Tricky

Catching up with the past week's typically turbulent BBC-related news [and, as ever, thank to you for keeping us up to date on the open threads]...

That Daily Telegraph story about how the BBC's ultra-worthy 50:50 equality project is going wrong and leading to complaints from within the BBC that the corporation is “disappearing women” by allowing the female side to be filled “by those who self-identify as female” included some fascinating details. 

As the BBC itself might say, I've not been able to independently verify the Jeremy Vine discussion about women’s sports on BBC Radio 2 where the voices on air were four men and three trans people with no women, but I have checked out the edition of Radio 4’s Moral Maze a year ago last June where two men and two trans women discussed women’s sport. 

Which does seem odd.

The Telegraph quotes “a senior BBC insider” saying that the BBC presenter behind the 50:50 equality project, Ros Atkins, “has gone along with” redefining the word 'woman' - “a word which we all understand”, something the BBC has done “without any public debate”.

As for the whole 50:50 equality project, it is interesting how one [male] BBC presenter, such as Ros Atkins, could have such a massive impact - for good or for ill - on the BBC's behaviour. His agenda has pretty much consumed the BBC since 2017.

This is something Radio 4's Media Show, or the BBC News Channel's Outside Source, or the BBC's Analysis Editor might want to tackle...

...if only the man behind the 50:50 equality project wasn't also a main presenter on Radio 4's Media Show, and the main presenter on BBC News Channel's Outside Source, and the BBC's Analysis Editor.

And called Ros Atkins.

Tricky.

The Strange Case of the Missing Wossy

It's a very good thing that Maya Forstater has won her employment tribunal claim for discrimination and victimisation after losing her job for stating her belief that people cannot change their biological sex, especially given that the appalling judge at her first tribunal had said her views were not "worthy of respect in a democratic society" - which must be one of the most undemocratic things a British judge has said for a century or more. As for the BBC's reporting of it, I was intrigued by one edit. The original version read:

Ms Forstater's case previously gained public attention, including attracting some high-profile supporters, such as Harry Potter author JK Rowling and presenter Jonathan Ross.

32 minutes later Wossy vanished:

Ms Forstater's case previously gained public attention, including attracting some high-profile supporters, such as Harry Potter author JK Rowling.

Given that Jonathan Ross has backed her, why was he edited out of this report? 

Pride comes before a fall

  

3 of the 22

Did you know there are currently 22 stories about Pride featured on the CBBC Newsround homepage?

I just learned that from reading a piece at The Spectator by their regular anonymous BBC whistleblower headlined How the BBC was captured by trans ideology. The Corporation has forgotten about its duty to be impartial.

It's a long piece, and this is how it begins:

During Pride month this year a banner has been emblazoned across the BBC’s internal staff website used by every single employee. It features the following text: ‘BBC Pride 2022: Bringing together LGBTQ+ people of all genders, sexualities and identities at the BBC. 

Most people who work at the BBC aren’t concerned about this. But the slogan really should ring alarm bells, because behind its seemingly benign message of inclusivity is a latent political message about trans rights that is undermining the corporation’s impartiality.

As a BBC employee I am proud and delighted that the corporation is striving to be a welcoming employer for people from all walks of life, whatever their colour, creed or whoever they choose to sleep with. But the problem is that ‘Pride’ is no longer a movement that is simply fighting for the rights and liberties of people who have faced prejudice and discrimination because they don’t happen to be straight. It has morphed into something altogether more controversial and political – it is promoting a trans agenda that undermines longstanding concepts of sex and gender. Rather than treading carefully, however, the BBC is once again becoming an unthinking conduit for the dominant ‘progressive’ theology bouncing around the social media echo chambers of its Guardian reading bosses.

Good sense from the heart of Lancashire

Dr Amy Binns and Sophie Arnold of the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) have produced guidance for journalists to help them report court cases that involve a transgender defendant. Their work strikes me as being very sensible and useful, and clearly written too. It's well worth reading:

1. Avoid using definitive words without caveat especially in headlines and introductions.

Headlines which use the word “woman” to describe a transwoman implies that the writer, and publication, agrees with the proposition “Transwomen are women”. This is an opinion, not a fact, and so should not be used in the headline of a news report. Similarly, describing a person who has recently changed their name as a “transwoman” implies to the general reader that the person has made a sincere, permanent commitment to a gender change, probably with medical treatment. This may not be the case. In headlines, the words woman or transwoman are better avoided. In body copy, phrases can be used such as “The prosecuting lawyer said Smith now identifies as a woman” or “Smith claimed to be transgender and asked court officials to use female pronouns”.

2. Report all quotes accurately even if this results in different pronouns being used by different speakers.

In court reporting, as elsewhere, quotes should never be changed. If necessary, a brief explanation is best: “Although Smith was referred to as a woman by court officials, the witness referred to Smith as a man”.

3. Seek to provide your reader with the most accurate information, where possible, regarding the person’s status such as an official name change, medical treatment, time of transition or GRC.

