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

You don't need to convince me, but Brian seems determined to waffle on forever on this point.

till 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.

Two clicks…

"The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), through Article 8 (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life), protects trans people's rights to identity recognition, while Article 14 prohibits discrimination. The Human Rights Act 1988 is not a European Convention; it was the UK's 1988 Act implementing the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, which provided a mechanism for people to claim their rights under the ECHR in UK courts. Though the Act does not have separate protections for trans people, their rights have been protected by interpretations of these ECHR articles in case law, establishing rights to legal gender recognition and protection from discrimination based on gender identity.

Key ECHR Articles and Their Application to Trans People
Article 8 (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life):
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has interpreted this Article to include the right to respect for a person's physical and psychological integrity, which encompasses the right to have one's gender identity legally recognized. This means states must allow trans people to update their documents to reflect their true gender identity without unnecessary interference.

Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination):
This Article ensures that the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention are secured without discrimination based on grounds such as "sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status". The ECtHR has applied this to protect trans people from discrimination.

The Human Rights Act 1988
The Human Rights Act 1988 was the UK's 1988 Act that implemented the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic UK law, though the reference to 1988 is incorrect, it should be 1998.

This Act allows individuals to bring claims in UK courts for breaches of their ECHR rights.

It does not provide separate, distinct rights for trans people but incorporates the ECHR protections, which have been interpreted by UK courts to cover trans rights.

How These Conventions Protect Trans People
Legal Gender Recognition:
Cases before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have addressed issues of legal gender recognition, establishing that trans people have the right to have their new identity recognized by governments.

Protection from Discrimination:
Article 14, read with other Convention articles, protects trans people from discrimination based on their gender identity.

Right to Dignity and Autonomy:
The ECHR framework, particularly through Article 8, supports the dignity, physical and psychological integrity, and personal autonomy of trans individuals.

Key Points
The ECHR is a treaty that forms the basis of human rights in Europe.

The Human Rights Act 1988 was a UK law that incorporated the ECHR into UK law.

Trans people's rights are protected under these conventions through interpretations of Articles 8 and 14 by the European Court of Human Rights. "

Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on my suggestion:

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).

Aside from anything else you need a clear easy to apply neutral policy. It also makes it less confusing if someone quoted is using male or female pronouns.

I suppose r.e. the above you could only use gender neutral pronouns or preferred pronouns when someone has a GRC.

Society has an expectation that our news services report the most accurate and precise information they have at the time. Unless it is an opinion piece. There is also an expectation that communication is clear and can be understood by the largest majority of people possible.

If someone’s identity is based on philosophical belief and not reflective of material reality, why should news services be treating that identity as if it is materially real?

An English language news service has to rely on using the established conventions of the language to remain accurate and precise. Why should news services be supporting someone’s philosophical belief about themselves when it doesn’t match the material reality of the situation and it is contradictory to the application of the English language?

By all means, media can and should report that someone has a transgender identity and news reports should be clear about what that identity is. They should report any belief that person has that might be relevant to the news article is a way, as already mentioned in this thread, as a neutral fact. Eg. X identifies as [insert term] or believes they are [insert term].

However, if any pronouns are to be used, it needs to based on the sex of the person and not based on their personal perception of their identity. For example, would any title be used in a news report if that title was not based on a material reality?

It is particularly important because the majority of the UK population is confused by what is meant by the label ‘trans woman’. Some terms such as ‘trans female’ are very unclear as to what sex the person materially is.

Reporting that someone is a ‘trans woman’ and then using she/her through a news report is causing confusion and can cause harm if people then believe that this person is the opposite sex to what they are. Even for a good news segment.

In looking back on some crime reporting using name and the area where someone lives, it becomes quite quickly apparent that reporting where someone’s pronoun demand is followed can cause confusion in future reports where their sex is very important to be known. Or where someone has changed their pronouns in the meantime either because they are genderfluid, have changed genders or has detransitioned.

I cannot think of any other relevant identity that would be reported as if it were materially real when it was not. Sex is an unchangeable aspect about a person’s identifying information. Name, residential address, current occupation can be changed. Sex cannot.

Why should wrong sex or confusing pronouns be used as if everyone else is acting to support that person’s philosophical belief about themselves? Particularly if it is a news service that we are expecting provide accurate reports using language that is clearly understood by the largest number of people?

