SEEN in Journalism: The BBC and preferred pronouns

[SionnachRuadh]

Another valuable substack from SEEN in Journalism, detailing the BBC's wildly inconsistent use of pronouns in crime reporting, where it seems that some criminals merit the use of wrong-sex pronouns and others don't - though they're still very reluctant to say a male criminal is male if the criminal says otherwise.

The BBC and 'preferred pronouns' - it's not over yet

They’re awful.

As for “BBC Verify” it’s like the Ministry of Truth.

The breakdown of trust in the legacy media isn't all a good thing, because lots of alternative media is poor quality, but I am pleased that more and more normies view BBC Verify as a joke.

Am I a “normie”? 🤣

The BBC are now referring to the Minneapolis school murderer as 'she'

Just one paragraph from today's news report -

"Officials added that the guns used in the attack were all legally purchased, that the killer did not appear on any government watchlist, and that police are not aware of any mental health diagnoses or treatments that she was receiving."

We mustn't offend the memory of a child murderer, eh BBC?

They are avoiding pronouns on the BBC website and said this in the report, quite a long way down.

“Westman's name was legally changed from Robert to Robin in 2020, with the judge writing: "Minor child identifies as a female".“

What a dilemma, the women at BBC Verify want to respect his pronouns, BBC News want to skim over and bury his trans identity and otherwise let it be known he is male.

Meanwhile the word in the street is that, far from being an innate characteristic, he is apparently now moving away from identifying as female. So all these people declaring that kids have the capacity to make life changing and permanent decisions and should have to live with the consequences are coming across as a bit ill informed now.

Our national broadcaster is tying itself in knots and humiliating itself now.

But as posted above by MycatLarry, they are still using what they believe to be the killer's preferred pronouns on the website.

From the BBC style guide

"A person born male who lives as a female, would typically be described as a “transgender woman” and would take the pronoun “she”. And vice versa. We generally use the term and pronoun preferred by the person in question, unless there are editorial reasons not to do so."

I would love it if they could explain their reasoning here.

What I also find interesting is that in the first screenshot, they've used the gender-neutral "partner" to really minimise as much as possible the fact this is male violence perpetrated against a woman despite the fact the second one calls the trans person a "wife". They are really rubbing it in that only men identifying as women get to have female pronouns and words, no matter what they do to women, and that women who are actual goddamn women aren't allowed to have a sex even when they're the victim of male-pattern crimes against women.

I'm not sure I agree with 'In effect, [that] the BBC [decides it] knows better than the Supreme Court'.

The SC has ruled that sex means sex for equality purposes, but it can still be true that 'being transgender' (with or without a GRC or GD diagnosis) has legal or social salience (in fact it must have, given there is actual legislation on the topic).

Reporting a TW as a woman is inaccurate, but reporting him as a man is incomplete. Reporting him as a TW also needs further explanation for the portion of the population that think TWs are TIFs. There's a lot of information to pack in, but it's got to be done (and of course TRAs are furious, because these stories usually show TWs in a bad light, even compared to other men).

Use of names and pronouns is a separate issue. Any confusion as to actual sex can be mitigated with good information upfront, but I think the use of cross-sex pronouns by media is defensible in principle, provided it's consistent (no switching to male when they turn out to be rapist gender!). And it drives home to the reader how ludicrous it all is.

If 'being transgender' doesn't have the social convention of name and pronoun use, then it has nothing at all (well, apart from the dodgy ID, which also needs getting rid).

Not saying I agree, but it would be a self-consistent approach.

but I think the use of cross-sex pronouns by media is defensible in principle

I think a more straightforward middle way would be to change their policy to

"We generally use pronouns to refer to sex, unless there are editorial reasons not to do so"

The policy is then neutral by default, but allows for flexibility.

"When it comes to accuracy, however, it must not be balanced by inaccuracy"

Hilarious given the author of this goofy article imagines the supreme court decision compels the BBC not to use preferred pronouns or to refer to trans women as men when all it did was define woman for the express purpose of special exemptions a provider might feel like providing to CIS women under the Equality Act.

Not clear how you think trans people are helped by the BBC's dogged determination to respect the identities and preferences of murderers.

Not clear how you think trans people are helped by the BBC's dogged determination to respect the identities and preferences of murderers.

Given they 'respect' the identities & preferences of CIS murderers, consistency seems to make sense except of course for raging bigots…

Please do explain how they are respecting the identities and preferences of these 'CIS' murderers.

"Please do explain how they are respecting the identities and preferences of these 'CIS' murderers."