Public understanding of trans terms is low, and even official definitions are so vague and all-encompassing as to be almost meaningless. In the majority of news reports, details of a person’s transition will be irrelevant, but is relevant where biological sex is a factor if the reader is to understand the facts, particularly where a defendant has transitioned, or claimed to transition, after arrest.

4. Refrain from using pronouns, except in quotes, even if this results in awkward sentence construction or repetition of a name.

To refer to a biological male with female pronouns is to tacitly agree with their claim that they are a woman or transwoman. Owing to the incentives of the justice system, this may not be the case. Using their chosen pronouns is to collude in their possible deception.

5. Make clear the biological sex of the defendant high up in the story.

Types of crime strongly correlate with biological sex. These differences remain even after transition. Public understanding of crime, particularly violent and sexual offences, will be corroded if a defendant’s sex is cloaked in euphemisms, or buried in a final paragraph, or if gender is conflated with sex.

6. Use both birth and trans names where available, particularly for sex offences.

Journalists have a duty to the public, as well as obligations to the subjects of stories. This can create a conflict when a person has changed their name. Many trans people greatly dislike being referred to by their original name, sometimes known as “deadnaming”, and in most news stories there is no need to use it. However, there is clearly a public interest case for reporting a defendant’s original name as well as their new name. Reports of sex offences are one of the most valuable methods of encouraging victims of earlier crimes to come forward. Complying with a sex offender’s demands to only use their new name in public reports may allow them to escape justice for other crimes. The existence of a GRC does not prohibit the publication of a previous name when used to investigate or prevent crime, as described in the societal benefits of court reporting above. An analogy would be with press treatment of far-right activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, AKA Tommy Robinson. The media, across the political spectrum, routinely refer to him by both names, regardless of his preference.

Their report includes a spreadsheet that links to many relevant cases, including to several BBC reports. What's striking is that the BBC has been far from consistent in how it reports such stories. They range from the one about child rapist Patrick McCann, which simply calls him 'Patrick McCann' and uses 'he' and 'his' throughout, to the one about John Marshall, which uses the headline Blackpool woman accessed child abuse images in hospital bed, immediately follows that with the opening line 'A woman who accessed her "vast" library of child sexual abuse images from her hospital bed has been jailed', and only uses the name 'Julie Marshall' and the pronoun 'she'. 

All About Trans

Here's a story I missed...until now. 

The Times reported last Friday that back in 2011 the BBC and Channel 4 funded a transgender campaign group called All About Trans to the tune of £20,000. 

“Some BBC insiders believe its influence is still felt in the corporation’s reporting on gender identity”, the paper says, adding “The BBC and Channel 4’s investment went unnoticed and they have not provided funding since. It is unlikely the broadcasters would back a similar project today.” 

The organisation held “several discussions” with BBC executives, including one in 2013 with editorial policy executives, “the gatekeepers of the broadcaster’s impartiality.” 

The report quotes “a BBC insider” saying:

It might look like ancient history but All About Trans has informed our approach in news and all content. It was embedded nearly a decade ago and it’s not gone away.

The organisation promotes preferred terminology “like assigned male/female at birth” as against “born a man/woman” and advocates “inclusive language”, eg. the use of pronouns, “which are echoed in BBC News’s rules on the use of language in reporting.”

The top-rated comments below the article suggest people are unimpressed:

• And they think it acceptable to waste my license fee on this???? I would NEVER intentionally fund such a cause!! The BBC has totally forgotten its purpose....and is increasingly (and sadly) showing itself to be not fit for purpose.
• I am dismayed to learn that this is within the terms of the BBC charter. I am dismayed that they would fund any organisation pushing a particular point of view with public money - it conflicts at least with their ability to claim objectivity and lack of bias.
• Another reason not to pay my licence fee. Many of these public bodies seem to forget that ordinary people are slogging their guts out doing actual ‘work’ to finance these completely self-indulgent and erroneous “initiatives”.

The BBC spinning away like a hyperactive spider

This is something Vrager 1 commented on earlier that's now been written up by The Times. 

The Times writes:

The BBC has rewritten an article about abortion that suggested the US Supreme Court referred to “pregnant people” rather than “women” in its Roe v Wade ruling in 1973. The term was also used by Sophie Long on The World Tonight on Radio 4. 

To quote Vrager 1 in full:

Somebody changed the word "women" in the first place for it to be changed back from "people" to "women" again. Fire that woke ignoramus for changing a cut and paste 1973 quote from Wade v Roe.

As for Sophie Long on The World Tonight on Radio 4, as mentioned earlier by Charlie, here things get even more interesting...

I initially read a few defences of her saying “pregnant people” that she was only indirectly quoting someone else - i.e. these weren't her own words. She was just reporting.

The Daily Mail's report on this only reinforced that and confused me even more. It directly quoted her bit on The World Tonight where she said:

The clinical director and chair of the National Abortion Federation, Lori Williams, said knowing how many women and pregnant people would now not be able to get care was “devastating”.

