they see yet another of the comparatively small population of trans women has committed a violent or sexual crime?

Do they think it's just bad luck that some usually very rare events happen to have happened unusually frequently?

Will there ever be a realisation that the reason this seems to keep on happening isn't bad luck, but because trans women are men who commit violent and sexual crimes at the same rate as other men?

🤬

It's generally excused by saying the poor, delicate flower was suffering from so much transphobia that it was an understandable reaction. This applies in all cases including ones where even Mr Magoo can clearly see there was no provocation

The realisation will be a long time coming because as far as I understand it there are no statistics being kept to enable comparison of rates of violence between male, female and transgender male.

I said that by saying "woman" the BBC were implying female, and they had failed to point out that the accused was male. Which is inaccurate and misleading.

What I didn't say - and perhaps should have done - is that these violent crimes are very rarely committed by women so the BBC are sensationalising the crime by attributing it to a woman.

I don't think the trans identity is relevant either way (well, except that the Brighton LGBT community might have some reflection to do about who they trust to advocate for them )

Complained. Thanks

Hi @yetanotherusernameAgain
Perfectly reasonable of you to check. In this case, yes I did. In the same line of work as me and the story was shared, with fact-based context, through personal knowledge, on a group WhatsApp.

Thanks to all who complained. I also complained to the police news site, which was not fact-based either.

PP is quits right that bbc will have lifted wholesale from police website, but journalists are supposed to fact check. Particularly the national broadcaster.

https://www.sussex.police.uk/news/sussex/news/witness-appeals/70-year-old-charged-with-murder-in-brighton/

We can also complain to Sussex police for this inaccurate report. It is so offensive to read this.

Sorry OP I just re read your update and you've already mentioned the police!

Here's the email for Tim Davie, director general of the BBC.
[email protected]

This is an earlier thread about him giving evidence to the committee where he said he'd only had a handful of emails despite thousands of people complaining via the official BBC complaints route.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5032517-5032517-tim-davie-bbc-giving-evidence-to-culture-media-and-sports-committee

journalists are supposed to fact check

You can only fact check up to a certain point though.
Journalists have sources - In general police would be considered a reliable and credible source.

Have complained to bbc. Thanks for posting OP.