BBC claim 'Grover is a self-declared ‘TERF’ - an acronym that stands for “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.” TERFs’ views on gender identity are widely considered to be hostile to trans people.'

[ArabellaScott]

Bullshit, BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07ev1v7r4po

Make a complaint here:

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

Yeah it is VERY different if a person wants to reclaim a slur, to the fucking national broadcaster - who are openly misogynistic - using that slur.

Legal fictions are OK. For example a company can be a legal "person" in some contexts.

The difference is that this legal personhood has limitations - one cannot marry a company, for example - and the the reality of thing being synthetically created by the legal fiction is not undefined by the creation of the synthetic. The law recognises "natural persons" as being distinct from "legal persons", and natural persons have rights that legal persons do not.

The concept of "natural sex" would I think be useful.

@EasternStandard "The outcome of this case could set a legal precedent for the resolution of conflicts between gender identity rights and sex-based rights in other countries.

Crucial to understanding this is the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)."

Poof! And just like that women's rights disappear into "anyone's rights".

Given the way the case was decided +++no conflict was resolved, males were declared the total winners+++ women's rights are not merely subsumed. They're disappeared.

BBC article has been changed. Now reads:
Grover is a self-declared Terf, which stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". Typically used as a derogatory term for those considered hostile to transgender people, it has also been claimed by some to describe their own gender-critical beliefs.

Some of us are happy to reclaim it....
https://x.com/mslisterssis/status/1826468739040378914?t=Ed9G011rXQWg7nQ-WfosUQ&s=08

Hmm. Marginal improvement.

Yes, but someone reclaiming a slur is very different from the BBC using it (and using it inaccurately).

Well done everyone who complained. Tiny steps. It all helps.

Oh, I agree. I just posted that for a bit of a morale boost after the awful outcome for Australian women. 💚🤍💜

In Australia, there doesn’t need to be proof - there is no scientific or medical evidence. It was written into law by then PM Julia Gillard, when she changed sex to gender identity.

AUSTRALIA HATES WOMEN.

Have they changed the wording in this article? Now reads

"Grover is a self-declared Terf, which stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". Typically used as a derogatory term for those considered hostile to transgender people, it has also been claimed by some to describe their own gender-critical beliefs."

Not ideal but possibly an improvement?

Ah apologies, I somehow missed page 2 of comments and the fact the change had already been spotted. Ignore my pointless post!

The first such case referenced in the judgement is from 1993.
😱
This has been a long time coming. I'd like to say we were sleep-walking into it with the best of intentions, but I fear that's not true of all actors.

The thing is, @ArabellaScott, she is a self-declared TERF. She recently tweeted that it was an honour to be a TERF.

If I were to complain to the BBC I'd focus on the "hostile towards trans people" part.

Yes, and that's what seems to have been tweaked.

But the point still stands that it is different for a woman who has been labelled a 'terf' to call herself a 'terf' than it is for other people to call her a terf. That's standard for lots of terms that have been reclaimed. The BBC are unlikely to call gay and lesbian people 'queer' without scare quotes, for example, even if its being used by those people. Or disabled people 'crips' etc, another term that's been reclaimed by some.

It's quite simple, if you are a terf you can say or write the word and if not then you shouldn't use it as it is an offensive slur.

I complained. Clear bias in favour of transwoman i.e. man.

@EasternStandard
"So today’s ruling in favour of Tickle will be significant for all the 189 countries where CEDAW has been ratified - from Brazil to India to South Africa.
When it comes to interpreting international treaties, national courts often look at how other countries have done it."

Will they look at low-level decisions however? If the highest court in Australia tests the issue against the Constitution and CEDAW, that's when it gets interesting, especially for other countries, who have equality of women enshrined in their Constitution, too.

Not really, unless the BBC is prepared to put its neck on the line and adopt the use of , for example, words that are widely seen as racist and which many people find offensive, but have been reclaimed by the people against whom they were used . This also applies to words used about religious identities. I am pretty sure the BBC would never use those words in an article. Ever. But is happy to use an acronym which is designed to marginalise and denigrate women.

What level of court was this in Australia? Is it a high court, appeal or supreme equivalent?

Use your local Town Hall or MP’s Constituency Office address as a C/O adress instead? They are the people elected to represent our interests(supposedly!) and it gives the BBC your region for data analysis without giving your personal info.

I resent more giving my phone number more than my address. But I have been known to get a few digits wrong when giving mine.

Anyone else get this reply today? Congratulations on missing the point BBC

Dear Audience Member

Thank you for getting in touch about our BBC News website article on the landmark Australian court ruling where a transgender woman won a discrimination case against a women-only social media app, after she was denied access on the basis of being male.

We reported on the background and explained the case had been brought against the app “Giggle for Girls” and its CEO Sall Grover by Roxanne Tickle. We described Ms Grover as a “self-declared Terf”.

Some readers felt our article was biased against women. They objected to our use of the term “Terf” saying it was offensive, which we acknowledged. We explained it stood for trans-exclusionary radical feminist. We later added more context: “Typically used as a derogatory term for those considered hostile to transgender people, it has also been claimed by some to describe their own gender-critical beliefs.”

Grover does indeed use the term to describe herself and has set up an online TV channel called “Terf TV”. She is on record as saying she understands the term is controversial but believes it will become acceptable over time. We believe our reporting was fair and balanced.

Thank you again for contacting us to make your views known. All feedback from readers is shared with senior editors so that they are aware of audience concerns.

GoogleWhacking · 25/08/2024 08:45

What level of court was this in Australia? Is it a high court, appeal or supreme equivalent?

It's a lower court, Sall Grover has a crowd funder, because she's appealing to the High Court (?) the highest, last chance one in Australia.

Yep.