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

'Gender' is the term amercans tend to use in place of the less polite 'Sex'. To most minds sex and gender are synonymous...not separate things.

Gender identity is not a matter of self-determination, but a claim to privileged - and therefore uniquely authentic - insight into the true nature of one's body.

But all bodies form part of Nature, and are observable by other bodies, with which they interact; and the existence of gender identity is an unfalsifiable proposition.

So it's a metaphysical belief and should be dealt with accordingly.

I think this has been posted on another thread but Suzanne Moore has written an excellent column in the telegraph about the BBC’s disastrous stance on this. If they keep lying to people, we will get our news from elsewhere: https://archive.is/yVs3S

You really haven‘t understood the SC ruling have you?
I suggest you read up and gain a basic understanding of equality law, PSED, Health & Safety laws and avoiding discrimination against women by not providing adequate facilities for us before you embarrass yourself further.

BTW, there’s no such thing as ‘cis’ - only women or men. Men who think they’d like to be women are still men. THAT is the effect of the ruling.

This is an important question. I would also like to know.

Kinda implicates everyone as undeserving given self determination is a human right…

You have got a bit mixed up. The human right to self determination refers to ‘a people’ ie. the people of a country who want to declare independence and set their own laws etc.

This is not a human right that applies to individuals wishing to declare they are something they are patently not.

"You have got a bit mixed up. The human right to self determination refers to ‘a people’ ie. the people of a country who want to declare independence and set their own laws etc.
This is not a human right that applies to individuals wishing to declare they are something they are patently not."

False.:

"Self-determined gender is a cornerstone of a person's identity. The resulting obligation of States is to provide access to gender recognition in a manner consistent with the rights to freedom from discrimination, equal protection of the law, privacy, identity and freedom of expression.
The lack of access to gender recognition negates the identity of a person to such an extent that it provokes a fundamental rupture of State obligations. Denying someone the legal recognition of their gender negatively impacts all aspects of their life: their right to health, to housing, to access social security, to freedom of movement and residence; and it also fuels discrimination, violence and exclusion in social settings, including educational and work environments."
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/ie-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/struggle-trans-and-gender-diverse-persons#:~:text=Self%2Ddetermined%20gender%20is%20a,including%20educational%20and%20work%20environments.

You really haven‘t understood the SC ruling have you?
I suggest you read up and gain a basic understanding of equality law, PSED, Health & Safety laws and avoiding discrimination against women by not providing adequate facilities for us before you embarrass yourself further.

Comprehension fail.

Trans exceptions may still be available in certain circumstances: Once it has been established that a single/same-sex provision is appropriate, the Act allows for exclusion of people from single-sex provisions on the grounds of gender re-assignment in certain scenarios, again where this is proportionate (and regardless of whether the person holds a GRC). Prior to this ruling, we would have understood this to mean an exclusion of a trans woman from a female space/service (this is the specific example given in the explanatory note to the relevant schedule of the Act), but now this exclusion would be of a trans male from a female space/service (and vice versa). In practice, this exemption was reserved for provision such as women's crisis support services. It was not used for toilets where trans people would have been expected to choose the most appropriate facility (this was a position to which many women objected and remains at the heart of the current debate around this case). It is not permissible to create a situation where trans people do not have an appropriate toilet facility to use. It is not clear that the Act permits exclusion from single sex toilets on the grounds of gender reassignment in a work context (as compared to service provision). This may be an area where we see further guidance and potential legal challenge.

"BTW, there’s no such thing as ‘cis’ - only women or men. Men who think they’d like to be women are still men. THAT is the effect of the ruling."

Lol, the ruling doesn't have the power to roll back definitions in the general sense only in specific circumstances. Definitions rely on social usage. I suggest you read up and gain a basic understanding of how definitions in the non legal sense are formed.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/how-does-a-word-get-into-the-dictionary

Do you believe that trans idenfitied females have male pattern criminality?

The data does not support that they do.

"Transgender People, Crime and Prisons – Prevalence
While there is a consistent stream of media attention concerning trans people involved in crime, statistics show cisgender people commit crimes more regularly than trans people. The makeup of the England & Wales (E&W) prison population shows this:
The E & W cisgender population is 59.6 million – the cisgender prison population is 87,900 = 0.15% of people in E & W are in prison.
The E & W trans population is 262,000 – the trans prison population is 268 = 0.1% of trans people in E & W are in prison.
From this statistic, we learn that cisgender people commit crimes at a 50% higher rate than trans people.
Evidence from the research conducted by Olga Suhomlinova and Saoirse Caitlin O’Shea using official statistics dating from 2021 revealed that while 0.5% of the population identify as transgender or non-binary, they represented just 0.2% of the prison population.
Transgender People, Crime and Prisons – Trans Women & Trans Men
Another anomaly in the statistics is that while 96% of the cisgender prison population is male and 4% female, the trans prison population is 84% trans women and 16% trans men. The reasons likely include trans men suffering depression, anxiety, discrimination, unemployment issues, and, consequently, poverty. For safety reasons, trans men nearly always elect to be housed in the female estate. Likewise, as long as not convicted of any violent or threatening act against natal females, trans women should be housed according to the safety risk they face."
https://translucent.org.uk/transgender-people-crime-and-prisons/

"Really depends what you mean by 'self determination'. Other people have rights too, and that will always impose limits."

