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

Sex does not " run mostly off stereotypes". Sex is a measurable biological reality. Sex exists the world over, regardless of different 'gender' expectations and associations. It is a fundamental category in the organisation of life on earth.

Sex is readily observable and detectable in most circumstances...it is hardwired in to recognise the characteristics; though on occasion it may not always be readily observable and may be disguised via superficial presentations associated with the opposite sex such as clothing, hair style etc....even then, it is usually very easy to spot a male person..for the reasons stated above.

Not all men are predatory fetishists, but it is males, generally, that are. Observed experience and statistics over long periods of time bear this out.

We have single sex spaces for women and girls in certain types of situation in which taking clear safeguardning measures is an obvious step that can be taken to ensure the privacy, dignity and safety of one's sex....when in intimate situations that revolve around nakedness; the body, and its biological function.

@Howseitgoin

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

Not the way you’ve been answering so far there doesn’t.

You’ve defined gender in a way that depends on traits+culture. ie, not preference. It’s a matter of their behaviour and psychology. There are lots of TW who behave and think in ways that are strikingly male-associated. Their gender is male, per you.

You’ve then said that someone can have a certain gender but prefer to be called something else and the BBC should go with preference (not gender and not sex, if preference differs from these).

At that point, I really can’t see why consistency doesn’t demand that the BBC also call the nurse a doctor, if that’s what they prefer.

You may think such examples are rare, but I’d say it’s very common that someone prefers to be portrayed in a certain way in the media that the facts don’t support. But even if you think it’s an edge case, let’s look at such edge cases. Should the BBC refer to Rachel Dolezal as an African-American, or that Korean-plastic-surgery chap as a Korean? Why not? The rule you propose says they should, if you generalise it.

A male murderer of children no less!

It's an odd experience seeing men determined to remove the sex crimes of voyeurism and indecent exposure deciding it's a good strategy to spend endless hours on a parenting site of predominantly women. Exposing a total disregard for safeguarding, being a parent, being a woman and the need to safeguard children from predators and reckoning that this will result in everyone suddenly agreeing that girls and women must be compelled to undress in front of men 😅

As you point out, given the lack of any coherent intellectual, scientific or moral arguments for decriminalising sex crimes against women and girls, presumably this is the best they've got.

Sad times.

@Howseitgoin They can identify as they wish. However, it is journalists’ responsibility to report the facts correctly. If a biological man commits a crime, it should be reported that the crime was committed by a man, regardless of how he “feels”.
Otherwise it is factually incorrect.

Imagine that I sexually assault somebody and then decide to identify as a table.
Should BBC report that a table committed a sexual assault?

There needs to be an association of behavioural/psychological/ cultural with that preference remember?
Not the way you’ve been answering so far there doesn’t. You’ve defined gender in a way that depends on traits+culture. ie, not preference.

I gave you an example remember? Butch biological female, wants to identified as female because she believes her reproductive traits define her.

It’s a matter of their behaviour and psychology. There are lots of TW who behave and think in ways that are strikingly male-associated. Their gender is male, per you.

You may not be privy to all their personality traits.

You’ve then said that someone can have a certain gender but prefer to be called something else and the BBC should go with preference (not gender and not sex, if preference differs from these).

No. re read the comments. They can go with either sex or gender depends their associations & subjective values.

At that point, I really can’t see why consistency doesn’t demand that the BBC also call the nurse a doctor, if that’s what they prefer.

That's because you are missing the link of associations either way being necessary + subjective preference.

You may think such examples are rare, but I’d say it’s very common that someone prefers to be portrayed in a certain way in the media that the facts don’t support.
You don't know them personally so I doubt you could really make that judgement.

But even if you think it’s an edge case, let’s look at such edge cases. Should the BBC refer to Rachel Dolezal as an African-American, or that Korean-plastic-surgery chap as a Korean? Why not? The rule you propose says they should, if you generalise it.

Apples & oranges. Because these examples don't hold duel possibilities like sex & gender do.

Sex does not " run mostly off stereotypes". Sex is a measurable biological reality. Sex exists the world over, regardless of different 'gender' expectations and associations. It is a fundamental category in the organisation of life on earth.

You are avoiding your own actions & you know it.

Sex is readily observable and detectable in most circumstances...it is hardwired in to recognise the characteristics; though on occasion it may not always be readily observable and may be disguised via superficial presentations associated with the opposite sex such as clothing, hair style etc....even then, it is usually very easy to spot a male person..for the reasons stated above.

Clearly not:
www.vox.com/2016/5/18/11690234/women-bathrooms-harassment

Not all men are predatory fetishists, but it is males, generally, that are. Observed experience and statistics over long periods of time bear this out.

Like most stereotypical associations. See where this is going?

We have single sex spaces for women and girls in certain types of situation in which taking clear safeguardning measures is an obvious step that can be taken to ensure the privacy, dignity and safety of one's sex....when in intimate situations that revolve around nakedness; the body, and its biological function.

Irrelevant to the point that gendered associations are used as a sex distinction/

Sex would kick “gender”’s arse in a duel.

That second one.

@Howseitgoin

But even if you think it’s an edge case, let’s look at such edge cases. Should the BBC refer to Rachel Dolezal as an African-American, or that Korean-plastic-surgery chap as a Korean? Why not? The rule you propose says they should, if you generalise it.
Apples & oranges. Because these examples don't hold duel possibilities like sex & gender do.

Sure they do. One can define race biologically, and there are also behavioural and psychological traits typically associated with a given race in the culture.

