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

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!

You are confused. If you read my comment I explain that its up to the individual what they consider as their defining traits. IE if they believe their reproductive traits make them a woman or man then the BBC should use the appropriate pronouns according to their sex. For example if they had the behavioural/ cultural/ psychological traits that are associated to males but their sex is female & they want to be considered as female then the BBC should call them female.

You’ve brought in quite a few new things now: reproductive traits, what someone believes their reproductive traits make them.

Let’s stick to your core definition unless you now think that’s inadequate.

You think:

Gender — behavioural/psychological traits+culture.

You recognise that gender can differ from sex.

You also seem to recognise that gender can differ from preference.

(I agree: our traits are not the same things as our preferences. We can prefer all we like, but our behaviour and our psychological traits are to a large degree independent of that).

You think preference wins for BBC purposes.

Am I right so far?

Am I right so far?

Yes. Identification doesn't have to be according to one's sex or gender & the BBC should report on what that person has chosen to be identified with.

I don’t think that’s a workable basis for reporting.

1. It doesn’t generalise (and I can’t see why sex/gender should be a special case). If I’m a nurse but want to be identified as a doctor, the BBC should refer to me as a nurse. (Do you agree on the nurse/doctor by the way?).
2. doesn’t work in the specific, becuase other people are impacted by the decision (it’s not the kind of thing that the can be innocuously delegated to an individual). I think it’s corrosive in a wide range of cases but especially with crimes: i) Societally, ‘not our crimes’ (ie wrong to paint an intentionally misleading picture of the world), and ii) personally, take a rape victim and rape convict: why should the victim’s preference that the report should state she was attacked by a man be overridden by the perpetrator’s preference that the report should say she was attacked by a woman? (What are your thoughts on the rights and wrongs in that case?)

How do you respect the wishes of a dead man who murdered children?

I don’t think that’s a workable basis for reporting.

1. It doesn’t generalise (and I can’t see why sex/gender should be a special case). If I’m a nurse but want to be identified as a doctor, the BBC should refer to me as a nurse. (Do you agree on the nurse/doctor by the way?).

No. Because there's no justification involved in your example. There has to be a valid association involved.

1. It doesn’t work in the specific, becuase other people are impacted by the decision (it’s not the kind of thing that the can be innocuously delegated to an individual). I think it’s corrosive in a wide range of cases but especially with crimes: i) Societally, ‘not our crimes’ (ie wrong to paint an intentionally misleading picture of the world), and ii) personally, take a rape victim and rape convict: why should the victim’s preference that the report should state she was attacked by a man be overridden by the perpetrator’s preference that the report should say she was attacked by a woman? (What are your thoughts on the rights and wrongs in that case?)

I would prefer specifying the person was attacked by a trans woman which is enough clarity. This obviously matters for prison housing/risk assessment, statistical & public interest purposes

Hardly a neutral, well respected source for your definition of 'self determination' .

Only if you believe in the concept of an innate gender identity would such a description even be applicable. We all know that sections of the U.S are fully captured...which is why males playing in female sporting categories is such a shit show there; and also why men are routinley locked up in women's prisons.

No! Crimes are simply recorded and reported and the standard is to report the name, age and sex, and sometimes ethnicity. That is it! Finger prints, saliva tests and mug shots are also taken.

Hardly a neutral, well respected source = anything that threatens my world view

Are you disputing there's no such thing as gender as defined as the "behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"?

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

Yes, i do say that about all human rights. what is your point?

People who adopt trans identities are like everyone else. The world does not revolve around their own self perception or desires. We all exist in an existing web of arrangements, rules, codes and culture.

There are some basic organisational principles and categories the world over. Sex is one of them.

Sex is real. Gender is a polite term often used by americans, largely, to describe or discuss it.

'Gender stereotypes' is the term that has arisen to describe culturally coded associations and behaviours....but is not the exact same thing as sex.

Displaying or peforming stereotypes does not alter one's sex or make you, in any way, the opposite sex to that which you are.

Fixing stereotypes and making an identity out of them is regressive, not progressive.

"Yes, i do say that about all human rights. what is your point?"

Really?

"The point of human rights is to recognize the inherent dignity, worth, and autonomy of every individual, ensuring that all people are treated with equality, fairness, and respect. Human rights provide universal standards for how people should be treated by each other and by the state, enabling individuals to live with freedom, safety, and the ability to make genuine choices, which is essential for building strong, inclusive societies where everyone can contribute and thrive."

"There are some basic organisational principles and categories the world over. Sex is one of them."

And what is your point?

How a criminal feels about themself or how they perceive themself is irrelevent when it comes to the reporting a crime.......though it may be a factor when it comes to court and the subsequent exploration of the mental and psychological portrait.

"Sex is real. Gender is a polite term often used by americans, largely, to describe or discuss it.
'Gender sterotypes' is the term that has arisen to describe culturally coded associations and behaviours....but is not the exact same thing as sex.
Displaying or peforming stereotypes does not alter one's sex or make you, in any way, the opposite sex to that which you are.

No one is suggesting its the same thing as reproductive biological sex but as you alluded to in your previous comment the world has organised principles one of which is social sex categorisation that mostly runs off stereotypes. You do this yourself when you assume sex in social situations when you don't know the sex characteristics of people around you. You effectively act as if gender is 'real' in practice. Hence dictionaries recognise behaviour as sexed due to social usage

b
: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females

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

Fixing stereotypes and making an identity out of them is regressive, not progressive.

Hardly consistent with claiming men are all predatory violent sex pests that women need to be closeted from.