And the Daily Mail then quoted the BBC's response, defending Ms Long: 

Sophie Long was quoting the language used by the chair of the National Abortion Federation. 

Now, Sophie's The World Tonight bit, as quoted there, can be heard both ways. 

It's possible to hear her as using her own choice of language or - as the BBC insists - simply paraphrasing what the National Abortion Federation said and, thus, just reporting.

And I must admit I was inclined to believe the BBC's explanation that Sophie was only paraphrasing the chair of the National Abortion Federation...

...until I checked out 'pregnant' AND 'people' on TVEyes this afternoon, and up popped Sophie Long unquestionably using the phrase off her own bat elsewhere on the BBC. 

This comes from a BBC TV report from Sophie from the Mississippi Delta, broadcast repeatedly on 15 June on the BBC News Channel: 

She had no choice but to have the baby, in the poorest region of the poorest state with the lowest number of doctors per capita anywhere in America, and where a basic lack of transportation and nutrition put many pregnant people in the highest risk categories. At the Delta Health Centre in Mount Bayou, its only obstetrician tells me banning abortion will exacerbate an already desperate situation.

Oh dear, BBC, you rascals! Your defence is hanging by a far less secure thread after that, isn't it? 

Sophie Long wasn't quoting anyone else's language there. It was entirely her own woke-pleasing language. 

When caught in a tangled web of deceit you spin your 'unspun world' to us and hope we'll fall for it like careless flies. 

And why wouldn't we? You can sound so plausible, tempting us into your parlour.

I'm so glad I've access to tools like TVEyes and Newsniffer to help me glimpse you in action, spinning away like hyperactive, licence-fee-gobbling spiders.

A “tight-knit cabal at the top of BBC News who give tacit approval to gender ideology”

Further to a post here from over a week ago, the Sunday Telegraph is reporting the comments of a “whistleblower” regarding the corporation's recent use of Global Butterflies, a trans organisation, for training BBC staff. The Telegraph's headline sums up the story like this:

BBC staff told there are more than 150 genders and urged to develop ‘trans brand’

Material provided to radio staff by Global Butterflies, a transgender group drafted in by corporation for training sessions last year

The “whistleblower” - “a senior staff member who recently quit the corporation” (ed - so ex-BBC, which is slightly disappointing. Why didn't they blow their whistle while still at the BBC?) -  claims that the BBC was “suppressing stories” that ran counter to trans activism and claims there is a “tight-knit cabal at the top of BBC News who give tacit approval to gender ideology”. 

Here are further quotes from the article:

• “The BBC simply doesn’t understand what’s going on with gender identity ideology. They’ve been pandering to a social contagion amongst young people rather than being the adult in the room.”
• “‘Inform and educate’ from the BBC Charter has left the BBC when it covers trans issues.”
• “Stories from the ‘gender critical’ – pro-woman, pro-safeguarding – point of view are being pitched by individuals, but they are rejected because the top of news won’t commission them.”
• “Any story that doesn’t affirm gender ideology originates from outside the news cabal and when it appears it’s always sent upstairs, heavily scrutinised, triple checked – whilst gender affirmative stories go straight to output.”
• “And there’s a complete lack of understanding at the most senior BBC editorial levels that pronoun declarations align with a belief in gender identity ideology.”

The BBC spokesman quoted - “The BBC declined to say how much the Global Butterflies training cost, but it has now cut its ties with the group” - strikes a typical tetchy note:

Third party voluntary training material does not instruct BBC staff, but is available to increase awareness and understanding. There is no link to, or influence on, any editorial decision making and to suggest otherwise is wrong. As we have said many times before, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines are sacrosanct, our staff know this and they understand their responsibilities.

Well, this former BBC “whistleblower” says otherwise.

Language Timothy/Timandra!

Certain people on Twitter have been joking that certain other people on Twitter have suddenly remembered the definition of 'a woman' following the US Supreme Court's ruling on returning the right to rule on abortion laws from the federal government to the states. 

But the BBC News website has struggled with it today, with its woker elements trying to impose their sensibilities on some of the language of the BBC's reporting and BBC editors, eventually, overruling them. 

Again, Newssniffer helps us lay us what happened in the article headlined:

Abortion: What does overturn of Roe v Wade mean?

By Robin Levinson-King & Chloe Kim & Paul Sargeant

The original version spoke of “pregnant people”:

In 1973, the court had ruled in Roe v Wade that pregnant people were entitled to an abortion during the first three months of their pregnancy, while allowing for legal restrictions and bans in the second and third trimester.

15 hours later “pregnant people” was changed to “pregnant women”:

In 1973, the court had ruled in Roe v Wade that pregnant women were entitled to an abortion during the first three months of their pregnancy, while allowing for legal restrictions and bans in the second and third trimester.

A note was added to the bottom of the report: 

Update: Language in this story has been amended to more accurately reflect the specifics of the Roe v Wade ruling.

