Broadcasters must air views that trans women are women, says Ofcom

[IwantToRetire]

Media regulator warns GB News that it cannot treat the controversy as settled despite Supreme Court victory in April.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/29/broadcasters-must-air-views-trans-women-are-women-ofcom/

https://archive.is/1KhgX

Fair enough, when reporting on trans issues both sides should be represented. I agree with OFCOM. That should be the case when reporting on anything otherwise it's not news it's propaganda.

I have no problem with a suitably informed and fully consenting adult having whatever cosnetic modifications to theirbody they choise. It is indeed their body their choice. There is no surgical or medical modification that can make a male body female. I wouldn't dream of preventing someone with the mental capacity to control their own life and the maturity to know what they are doing from choosing to have any surgery whether that be to remove natural breasts, add silicone breasts or remove genitals, or remove an unwanted embryo that has no right to be there if it is not welcome. That doesn't mean that men should be able to get into women's spaces.

I do think the ages of consent for such surgeries should be different. A 13 or 14yo girl who finds herself pregnant has sufficient maturity and understanding to know that she doesn't want to be pregnant and that continuing a pregnancy would damage her. A 13 or 14yo has no capacity to understand the damage that would be done by surgery that will permanently destroy their ability to orgasm when they have no concept of what that would mean to them as an adult.

Nasty right-wing patriarchy and subjugation of women by forcing them to be incubators against their will has no place in feminism.

@BackToLurk I totally agree choice has to be considered only in relation to it's impacts on others choices. It is not a value in itself. There are good choices and bad ones I think destroying someone else's body entirely and intentionally to the point of death surely crosses that line. Or nothing does. No woman has two sets of DNA, two heads, two beating hearts. To abort a baby is to entirely violate her choice.

The BBC have never been impartial.

And yet they claim that they are (we all know they are not impartial when it comes to gender issues).

Section 2: Impartiality

Impartiality is fundamental to the BBC's purpose and is enshrined in the BBC's Charter. It means not favouring one side over another and reflecting all relevant sides of the debate. It means not taking sides, reflecting all relevant strands of public debate and challenging them with consistent rigour. Impartiality is key to a relationship of trust with audiences, that they know the BBC is not being influenced by any personal or other agenda in what it chooses to broadcast or publish or in how it covers stories and that it seeks to include a wide range of views on any given topic.

You are not being silenced or shunned. You can absolutely start a discussion about abortion in either of the feminism boards, or anywhere on Mumsnet for that matter, and I expect you would see plenty of engagement. The convention of any online forum is that threads are designed to discuss the topic of the thread, although obviously discussion may wander into related areas. You’ve been told by many posters that the topic you want to discuss doesn’t really fit with the subject of this thread. It’s just basic manners to follow the conventions of a forum.

Think about it, how many people who are interested in discussing abortion are going to click on a thread about OFCOM? You’ll get much more engagement with an appropriately titled thread.

You may not be aware that women have been silenced and shunned on other forums, such as Reddit, where gender critical forums have been removed and posters have been deleted and banned for stating gender critical views.

Above was for @TrishTeres I don’t know why the quote wasn’t included.

It’s so widespread that I don’t think it’s necessarily about ‘simpletons’. Women in particular are raised always to ‘be kind’, as you know. It’s ingrained and drilled into us. Most centre-left parents, asked what the first lesson they would teach their children would be, would say ‘be kind’. And that falls particularly on girls, I suspect.

And as you also know, people widely conflate homosexuality/gayness and trans. And erroneously believe that any criticism of trans ideology is a criticism of homosexuality.

They also conflate gender non-conformity and the trans movement. Whereas we know that trans-identifying men often displaying a highly sexualised parody of womanhood (if they’re not dressing like their mothers).

They also believe that the gender ‘revolution’ is the new social justice campaign.

It’s interesting, though, how so many of the trans activists are young women. A whole study in itself.

My concern is that in our little info bubble we know that this stuff is regressive and dangerous to women and children. Then outside the bubble, the world, and our institutions, think it’s simply progressive and civilised and kind.

You’re being completely unreasonable. Tv broadcasts ranges of opinion, right and wrong, on every subject. As it should. This is a debate about censorship, not the legalities of womanhood. Not that I’d touch GB news with a barge pole.

And Bluesky zzzzz

You seem to be attempting a derail. Not a particularly good one as this reply doesn’t really have much to do with your original ‘point’. One star: would not recommend.

Hi @MassiveWordSalad. The topic of this thread is feminism. If people want to call start a thread called "Pro Abortion Feminism Only" they are free to do so . I have no idea what the majority view is here. But The point of a conversation forum is not that the majority ( which you claim without having surveyed) dictate that the minority must be silent. Surely those who are pro abortion and feminist would welcome the opportunity to explain to me that abortion does not kill girls? And has not specifically and particularly been targeted at killing girls on an industrial scale. China, some Asian cultures for example. So lets debate the facts. Not try to silence viewpoints. Have a great day

Whether what you say about elite scientists is true or not, the fact or otherwise of anthropogenic global warming is pure science. If Ofcom concludes that the informed consensus shows acceptance of that scientific fact - like the world being a sphere - then that’s that.

But the trans debate, such as it is, is not about pure science. The analogy doesn’t work.

My main concern about reporting on this subject is this:

The mandate to present both sides of the argument exists so that viewers and readers are fully informed and able to engage in the democratic process.