There's an awful lot of word salading going on to try & justify men who commit crime whilst claiming to feel like a woman - however it is that all women feel - being called she/her

the answer is still no

sex is immutable

gender is a load of performative stereotype bollocks which men can indulge in if they want but they're still men and should be referred to as such particularly when involved in a criminal offence

@Howseitgoin

1. It doesn’t generalise (and I can’t see why sex/gender should be a special case). If I’m a nurse but want to be identified as a doctor, the BBC should refer to me as a nurse. (Do you agree on the nurse/doctor by the way?).

No. Because there's no justification involved in your example. There has to be a valid association involved.

But the ‘valid association’ that the nurse would claim is preference. I prefer to be referred to as a doctor. It might even be really important to my self-perception that I be referred to as such.

Why shouldn’t the BBC respect that?

With the definition of gender you are using, you recognise it’s possible that some people may be male (sex) and male (gender), yet prefer to be referred to as female.

(We might think of the type of TW who is very aggressive, sexually transgressive and macho as an example of this. Male sex, male gender, female preference).

What’s the valid association here that should guide the BBC? It’s just preference. Self-perception can’t be the test, or the nurse who perceives themselves as a doctor should be called a doctor.

I would prefer specifying the person was attacked by a trans woman which is enough clarity. This obviously matters for prison housing/risk assessment, statistical & public interest purposes

Yes, I could just about live with “transwomen” + she in BBC reporting. I don’t like it, but someone’s going to be unhappy whatever the BBC goes with. But that needs to be the blanket rule then — no picking and choosing the ‘good’ TW who are women and the ‘bad’ ones who aren’t. And any cross-sex use of pronouns must then include a flag that they are cross-sex, even for the lovely TW from the telly. I think it’s a messy compromise but it reflects the fact that social convention is split on this. The facts aren’t split at all though and the BBC’s first loyalty must be to the facts.

Absolutely. None of this justifies reporting based on someone’s feelings instead of reality. The purpose of reporting is to inform the public of what is going on. It’s an important element of democracy, and must not be corrupted.

1. It doesn’t generalise (and I can’t see why sex/gender should be a special case). If I’m a nurse but want to be identified as a doctor, the BBC should refer to me as a nurse. (Do you agree on the nurse/doctor by the way?).

No. Because there's no justification involved in your example. There has to be a valid association involved.
But the ‘valid association’ that the medic would claim is preference. I prefer to be referred to as a doctor. It might even be really important to my self-perception that I be referred to as such.
Why shouldn’t the BBC respect that?

There needs to be an association of behavioural/psychological/ cultural with that preference remember?

With the definition of gender you are using, you recognise it’s possible that some people may be male (sex) and male (gender), yet prefer to be referred to as female.
(We might think of the type of TW who is very aggressive, sexually transgressive and macho as an example of this. Male sex, male gender, female preference).
What’s the valid association here that should guide the BBC? It’s just preference. Self-perception can’t be the test, or the nurse who perceives themselves as a doctor should be called a doctor.

That example is highly unlikely unless the person is mentally ill.

I would prefer specifying the person was attacked by a trans woman which is enough clarity. This obviously matters for prison housing/risk assessment, statistical & public interest purposes
Yes, I could just about live with “transwomen” + she in BBC reporting. I don’t like it, but someone’s going to be unhappy whatever the BBC goes with. But that needs to be the blanket rule then — no picking and choosing the ‘good’ TW who are women and the ‘bad’ ones who aren’t. And any cross-sex use of pronouns must then include a flag that they are cross-sex, even for the lovely TW from the telly. I think it’s a messy compromise but it reflects the fact that social convention is split on this. The facts aren’t split at all though and the BBC’s first loyalty must be to the facts.

But it's not really split in practice. If you consider the fact that in social settings we all mostly assume gender based on associations of stereotypical/archetypal gendered traits. We usually don't know for sure other people biological sex characteristics but categorise their sex anyway based on? Gendered traits. Hence 'man'/woman' are social constructs. There's no objective truth here other than social usage. Thats why 'sex' is defined by both reproductive & behavioural distinctions. See 1(a) & (b)

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

Honestly, the gall of some people, saying 'man/woman are social constructs' on a parenting forum of all places. What an absolute waste of time. Incredibly sexist too!

Spamming this thread with links to an American dictionary, which you apparently think overrides every other authority in the world, might not be the way to convince us. Particularly since you're doing this as a way of arguing that criminals must be afforded pronoun respect.

It's possible you may have missed the court cases where rape survivors were instructed to refer to their rapist as "she", and where BBC reporting included ridiculous phrases like "her penis". You might like to reflect on why most of us here are not impressed by this.

In my experience women completely get that.
Men - less so.

"Spamming this thread with links to an American dictionary, which you apparently think overrides every other authority in the world, might not be the way to convince us.

You know words come from social usage right? Oh wait…
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/how-does-a-word-get-into-the-dictionary

"It's possible you may have missed the court cases where rape survivors were instructed to refer to their rapist as "she", and where BBC reporting included ridiculous phrases like "her penis". You might like to reflect on why most of us here are not impressed by this."

I don't make the social categorisational rules, I'm not that powerful…

You want to blame anybody its yourself as you are just as complicit in stereotypical associations that decide in practice who is man or woman as everybody else.

You want to blame anybody its yourself as you are just as complicit in stereotypical associations that decide in practice who is man or woman as everybody else.

what a load of utter nonsense

biology decides who is male or female yes even ppl with DSD

gender critical ppl believe in the abolition of gender stereotypes ie it's ok for men to wear dresses and make up - it doesn't make them
a woman because they perform stereotypes

I don't think it's worth engaging with Brian. He seems to think the American dictionary is a universal gotcha that will force all of us to accept the error of our ways and refer to a male murderer with female pronouns.

Jesus, Reddit aren't sending their best. Or maybe they are.