But even this wasn't the end of it. The edit that replaced “pregnant people” with “pregnant women” and added that 'update' left this behind:

Most have said they will not prosecute women for trying to end their pregnancy, reserving criminal penalties for abortion providers and others who try and help people get abortions.

This has now been edited and changed to:

Most have said they will not prosecute women for trying to end their pregnancy, reserving criminal penalties for abortion providers and others who try and help women get abortions.

What a mess!

Update (Sunday): The Mail on Sunday has also picked up on this.

Is Ofcom biased?

On the dreaded trans issue...

According to James Kirkup in The Spectator, Ofcom, the BBC's regulator, has written “a report about impartiality that is not itself impartial” - which he describes as “quite an achievement”. 

He argues that Ofcom's lopsided methodology is at fault, relying on 6 hours-worth of interviews with trans people, and that by listening to only one side of the trans debate Ofcom thereby distorted and skewed its own findings. 

He says the report “not only fails entirely to mention women’s legitimate and legally-protected concerns, but effectively tells the corporation that its coverage doesn’t lean far enough towards one side of that contested issue” and worries this will tilt the BBC towards an even more biased position. 

Methodology certainly counts. If you conduct focus groups and interviews and significantly overrepresent one side with “loud voices” and don't even talk to the other side then, yes, you are going to get a biased report.

On the background to this, I think this pair of tweets puts it in a nutshell:

Emily Kate: Not surprised by this. Ofcom only left Stonewall a year ago. But I think organisations employ Stonewall to entrench existing views anyway. So leaving the scheme isn't going to change much, ideologically speaking. It won't make the organisation fairer or more balanced, necessarily. 

The beautiful symmetry of the national broadcaster being investigated for bias by a regulator who agrees that Position Normal is the one taken by the broadcaster! It's perfect.

Butterflies

First they altered the BBC Style Guide to re-write the meaning of the word “gay” to mean same-gender attracted, rather than same-sex attracted, then they used red ink and a rubber to censor the testimony of a female rape victim so as not to offend her male transgender attacker, and now we learn that the BBC hired a trans organisation called Global Butterflies to train BBC staff on trans matters. 

Global Butterflies told them to be 'allies' and use their influence to sway the public and politicians. 

This has understandably raised both eyebrows and hackles:

Mary Harrington: This is a scandal. The BBC is meant to be politically neutral, not hiring ideologues to catechise their HR teams on how to ensure all staff enforce only one one side of perhaps the most controversial and divisive political issue out there.

The fascinating complication in this latest story of trans activism sweeping the BBC is that it was a BBC programme that broke it, with Stephen Nolan continuing his charge against trans extremism at the BBC. 

The BBC is still evidently caught in something of a civil war on the issue. 

Very Radio 4

It sounds as if Radio 4's Tom Sutcliffe was taking the easy option last night:

Women's Rights Network: Last night BBC Front Row did a show about art & morality which drew moral equivalence between Eric Gill (serial rapist of daughters), R Kelly (child abuser), Hitler & J.K. Rowling.

Please register your complaint here:

https://bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint/#/Your%20Complaint

Front Row, 24.3.22, Radio 4, Offence

Emily Kate 🏴󠁧󠁢: Not just a passing mention, either. She is a big part of the discussion, sandwiched in-between Gill and R Kelly. The bubble these people live in is beyond belief. 

Emily Kate 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿: "Sutcliffe and his interviewee wringing hands earnestly over the moral darkness of JK Rowling. 😂" 

Emily Kate 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿: One of the most extraordinary things I've ever heard on the BBC - among some stiff competition. A children's writer and philanthropist who simply believes in the facts of biology finds a place in a discussion about morally depraved artists, alongside paedophiles and genocidists.

'The BBC should correct this, it’s totally misleading and confusing and wrong'

Talking of Andrew Marr, his old editor at BBC One's The Andrew Marr Show is now his new editor on his LBC show. 

Yes, our old friend Rob Burley has landed at LBC too. 

Here's Rob, also getting his own voice back, agreeing with The Observer's Sonia Sodha that a BBC News website report about a horrific crime left something to be desired:

Sonia Sodha: When the imperative to respect a male serial killer’s preferred pronouns supersedes the journalistic duty to help readers understand a story about a terrible form of male violence against women.

Rob Burley: Quite agree. The BBC should correct this, it’s totally misleading and confusing and wrong.

The issue with the BBC report in question can be summed up by a couple of earlier tweets I read objecting to the same BBC report: 

Paul Embery: A man who killed a woman, attacked a second woman, is now accused of murdering a third woman, has admitted that he has “problems” with women, now identifies as a woman. So the media refer to him as ‘she’ and all crucial context is removed from the story.

Austin Williams: Last line: "She has also been charged with tampering with evidence". When you read this article, you realise that the BBC has also tampered with the evidence. Exhibit A: She, who recently identified as a woman, admitted to having "problems" with women.