As such, in a discussion piece about transwomen, this is appropriate.

However, in a news report about a transwoman - whether a victory in sports or a sex attack, for example (and we see both) - "both sides" isn't possible. The report either 1) presents the TW as a woman, using "she"/"woman" (and we've even seen "female") throughout, or 2) as a TW.

1) The former may be courteous and respectful to the TW and the so-called trans community. But it's disrespectful to some women. And, importantly, it withholds information from women that impacts on their ability to make informed decisions about their votes and, sometimes, their health and their safety.

2) The latter is disrespectful to some transwomen, who would prefer to be classed as women.

Meanwhile, surveys have shown that a good portion of the population don't understand 2), whereas they do understand 1).

To me, the arguments for 1) far outweigh those for 2). I mean, of course they would, given my perspective in this debate - but the point is that I can't see that there are any more arguments for 2). So why is 2 so often favoured?

I really, really resented the BBC's use of 1) before the last general election. A key issue was views on transwomen in women's spaces, self-id etc. And the proactively prevented women from accessing the information necessary to develop accurate, informed opinions about this.

And we've seen the extent to which this issue can influence elections, in the US.

So how can that be right?

In news reports, a choice must be made, and I can't see sufficient justification for withholding facts.

The topic of this thread is “Broadcasters must air views that trans women are women, says Ofcom”

It is one of many threads within the discussion forum “Feminism: Sex and gender discussions”. There are many other threads within this forum discussing many other subjects.

What you are trying to do is effectively barge into a group of people discussing one thing and change the subject of the conversation to something different. Rude in real life and rude here.

It is so easy to start your own discussion, have at it!

Please note that I have engaged here on the off-chance that you really don’t get it. And, as ever, for the lurkers.

The topic of this thread is Broadcasters must air views that trans women are women, says Ofcom It's in the title if you forget

Thank you for pointing that out. And my response if you read it is that life begins at fertilisation at which point sex is determined. If we think there are exceptions to science in order to claim abortion is not killing we have no credibility against those who claim there are exceptions to immutable biological sex. Trans is the same "my body my choice" ideology. Please read original comments not just the most recent ones

🐿

From the article:
"Ofcom’s response also suggests that broadcasters should use a person’s preferred pronoun."

As long as that person doesn't have a GRC, do they have a leg to stand on, legally?
If a person isn't naturalized, he's not British (yet).

In Germany we now have a law that punishes misgendering of transitioned people with a GRC with up to 10,000 €. GRCs are now very easy to obtain. I have thought of adding an asterisk to every false-sex pronoun and honorific in written communication (gender activists are spelling women "Frauen*" to include men).

And, as Salad and others point out, you're in the wrong forum anyway, Trish - you're showing yourself up by suggesting we're hypocritical for not discussing this here, because here exists solely for the issue under discussion. Your posts in this context are not unlike insisting on discussing abortion on The Litter Tray, or Gardening.

I know, I know, all those the arguments for not engaging - but I never know whether to laugh or cry when I see posters shooting themselves in the foot like this.

If you really care about changing minds and winning hearts, Trish, you surely must see that you're turning people off meaningful engagement here, and creating an impression of polemic instead of considered argument?

(Alternatively, if you really care about de-railing the thread, you're doing a damn good job tbf, and apologies to readers that I spent a post helping. No more!)

To the subject in hand.

What the hell does this mean?

“But Ofcom said the Supreme Court only ruled on the definition of a woman in terms of the Equality Act and not on its meaning in other contexts.”

Sometimes a woman is an adult human female, but sometimes ?????

They really are captured. I wonder if this will change at all once the SC guidance is finalised? So many organisations are using this as an excuse to not change anything.

I would like see broadcasters say “some people believe men can be women” when trans issues are discussed.

edited to remove stupid link thingy

True true

Jesus a €10,000 fine?? That’s dystopian 😱

Totally agree with all of this.

Most people who've accepted the "trans women are women" etc narrative aren't idiots. They've just been listening to the wrong people and haven't interrogated those voices. The lumping together of LGBTQ+++ has been a powerful force on the TRA side.

@MassiveWordSalad Interesting quote.

So, by extension, they're laying claim to the right to determine when news may have some bearing on the Equality Act, and when it simply doesn't at all?

Sorry, OfCom, but, logically, any article has potential relevance to the Equality Act.

Because the Act distinguishes the sexes to enable justified discrimination between them (single-sex spaces), and the identification and prevention of illegal discrimination. And what is which, and which is what, is determined in law, not reportage.

Calling a transwoman a woman in any and all of the following contexts could obscure discrimination on an micro level - unless Ofcom is claiming esoteric knowledge of each and every context - and a macro one - by misrepresenting facts that may otherwise reveal trends over time:

business, sport, finance, education, clubs, representation on public boards(!), societies, politics, crime, poverty, entertainment, war, travel, technology...

The whole point is, the distinction must always be made between male/female for sex discrimination to be recognisable!

@MassiveWordSalad The Supreme Court indeed only decided on the definition of women in the Equality Act. Whether it included men or not. Whether the term woman in other contexts/acts includes men must be decided in a separate process. If there was a constitution that mentioned women as a separate class, this might be easier. Or not, as we're seeing in Germany right now, where activists are trying to insert gender identity(!) into the constitution as a protected characteristic.