If Rachel Dolezal adopts behavioural traits culturally associated with African Americans (behaviours including putting herself forward for leadership positions in AA organisations, her style of hair and dress, her way of self-describing, who she associates with), and is psychologically committed to her identity (afaik sincerely), she more than passes even your new test for having her preference respected if she asks the BBC to describe her as AA.

Why would you want the BBC to disrespect her preference?

The parallels aren’t perfect, but the differences work in my favour not yours: race, when using a biological definition, really is a spectrum. Sex is not.

f Rachel Dolezal adopts behavioural traits culturally associated with African Americans (behaviours including putting herself forward for leadership positions in AA organisations, her style of hair and dress, her way of self-describing, who she associates with), and is psychologically committed to her identity (afaik sincerely), she more than passes even your new test for having her preference respected if she asks the BBC to describe her as AA.

Rachels 'behaviours' are learned/copied. They aren't organically influenced. Now whilst you might be able to copy female male behaviours its not quite the same as it being organically driven from IE genes/hormones. One can pretend to be violent or I can have a naturally occurring propensity for violence. Kind of the difference between an actor & the real life person they are portraying. What a CIS woman & trans woman have in common is their behaviours are naturally occurring inclinations.

Doezal is pretending to be African American as an actor would & was not raised in a black culture.

If Rachel Dolezal adopts behavioural traits culturally associated with African Americans (behaviours including putting herself forward for leadership positions in AA organisations, her style of hair and dress, her way of self-describing, who she associates with), and is psychologically committed to her identity (afaik sincerely), she more than passes even your new test for having her preference respected if she asks the BBC to describe her as AA.
Why would you want the BBC to disrespect her preference?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/12/comparison-transgender-people-rachel-dolezal

So in your view, if Rachel Dolezal had been brought up in an African American family (for example if she'd been adopted or fostered into it), then everyone should have accepted her as being African American?

Still not a human right according to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Human Rights Act 1988. Just a wish.

‘Gender’ is not the same as sex and as the Supreme Court decided, sex is the importance factor in most situations. ‘Gender’, self declared or not is undefined in law and is irrelevant.

There is only one definition of woman and it doesn’t include men.

Also, in an age of multiple genders it's not clear what the state would be recognising or why. In the last UK census, a third of people who said that they didn't identify with their sex registered at birth also didn't identify as either male or female.

and there are also behavioural and psychological traits typically associated with a given race in the culture.

Can you give an example of these ‘traits’?

Any that you can identify without coming over as a complete racist.

What a CIS woman & trans woman have in common is their behaviours are naturally occurring inclinations.

So why did men who thought they were women feel the need for classes to teach them how to ‘woman’ properly?

And why do so many men who claim to be women behave in such a male way? Aggressive, glee at being in spaces where they don’t belong, taking pleasure in upsetting and intimidating women, mansplaining what it is to be female - to women. There is no ‘naturally occurring inclination’ to female behaviour from these abusive and entitled men.

If we group people according to their 'naturally occurring inclinations' presumably we can exclude from the group anyone who doesn't share those characteristics.

However, that contradicts with the claimed right to self determine identity.

Not clear what the point of any of this is.

I think our mistake is expecting howseitgoin to have any kind of consistency, logic or facts on his or her side.

Yes of course.

You know there are, and I know you know there are.

You know I know you know there are.

The 'only a racist would say that' is tiresome and silly. Who do you think you are gaining any points with? The anonymous internet?

Here we go then:

i) from the Rachel Dolezal case you've just read about, some things typically associated with being African American:

• putting oneself forward for leadership positions in AA organisations
• certain hair and dress
• speaking of ones AA heritage.

You disagree? You must have been confused as to what those African Americans who objected to RD were getting so het up about then.

ii) from modern cultural discourse:

• the whole whiteness discourse
• the whole cultural appropriate discourse

...must have utterly bemused you. The premise of both is that there are traits and behaviours typically associated with certain races.

iii) this racism thing you mentioned but seem to know nothing about. You don't think any of that involved associations of behavioural and psychological traits with certain races? A new idea for you?

iv) and a fair amount of comedy, especially from minority ethnicity comics, revolves around this. You took that all for some sort of random surrealist routine based in no cultural common references?

Blah blah blah

men are still not women and there's absolutely no justification that can ever be made for describing a man who murdered children as a woman

'If we group people according to their 'naturally occurring inclinations' presumably we can exclude from the group anyone who doesn't share those characteristics.
However, that contradicts with the claimed right to self determine identity.
Not clear what the point of any of this is.'

There's this thing called 'self determination' & the point is it's an individual's choice not society's what they value & how they want to live their lives.

What a CIS woman & trans woman have in common is their behaviours are naturally occurring inclinations.
So why did men who thought they were women feel the need for classes to teach them how to ‘woman’ properly?
And why do so many men who claim to be women behave in such a male way? Aggressive, glee at being in spaces where they don’t belong, taking pleasure in upsetting and intimidating women, mansplaining what it is to be female - to women. There is no ‘naturally occurring inclination’ to female behaviour from these abusive and entitled men.

Trans women just like CIS women aren't a monolith of agreeable women. Just like Gender critical women they can be disagreeable & hostile but that isn't necessarily the sum total of their personality.

That is obviously limited to circumstances that don’t interfere with other people’s lives.

So in your view, if Rachel Dolezal had been brought up in an African American family (for example if she'd been adopted or fostered into it), then everyone should have accepted her as being African American?

Culturally? Not necessarily because some African American households don't have any associations with black culture.