 The report began: 

Pensioner arrested after dismembered body found in New York

A pensioner has been arrested on suspicion of killing and dismembering a 68-year-old woman she met online.

An adult female torso was found in a bag inside a shopping trolley near 83-year-old Harvey Marcelin's apartment in Brooklyn, New York. 

She has now been charged with second degree murder and concealment of a human corpse. 

Marcelin had previously spent more than 50 years in prison for killing two girlfriends.

In its original version the article described the arrested 'pensioner' as  'she' [3 times], 'her' and 'woman'.

The article was later amended to add a further sentence at the very end, with a further [4th] use of 'She':

She now identifies as a transgender woman.

After two days of criticism and anger, the article was edited again. That new information was moved a few paragraphs up...:

In 1963, a jury found Marcelin - who recently identified as a woman - guilty of murdering Jacqueline Bonds. After being paroled in 1984, Marcelin was arrested again for stabbing another girlfriend.

...with 'She has also been charged with tampering with evidence', returning to being the final paragraph.

This was about the time Rob tweeted his disapproval.

Regardless, the BBC is pretty much sticking to its guns. It seems you can take the BBC out of Stonewall but can't so easily take Stonewall out of the BBC.

Belief

“Dancers who accused a leading choreographer of transphobia have claimed she has jeopardised their safety by publicising her resignation”, begins a BBC News website report today by the BBC's new culture editor Katie Razzall. 

[Some might call that 'victim-shaming'].

It's another 'trans war' story where a woman, Rosie Kay, felt she had to leave the dance company she founded because of hostility from trans activists. 

Katie Razzall writes, “However, in an open letter seen by the BBC, the dancers claim that, by going public, Kay has caused "potential detriment to our careers".” 

Does “seen by the BBC” mean 'handed to the BBC by an interested party with an obvious motive'?

Anyhow, Nick Timothy, former Joint Downing Street Chief of Staff to Theresa May, isn't too impressed with Ms Razzall about this, tweeting:

Given that this BBC piece will have been vetted by lawyers and various others, the intellectual dishonesty of sentences like, “Kay doesn't believe a person can change their biological sex” is depressing if not surprising.

Indeed. And you can bet your bottom euro that Katie R, culture editor of the BBC, would never dare write “Kay's critics believe a person can change their biological sex” - despite that being a lot more accurate. 

Tellingly, Ms Razzall's language echoes that used by Ms Kay's critics, quoted just a few sentences later:

The dancers behind the letter wrote that they "respect Rosie's right to hold the belief that biological sex is immutable".

It isn't a belief, it's a fact.

Update: One reply to Nick Timothy quotes from the article - the bit where one of Ms Kay's critics said "she is now using her power as someone that has a louder voice than we can hope for" - and responds: “...say the cretins who can command a fawning article by the BBC while Kay seems to be in the process of having her career destroyed”. 

As the great Ray Davis once wrote, it's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world. And the BBC's not helping.

BBC 98 Women 2021

It's that time of the year again - the BBC's annual showcase for women they admire: 

BBC 100 Women 2021: Who is on the list this year?

Well, one way of answering that is to say that there are two men on it for starters. 

And I was just going to post that when I saw a Spectator tweet saying:

By including transwomen in that 100 Women list, the BBC is siding with those who argue that “transwomen are women”.

It leads to a new piece by James Kirkup headlined Gender is contentious. The BBC is pretending it isn’t.

A rare BBC apology on 'Newswatch'. Guess what for?

Newswatch this week continued to focus on language, also discussing whether BBC News should ever call Belarus's Alexander Lukashenko 'President Lukashenko', given that our government - among many others - refuses to recognise his 're-election' last year, before moving onto the main issue of our times [it seems]: yes, inappropriate language about gender identity. 

Samira Ahmed: Closer to home, on Monday, the News at Six reported that The Brits, the biggest award ceremony in British music, was scrapping separate categories for men and women. Here's Sophie Rayworth:

Sophie Rayworth: It will no longer give out prizes for Best Male or Best Female but instead choose one Artist of the Year. The Brit Award-winning singer Sam Smith who identifies as non- binary has campaigned for the change. He says he felt unable to enter last year because of the gender-based nature of the categories.

Samira Ahmed: That use of the pronoun "he" in relation to Sam Smith who has asked to be referred to as 'they' or 'them' rather than 'he' or 'him' infuriated some members of the audience, including Grace Davies:

Grace Davies: BBC News referring to Sam Smith using he/him pronouns in the SAME SENTENCE as talking about him being non-binary has got to be the biggest eye roll of the year.

Samira Ahmed: And George Aylett wrote:.

George Aylett: It's not faux outrage, misgendering does a lot of damage o people. The BBC knew Sam Smith's pronoun and still misgendered them. 

Samira Ahmed: Well, BBC News told us:

BBC News: In a report about the BRIT award's removal of male and female categoroes, we regret that we inadvertently referred to Sam Smith using the incorrect pronouns, and will ensure we address them properly in future reports.

