Is it just me or do the BBC keep describing the consequences of the ruling wrongly?

[MixTapeMel]

Ok so I keep seeing things like this on the BBC online (this is in an item about new guidance from the scottish government)

"The UK's highest court last week ruled the definition of a woman in the 2010 Equality Act is based on biology in a move that will have major implications for single-sex spaces and services such as public toilets and changing rooms.
It means means transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces for women if "proportionate"."

Is it not the case that it is the justification for a single-sex space that has to be 'proportionate', and that TW are excluded on the basis they are men?

Is this just the BBC refusing to say that transwomen are biological men? In which case it's misleading as no 'extra' justification is needed, they are simply not allowed in a female single-sex space.

Am i correct in my thinking? The BBC are really doing my head in on this. I am going right off them.

I suspect that these misrepresentations will continue for some time yet......lack of clarity and confusion has become the way trans ideology operates.

They've done this since the beginning, egged on by Stonewall and their gold and silver 'champions'.

The law as it's written in the statute books, and since clarified by the SC, is not the law as they disingenuously misinterpret it.

Same shit, different day.

PA Media are a news agency who are responsible for quite a lot of misinformation, an example being that at first they reported trans murderer Scarlett Blake as a woman, and everyone else just copied and pasted it.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/scarlet-blake-who-killed-a-cat-and-put-animal-in-blender-found-guilty-of-mans-murder-13078190

I’ve noticed that even articles in the Daily Mail which is usually quite good on covering genderist stories has included a coloured box in all recent articles relating to this issue which contains incorrect info and says the SC ruling means a man with a GRC can only be excluded from single-sex spaces if proportionate.

This seems to be a zombie interpretation that just keeps growing legs.

Well it's a terribly convenient zombie.

But it's very easy to put down. In zombie terms its entirely legless.

It's so frustrating isn't it - and needs to be rooted out.

As I understand it, it is stll necesary legally to be able to argue / state how it is proportionate to have a single sex service.

But if you do argue that, then only people of the same biological sex can use the service. Which is fact was the case before, ie if you cited the Single Sex Exemptions which nullified the purpose of a GRC.

The difference now is that effectively what the Judges have said is make a GRC is always invalid in terms of equality law, because the Judges have said that in relation to the EA sex means biology.

For it not to mean only biology would be sex discrimination. And the ruling gives sex the same status as other protected characteristics.

For instance disabled people aren't expected to see people who are not disabled as being disabled because a doctor has signed a certificate saying they identify as disabled. Ditto Race.

I suspect that these misrepresentations will continue for some time yet......lack of clarity and confusion has become the way trans ideology operates.

I was musing about this thread whilst I was out gardening and a thought occurred to me. Feminists could offer a Golden Bridge to the BBC, Graun, etc. It's a bit of a poisoned GB, but what the heck.

If we assume good intent by the Beeb etc (I know, I know) then we can excuse them being taken in by the GI lobby. They were fed information by the lobbyists which the SC has ruled against. Nobody was mean or attacked "the most vulnerable"™ or any other sob story. It was simply that one side of a legal case - as happens in Courts up and down the land, on a daily basis - was found to be plain, old, boring wrong in law.
The Beeb should therefore consider carefully any more information from this same group (even if they reform under a different badge or start using different language - they're still the same people) because the rest of the world will judge them by the maxim "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"

So the Beeb will be forgiven once because they were misled by poor legal advice (Golden Bridge) but be on notice that they won't be forgiven a second time (because they should have Learned Lessons and not be relying on outside sources to write their copy for them).

Well we have our first correction!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y42zzwylvo

"Correction: This story originally include the line: "However, single-sex spaces could exclude people with gender recognition certificates (GRCs) - which give legal status to a transgender person's gender identity - 'if it is proportionate to do so', the judges ruled." This is inaccurate so it has been removed."

I'm going to send this to the managing editor of the i news (who pushed back), the Independent and PA Media that I wrote to yesterday asking for the same correction.

(By the way, I copied and pasted that correction, so the grammatical error is from the BBC, not me!)

I would be happy to chip in for a Sex Matters drive to do as you suggest.

A version of FullFact for women. A strategy for burnishing golden bridges and guiding them across. A warm welcome awaits - the equivalent of pink wafers do you think or break out the Tunnocks?

.......... That is at the very least the second correction, and it is almost word for word to the one they posted as a footnote to an article at least two days ago. It was shared on FWR on a thread, article and footnote.

Ergo they know this is false information .

And are still posting it, and then popping the footnote on some hours later after most people have read it. Wow. Questions could be asked if that was intentional misleading for political purposes or just editorial incompetence.

Yes. This is another one posted by SeXX

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkx78zlm4po

Footnote: Correction: This article originally said that the ruling means that transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if "proportionate". However, this is inaccurate and so this line has been removed from the story.

And I don't think this is the same article I shared a day earlier, which would make it the THIRD correction if so.

@TheOtherRaven oh interesting - it could be the same article that was shared here a couple of days ago actually, the byline is 22 April and it wasn't me wot done it so I possibly am duplicating a correction already noted on here previously. But it proves that complaining to the media is no longer a fruitless and frustrating task!!!

I noticed the error popped up in the paper edition of the i and online Indy yesterday. I suspect the journo at PA Media read the 22 April BBC article with the error before it was corrected, and reproduced it a few days later in her article on the 25th.

Yea verily, the lie goes round the world before the truth has put its boots on....

SEEN in Journalism is on this beat - I don't post on TwiX but I've seen a few posts from them on this subject as well.

The BBC misrepresented the law, regardless of whether it's deliberate. The truth is more like this:

It means transgender women (biological males) must be excluded from women's spaces whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate (GRC) saying that they are female.

Language has become so messed up now that it's impossible to steer between misleading and causing offense to someone. We've heard that "biological male" is offensive, dogwhistle etc. and perhaps the BBC hopes to avoid that. But the BBC is going to have to put its Big Person Pants on and accept that the language used by the Supreme Court is fine. Otherwise there's no way to explain the judgment at all and the BBC is going to mislead people.

And yes, it would be nice if the BBC pointed out there are benefits of this ruling to transmen. They must be allowed in to women's spaces unless there's a very good reason why not. Not to mention the maternity ruling. Isn't the BBC supposed to present an accurate and balanced view?

As for the Guardian, did Sumption make an intervention? I thought he only commented after the judgment. And it's not as if the situation was clearcut before the ruling, socially or legally. Otherwise the law would not have been so widely misinterpreted and the case wouldn't have been needed to clarify it.

I don't think Lord Sumption made an official intervention - he was a guest on the Today programme the day after the judgement I think, where he made some comments which now appear to be wrong - or at least, wrongly interpreted by the articles which subsequently reported his comments. The Guardian one you noted, also this one: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lord-sumption-trans-biolgical-woman-supreme-court-b2735828.html

(And of course, the headline of that article doesn't quite represent what Sumption actually said either!)