BBC news think identifying as trans is a sexuality, race, ethnicity or disability

[namenamification]

I made a complaint to the BBC about something. They completely misunderstood my complaint and seem to have put me in an anti-trans bucket, when my complaint was actually about misreporting of gender pay gap, and not about trans issues.

HOWEVER, in their response they quote their style guide “Using appropriate language is an important part of how we portray people in our stories. Sexuality, race, ethnicity or disability should not be mentioned unless they are relevant to the subject matter.” and say this is why they don’t report if someone is trans.

I am very surprised to find that the BBC thinks identifying as trans is a sexuality, race, ethnicity or disability. In fact I would have assumed that was insulting to a trans-identifying person.

Am I missing something?

That's bizarre.

I think Ill make yet another complaint to the BBC and ask what them for their definition of sexuality and if it includes TRANS

Text below as it appears in the email:

“Our style guide states: “Using appropriate language is an important part of how we portray people in our stories. Sexuality, race, ethnicity or disability should not be mentioned unless they are relevant to the subject matter.” What was relevant was her experience as a renter. When writing about someone who is transgender – again as our style guide states - we generally use the term and pronoun preferred by the person in question, unless there are editorial reasons not to do so.”

If I were trans I would be very upset about that.

(And FWIW, in common with most on here I believe, I am not anti-trans. But I do care about accurate representation of women.)

They don't say they think being trans is those things. They are making the point that they don't mention characteristics that are irrelevant to the story ( such as race or sexuality or being trans). That is what they are trying to communicate.

The press brought in guidelines about using preferred pronouns and not mentioning if someone was trans because there used to be news headlines like 'transexual GP gored by a deer'.

Obviously the world is very different now with the arrival of modern gender ideology and there is now controversy over people not being correctly sexed when it is appropriate, but that is the origin of not reporting if someone is trans, as I understand it.

That might be what they are trying to communicate. If so they are failing.

They quote their style guide, then refer to it. There is no “such as” in their statement. In fact they say “When writing about someone who is transgender – again as our style guide states …”.

Unless you mean they are quoting one part of their style guide but referring to a different, unquoted, section?

I think it would be good to have clarity from them.

I think the central point is quite clear. And clearly stated. Its not appropriate to mention personal characteristics which are irrelevant to the story.

I'm not sure what is to be gained by pursuing this, but knock yourself out if you want to.

I didn’t feel like I needed your permission, but thanks 😂

I think it would be helpful to know whether what they are doing is:

a) actually covered by a different part of their style guide but they are not quoting it

b) interpreting trans to be covered by the categories they are quoting

c) not covered by the style guide at all, and they are just making rules up but pretending that are published guidance

If they don't mention irrelevant characteristics then why do they mention sex? If they do mention it why then not mention trans status?

We've had a lot of headlines which say "woman carried out hideous violent sex crime". Why not just say 'person'?