If you recognise the name George Aylett by the way, he/him is a Corbynista who ran for parliament in 2019. [He lost]. 

gender/sex

If you've never actually read in full the BBC Style Guide's entry for 'gender/sex' - the controversial one that's alleged to have been wholly informed by Stonewall's 'woke' ideology on transgender matters - then please take a few minutes to read it. 

As 'pure wokery' expressed in BBC terms it really is quite something: 

gender/sex

Using appropriate language is an important part of how we portray people in our stories. Sexuality, race, ethnicity or disability should not be mentioned unless they are relevant to the subject matter. But when we do focus on one aspect of a person's character we should ensure we do not define them by it.

Where possible, use the term/s and pronoun/s preferred by people themselves, when they have made their preferences clear.

Gay/lesbian: Use gay as an adjective rather than a noun (eg: two gay men - but not "two gays"). It can apply to members of both sexes, but current preferred practice is to refer to "gay men and lesbians".

For wider references, talk about LGBT people or the LGBT community (lesbian, gay bisexual, transgender). If this does not suffice, the preferred initialism is “LGBTQ”or“LGBTQ+” - the “Q” means questioning and/or queer, the “+”acknowledges not all people may feel represented by these initials. Where possible, however, initials should be avoided. The issues affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people can be very different and the more specific we can be with our language, the better.

If using LGBT+ or another formulation - for example in a quote – consider the likely audience of the story and whether the term needs explaining. Instead of “LGB”, for example, consider “lesbian, gay or bisexual”.

Homosexual means people of either sex who are attracted to people of their own gender, but take care how you use it. While it can be fine in historical, judicial or legislative references, it can be considered offensive in other contexts because of past associations with illegal behaviour and mental illness.

Bisexual is an adjective to describe someone who is romantically and/or sexually attracted to more than one gender.

“Gender identity” has come to mean how people feel or present themselves, distinct from their biological sex or sexual orientation. Use sex to refer to a person’s physical development and gender to describe how they identify themselves.

Transgender, or trans, is a good umbrella term for a person whose gender identity differs from their sex at birth. 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. Use the term and pronoun preferred by the person in question. If that’s unknown – apply that which fits with the way the person lives publicly. If reporting on someone who is making their transition public, it may be appropriate to refer to their previous identity to help audience understanding. It may also be appropriate to refer to a transition to make sense of some stories.

Transsexual refers to someone who has changed, or wishes to change, their body through medical intervention. Use as an adjective - do not say “transsexuals”, in the same way we would not talk about "gays" or "blacks". Transsexual is not an umbrella term. Many transgender people do not identify as transsexual and prefer the word transgender. Try to ask or find out which term a person prefers.

Take care with the term “sex change”, unless referring specifically to the surgical element of a transition. It should not be used as a general description for a transgender person.

Queer is an adjective used by some people who find more specific terms, such as “lesbian”, “gay”, “bisexual”, “trans” and “LGBT”, too limiting to describe their romantic or sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression. Originally a pejorative term, more recently “queer” has been reclaimed by some in the LGBTQ+ community, to describe themselves. However, it is not universally accepted and has the potential to cause offence. Be careful when using the term. We should not apply the term to an individual or group unless they have already adopted it.

Non-binary is an adjective used to describe a person who does not identify as only male or only female, or who may identify as both . It is increasingly common for non-binary people to use the singular pronoun “they”. Obviously, we should not ascribe a gender to someone non-binary. But we may need to explain any use of “they” as a singular pronoun to the audience for clarity. This could be without explicitly mentioning their gender, however (eg: [First name surname] - who uses "they" and "them" as personal pronouns - is…).

“Sexual preference” suggests a person chooses to be gay or bisexual. For the same reason, phrases such as “alternative lifestyle” should also be avoided where possible. Instead of “sexual preference” and “admits being gay”, consider “sexual orientation” and “is gay”.

'Having to explain journalism to [BBC] idiots'

The BBC's very own culture war broke out into the open this week. 

The Sunday Times reports that during an “extremely hostile” Zoom meeting outgoing BBC Head of News Fran Unsworth told staff from the BBC’s Pride network, “You’ll hear things you don’t personally like and see things you don’t like — that’s what the BBC is, and you have to get used to that. These are the stories we tell. We can’t walk away from the conversation.”

The Sunday Times has quite the quote from a 'BBC source': “Fran was totally calm but determined about it. She was reacting to questions from the network that implied people shouldn’t come across views they disliked. To me, it felt like she was having to explain journalism to idiots.”

One member of staff told Tim Davie, who was also present, that he was “not in a position to make decisions on this issue, because he’s not trans” while another said the BBC was “institutionally transphobic.”

The BBC at war

    

In contrast, another of the BBC's highest-paid stars, Stephen Nolan, has hosted a quite extraordinary 45-minute podcast about the BBC's relationship with the campaign group Stonewall, asking the question Is the BBC too close to Stonewall? 