Um, by using correct pronouns & not misgendering them.

Sex is not an identity. It's as neutral a fact as age or blood type. Reporting a murderer's sex is neither a sign of respect nor disrespect.

Mate. There's a difference between mentioning someone's biological sex, which is a material reality, and mentioning someone's assumed identity which is the opposite of material reality.

You obviously need to spend more time studying the diagram.

Sex is not an identity. It's as neutral a fact as age or blood type. Reporting a murderer's sex is neither a sign of respect nor disrespect.

That sex is not an identity is irrelevant. There's no special command that sex must be respected & gender identity shouldn't. Gender is also a 'neutral' fact see definition of Gegnder 2(b):

"The behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

FWS covered quite a lot more than Schedule 3 part 7 (service providers) as you very well know. Otherwise, I find myself in agreement with you for once, somewhat to my astonishment.

Media can use whatever names and pronouns they wish. Using cross-sex names and pronouns can undermine understanding, though, particularly since a) people sometimes 'detransition' (like the male victim in the headlined story, and b) when snippets of news stories are quoted, some information gets lost.

Nor do I agree with @Merrymouse about editorial flexibility, which could also undermine understanding overall, and in any case only ever gets used in practice to try to portray trans people in the best possible light.

My preference would be eg:

TW charged with crime X: Rosie, who is a TW (previously known as Dave, he was born male, but now claims to have a female gender identity) was arrested, etc, etc (he/him throughout)....

or (less preferred)

TW charged with crime X: Rosie charged with crime X. Rosie is a TW (previously known as Dave, he was born male, but now claims to have a female gender identity) and we will follow the social convention of using 'she/her' pronouns for him throughout this report. Rosie was arrested, etc, etc (she/her throughout, bonus points for juxtaposing them with the word 'penis' as often as possible)....

But, pick a lane. Don't flip-flop.

Again nobody is 'respecting' sex, when they report it.

However, gender is not a 'neutral fact'. It is socially constructed and not constant.

World Health Organization:

"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time."

It would be the belief that a woman should not be able to vote on equal terms with men (UK, till less than 100 years ago), that a woman should not be able to leave the house (Afghanistan, now) or that football is a boy's sport (UK) or a girl's sport (US) or that boys should wear pink (until mid twentieth century) or pink is only for girls (late twentieth century to present).

Again nobody is 'respecting' sex, when they report it.

You could say the same about gender.

However, gender is not a 'neutral fact'. It is socially constructed and not constant.

You are confused. Just because something changes over time doesn't mean its not a fact.

Are you disputing there are very real behaviours cultural, or psychological traits that aren't associated with one sex?

Because if you are that's contradictory to the argument that men are more prone to violence hence a need for women's private spaces.

'

Culturally contingent gender norms are quite varied, as is the degree of conformity to them. But gender identity is a neutral measure, insofar as it can be ascertained by asking the individual concerned.

The problem is that it's not very useful. It really only tells us whether they believe in gender ideology, and whether they are more than usually likely to defy gender norms for their sex (even that isn't a given!) or to have certain medical treatments.

Are you disputing there are very real behaviours cultural, or psychological traits that aren't associated with one sex?

Whether or not you argue that particular behaviours are associated with a sex (and differences in crime statistics suggest that some are), it does not mean that somebody who exhibits those behaviours is the opposite sex. It just shows that some characteristics are more common in one sex than the other. I'm sure this isn't the first time that this has been explained to you. See also height.

Just because something changes over time doesn't mean its not a fact.

I think you have outdone yourself there. This makes so little sense that I have no reply.

I really feel as though I'm arguing a certain person's position better than they are, even though I don't agree with them!

Gender norms and gender identity are two different things.

Are you disputing there are very real behaviours cultural, or psychological traits that aren't associated with one sex?
Whether or not you argue that particular behaviours are associated with a sex (and differences in crime statistics suggest that some are), it does not mean that somebody who exhibits those behaviours is the opposite sex. It just shows that some characteristics are more common in one sex than the other. I'm sure this isn't the first time that this has been explained to you. See also height.
Just because something changes over time doesn't mean its not a fact.
I think you have outdone yourself there. This makes so little sense that I have no reply.

No one is suggesting trans people are the opposite sex because they exhibit their behaviours. Rather their gender identity identifies with the opposite sex. I'm sure this isn't the first time that this has been explained to you.

Just because something changes over time doesn't mean its not a fact.
I think you have outdone yourself there. This makes so little sense that I have no reply.

Is male violence not a fact then? Still waiting…