"Self-determined gender is a cornerstone of a person's identity. The resulting obligation of States is to provide access to gender recognition in a manner consistent with the rights to freedom from discrimination, equal protection of the law, privacy, identity and freedom of expression.
The lack of access to gender recognition negates the identity of a person to such an extent that it provokes a fundamental rupture of State obligations. Denying someone the legal recognition of their gender negatively impacts all aspects of their life: their right to health, to housing, to access social security, to freedom of movement and residence; and it also fuels discrimination, violence and exclusion in social settings, including educational and work environments."
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/ie-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/struggle-trans-and-gender-diverse-persons#:~:text=Self%2Ddetermined%20gender%20is%20a,including%20educational%20and%20work%20environments.

"Nobody asks anyone how they would like to be referred to if they commit a crime. They are described and labelled in the most obvious way. By name, age and sex. It is only those who have adopted trans identities that are given special treatment, as if they are some kind of fragile, unique creature who even when involved in hideous criminality must be 'respected'. It is absolutely and totally ridiculous nonsense."

No one is suggesting that criminals who are trans people 'ask' to be reported as such . Typically journalists report the details from the police reports.

I hope you're amusing yourself, Dictionary Boy.

You might like to read the Supreme Court judgment in FWS v The Scottish Ministers. The reasoning is set out very clearly, so clearly that even the muppets at Translucent could understand it if they bothered to read it.

"'Self determination' is not an absolute human right...it is liberal western construct. We all exist in the context of a culture and a society and also within a web of relations and obligations on which we are inter-dependent."

You could say that about all human rights. In any case here is HR's justification.

"Self-determined gender is a cornerstone of a person's identity. The resulting obligation of States is to provide access to gender recognition in a manner consistent with the rights to freedom from discrimination, equal protection of the law, privacy, identity and freedom of expression.
The lack of access to gender recognition negates the identity of a person to such an extent that it provokes a fundamental rupture of State obligations. Denying someone the legal recognition of their gender negatively impacts all aspects of their life: their right to health, to housing, to access social security, to freedom of movement and residence; and it also fuels discrimination, violence and exclusion in social settings, including educational and work environments."
https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/ie-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/struggle-trans-and-gender-diverse-persons#:~:text=Self%2Ddetermined%20gender%20is%20a,including%20educational%20and%20work%20environments.

I hope you're amusing yourself, Dictionary Boy.
You might like to read the Supreme Court judgment in FWS v The Scottish Ministers. The reasoning is set out very clearly, so clearly that even the muppets at Translucent could understand it if they bothered to read it.

As opposed to the muppets that believe legal definitions supersede social definitions? 😂

That's nice. Maybe tomorrow you can write an article on Wikipedia that will overrule the Supreme Court and allow you into the ladies.

"'Defining features' are decided by other people, not by the person being defined.They cannot possibly say what defines them in the eyes of others.
Only a self absorbed narcissist would say something like " Well, this is my defining feature""

Yes & no. Personally people decide their defining features. Socially there are gendered categorisations based archetypical associations to one sex. And For most of us in social situations where we don't know for sure the reproductive characteristics of a person we tend to assume sex based on those associations.
So in the practical sense, sex is usually categorised by stereotypes not reproductive characteristics. You do this yourself & unconsciously.

Views on what individuals see as a personal defining feature whether reproductive or social categorisations are entirely subjective. IE an opinion of which we all have a right to.

"That's nice. Maybe tomorrow you can write an article on Wikipedia that will overrule the Supreme Court and allow you into the ladies."

Seems like the people who complain about others being 'offended by reality' are now 'offended' by the dictionary….😂

"Well, if someone displays behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with males, but wants to be referred to as female.
Should the BBC mis-gender them in that circumstance?"

Of course they should. Peoples individual values are subjective. Some may see reproductive characteristics as defining others not.

Where's that don't engage with interruptions sign?

These are "dead cat on the table" arguments.

It's great bedtime reading. Sends you straight off to the land of nod 😴

"Sex is not 'respected' it is reported and recorded.
Gender is an ephemeral construct, not a material or measurable fact."

You act like an offender identifying as trans or someone is known as trans can't be reported as such because some people don't believe in gender identification. Whether you believe their identification to be false doesn't change how they have identified themselves.

My view. BBC should use gender neutral pronouns when someone is trans and suspected to or has commited a crime.

If their sex or gender identity is of little or no interest then preferred pronouns are okay. (Jane told police she saw eight badgers yesterday).

That’s really interesting. I thought your view would be that TW’s preference to be called ‘she’ should be respected because they are all women (gender).

But in fact your view is that TW’s preference to be called ‘she’ should be respected because they prefer it, even the ones who are men (gender).

Gender here being something objectively determinable from their traits + the culture.

That’s really interesting. I thought your view would be that TW’s preference to be called ‘she’ should be respected because they are all women (gender).
But in fact your view is that TW’s preference to be called ‘she’ should be respected because they prefer it, even the ones who are men (gender).
Gender here being something objectively determinable from their traits + the culture.

Sorry but I misread your comment. The BBC should respect their wishes.

I don’t think you did mis-read, as that’s how I interpreted your answer too.

You’ve set out a definition of gender that depends on traits+culture. So, someone may be male (gender) even if they want to be described as female.

You want the BBC to respect their preference, not their gender, if those differ.

What surprised me is your willingness to concede that they can differ. To me it’s obvious that they can if we use a societal definition of gender. But often people on your side of the debate jump between different and often contradictory senses of ‘gender’ in the same conversation without seeming to notice. That’s why I was pleasantly surprised that you don’t.

I still disagree with you on what the BBC should do, of course!