It's an astonishingly full-frontal assault on his own employer, akin to whistle-blowing, and he wonders at the end - not entirely jokingly - if it might bring about the end of his BBC career.

 

I'm sure it will enrage many of the woker staff at the corporation and that extreme trans activists will be coming after him.

Stephen Nolan may not always be popular hereabouts but this podcast is greatly to his credit, along with that of his colleague David Thompson.

And here's where it gets even more interesting because the BBC itself deserves credit to for making the podcast available even though the podcast reveals so much that discredits the BBC and for posting a damning write-up by David Thompson on its news website. 

To sum it up:

- A number of journalists within the BBC are deeply uncomfortable about the corporation's relationship with Stonewall but frightened to speak out.

- The charge against the BBC is that the BBC has breached its code of impartiality and its independence by aligning itself to Stonewall, being led by Stonewall, being 'marked' by Stonewall, paying money to Stonewall, using Stonewall's language, appointing an LGBT correspondent who fronted Stonewall's TikTok videos, and that their involvement with Stonewall has had a chilling effect on BBC editorial staff.

-  The BBC has refused FOI to give the programme the correspondence they've had with Stonewall, and refused put up anyone for interview with the programme, and didn't answer specific questions put by the programme and later referred the programme to their previous unrevealing statements.

Here's a representative quote from towards the end, showing Stephen Nolan's frustration at the runaround the BBC has been giving him:

Stephen Nolan: We went back to the BBC to ask them about the 'style guide', We asked, 'Were Stonewall consulted by any part of the BBC about the language used in this 'style guide'? Were Stonewall definitions used elsewhere in the BBC considered when drafting this  'style guide'? How does the BBC explain its definitions being close to those used by Stonewall than the dictionary definition? We also asked them about the Allies training and about the use of 'The Genderbread Person'. What did they do? They just referred us to their previous statement. An organisation that asks many, many people, every second of every day, to appear on its outlets across the world couldn't find a human being to speak to its own organisation on this podcast and to you, the audience. Not one living, breathing human being could speak. All we got was a reference to the previous statement.

And an exchange between him and his BBC colleague:

David Thompson; Just one thing to point out why this is important and why this language is important to us as journalists. You know how tricky it is when we're doing these debates. We've debated the very issue of whether or not it's transphobic for a gay person not to want to date a trans person, for example. Well, if you go by the BBC's Style Guide that's closed off, that's decided. Homosexuality, according to the BBC, is about people who are attracted to people of the same gender. So that controversial debate is now summed up in the BBC Style Guide and they've made their position really clear.  

Stephen Nolan; I get it now. I see. You're smarter than me, so I get it now. So, basically, the BBC is stating as fact, because it's changed its language, if a male, if a gay male...in the BBC's wording now, that means they're attracted not to someone with male genitalia but to someone also who says 'I'm a man' whether they have a vagina and breasts or not.

David Thompson; Yeah. It's obviously not just about the genitalia, A lot of people will say that, but it's about the sex of the person, the natal sex, how they were born - the entire package, if you want. So people are same-sex-attracted not according to the BBC anymore. 'Homosexual' means 'people of either sex who are attracted to their own gender'. 

Stephen Nolan; And the other big question here is, who signed off on his? Cos if this is effecting the language throughout the organisation then someone very, very senior must be signing off on this.

David Thompson; These decisions are signed off by BBC News. Now this is an area of contention as well; Many bisexual people would say it's about being attracted to both sexes. The BBC now define 'bisexual' ''an adjective to describe someone who is romantically and/or sexually attracted to more than one gender''.

Stephen Nolan; So the BBC has now redefined the definition of 'bisexuality'? 

David Thompson; And 'homosexuality'. So they've redefined 'sexuality' to make it more about gender than sex, right at the heart of this whole debate.

It's all rather intriguing, as if a BBC civil war is playing out before our eyes. 

The cynical part of me has read stories about the BBC planning to follow their regulator Ofcom's lead by pulling back from Stonewall and wondered if this podcast series was part of a manoeuvre to give some cover to that break, but there seems to be a much deeper battle going on for the soul of the BBC and Stephen Nolan appears to be leading the charge for one camp.

A Biologist in the Lion's/Lioness's Den

   

Last night's Question Time featured biologist Lord Winston and saw this revealing exchange:

Fiona Bruce: So Robert, I am interested in your view given that you were Vice Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam for some time...

Robert Winston: I'm sorry?

Fiona Bruce: I am interested in your view given that you were Vice Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam, weren't you, for some time? You have mentioned Kathleen Stock and the trans issue but obviously, academic freedom has been talked about in any number of areas in recent years.

Robert Winston: I was rather hoping you would be interested in my opinion as a biologist which seems rather more important, because I could have said something...

Fiona Bruce: Well, I am just saying it because the issue of academic freedom isn't solely limited to trans...

Robert Winston: I am about to say something that will probably mean you will want to edit the programme when we have finished but basically...