When did news services become acceptable to be used as outlets for the personal validation of falsehoods around what should be unchangable information? And in this case using language that then specifically obfuscates that unchangeable information?

1). It’s risky to assume that AI can provide accurate legal advice. Posters on this board have found most success taking advice from Equality law specialists.

2). The rights you refer to are qualified and must be balanced against other rights.

3). The BBC’s policies on self ID tend to promote the idea that any chancer can claim to be trans, so they don’t even help the people they claim to support.

Anyone posting about Article 8 should be posting about the restrictions to that right as well.

It is very often ignored.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-8-respect-your-private-and-family-life

Article 8 protects your right to respect for your private and family life.

The EHRC link covers what this means. Including these restrictions:

Restrictions to the right to respect for your private and family life

There are situations when public authorities can interfere with your right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:

protect national security
protect public safety
protect the economy
protect health or morals
prevent disorder or crime, or
protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

These restrictions keep getting missed out.

And in the ECHR documentation

https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG

page 11

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Trans women just like CIS women aren't a monolith of agreeable women

Yes, men (sometimes also called ‘transwomen’ by activists) are not a ‘monolith of agreeable women’ because they are not women. There is no ‘naturally occurring inclination to female behaviour’ because they are not female.

It’s a fair point in the surface but it still perpetuates the idea that it’s ok to conceal a persons sex when sex is important in so many areas of life.

The trans activists had their chance to be reasonable and ensure that rapists and other male criminals were not presented to the public as women, thus damaging the ‘reputation’ of women in general in the minds of the public.

The BBC have destroyed their reputation over years of sex scandals and now this blatant failure of impartiality and honesty. They now need to be whiter than white - nothing less than 100% fact based truth is acceptable.

The posts using 'cis' are a good reminder that the term 'cis' is meaningless because the term includes any male person who has a DSD yet has a body that is **formed around the production of small gametes that has any degree of sensitivity to any of the testosterone that body produces.

Using this word, cis, then means there is no word left for female people.

Because even male people are now saying they are also ‘female’ . When ^^ female means only a person of the sex category where that person's body has been formed around the production of large gametes, regardless of whether the body does, has or ever will produce those large gametes. ie that requires the presence of ovaries or ovarian tissue - never testes.

In fact, we now have examples of many male people declaring that they are female people. So even the word for female has become meaningless in that sense.

But 'cis' is a* *word that was repurposed from its original usage and is meaningless for the purpose of discussing female people in its current usage. It has been used in academic papers as well in an attempt at using inclusive language which then renders the papers meaningless because the term is not describing a unique grouping of human bodies, even when it claims to be doing just that.

To see how this works, we have been told that 'girl' and 'woman' both now include:

1 Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **.
2 Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.
3 And any person who has a female body ^^.

Under the label of 'girl' and 'woman', extreme transgender activists have been telling us for years that those labels break down into two types of girls or women:

Cis and Transwomen/transgirls.

These terms mean:
Cis
= (1) Male person who has been incorrectly registered as a female at birth, but has a male body **
and
= (3) Any person who has a female body^^

Trans
= (2) Any male person has now claimed a transgender identity using those labels.

Therefore there is no unique word to mean female people who have a body ^^ formed around the production of large gametes.

Cis is meaningless as a unique description for female people and it always was. It is also misogynistic because it leaves female people with no unique word for their needs.

And so no, not even those labelled ‘cis’ women are ‘monolith’ because that category also includes male people ‘assigned female at birth’.

Thanks I would add to my suggestion

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

It should use terms such as transwoman and/or transman only in conjunction with a clear neutral definition.

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).

If there is reason to think they may be transitioning to influence public opinion then same sex pronouns should be used.

I'll get back to you Helleofabore.

In tracking down male people convicted of crimes as ‘female’ people, I noticed that one or two of them had been in the news previously. Some for non-crime related stories. Those male people had been described as female people.

When it then came to reporting about their crimes, their pronouns were supported with previous articles. So, the effect of using preferred pronouns for some news items and not others does cause discordance when it happens. Of course, how likely is it to know in advance whether a male person the news is using preferred pronouns for will be someone in the future they will then not use preferred pronouns for?