Fiona Bruce: OK, all right, we are all braced for it.

Robert Winston: I will say this categorically that you cannot change your sex. Your sex is actually there in every single cell in the body. You have a chromosomal sex, you have genetic sex, you have hormonal sex, you have all sorts of different aspects, psychological, brain sex. They are all different and we are very confused about this, unfortunately, and regrettably, it has got into this argument that people will now accuse me of being transphobic...

Fiona Bruce: Well, obviously, there are trans people who say you absolutely can do that.

Robert Winston: Well. unfortunately, you can't say this publicly. This is one of the big problems. Even saying this on this programme undoubtedly will result in my getting a huge amount of hate mail, it always does. But I do think it is a big issue about the attitudes. There are of course issues which are important about young people who are confused about their sex but we won't go down that route here. But it does affect a whole lot of issues in schools and elsewhere in our society. Of course, we should accept people as they are. Overall, I think it is a very sad thing that we can't discuss biological science without actually getting completely caught up emotionally with something which is really completely wrong.

Fiona Bruce: Well, as I say, there are people who would vehemently disagree with you...
Robert Winston: Yes, I know.

Fiona Bruce:...so I am just going to make that clear.

It's very interesting that we're in a world where the BBC can 'reality check' certain things but not others. They won't 'reality check' absurd statements about sex, for example. 

And it's fascinating how gingerly they tread around some facts - like the fact that you cannot change your biological sex. 

I'll let a few tweets speak for me concerning Fiona Bruce's role here:

[1] "I'm about to say something that will mean you will probably want to edit the programme...you cannot change your sex" This basic scientific fact has now become so taboo that the BBC think it's necessary to provide 'balance'. They wouldn't do this for flat-earthers.

[2] Imagine it.

Brian Cox: "I'm about to say something that will mean you will probably want to edit the programme... the earth is round."

Fiona Bruce: “Well, flat-earthers will say it’s flat.”

[3] Fiona Bruce at the end of that clip, adding that some people will vehemently disagree with the fact that you can't change sex, is not to providing balance or a counter argument as she might see it. It's simply misinformation and wrong. Why did she feel the need to add that?

[4] “Good evening and welcome to Question Time from Nottingham.......of course we should recognise those that disagree that it is the evening, that the programme is Question Time and that there is such a place as Nottingham...so full respect to them too.”

St Andrew and the Dragon

It was fascinating watching Andrew Marr don shining armour and go into battle, lance raised, on behalf of damsel-in-distress Labour MP Rosie Duffield this morning. 

It was even more fascinating watching Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC looking distinctly uncomfortable throughout his interview today, like a boring, pratfall-prone, flaccid dragon.

Given that he's a barrister and former DPP, it's quite odd just how poor he is at defending himself.

I'd even call it a 'car crash interview'. 

It got so bad that I even wondered if Sir Keir must had had coaching lesson on interviewing techniques by Diane Abbott, the queen of car-crash interviews - though that's pretty unlikely, given that's she's betrothed to another. 

The analogy was made even stronger by Sir Keir's Massive overuse of 'Well, Andrew'. 

It was pure Jan Ravens on Radio 4's Dead Ringers impersonating Diane Abbott being interviewed by the late Andrew Neil. 

Well, Andrew...

Even Andrew Marr managed to pull Sir Keir apart on his contradiction of prior pledges over nationalisation and the contradiction between what he was saying on tax and what Rachel Reeves [his new, as-'boring, snoring'-as-he-is shadow chancellor] has said on tax, and even made him squirm a little over 'Scum'gate. 

The bit about Rosie, damsel of Duffield Towers, besieged in her Canterbury constituency by angry knights who believe they are maidens, was genuinely important - despite my flippancy - because it shows where we are now.

The Leader of the Opposition is a cowardly, self-censoring advocate for the Emperor's new clothes being real.  

--------------

As The Andrew Marr Show recently gave up posting transcripts of all their major interviews, so here's mine. 

Look out for Sir Keir KCB claiming that trans people are ''the most marginalised and abused communities''. 

Are they? Will the BBC fact-check that?

And look out for him calling for a ''tolerant'' debate but then uttering the most extraordinary words, that what Rosie Duffield say - a pure fact about biology - is ''not right'' and ''shouldn't be said''.

Well, what she said is right and should be said. 

Does Sir Keir really believe what he's saying, or is he just scared of saying the unsayable truth for fear of offending trans extremists and their aggressive supporters and the weirdest and least tolerant parts of the present Labour Party?

For the leader of one of the two main UK parties to say that views like those of Rosie Duffield - the factual truth - ''shouldn't be said'' and that only ''proper views'' expressed ''in a proper way'' ought to be allowed in the national debate shows that we aren't in a good place as a country, politically-speaking. 

To put it mildly.

That said, he has form, He largely bit his tongue and shifted and slid about and manoeuvred to keep himself onside with the Corbynistas over antisemitism when serving Jeremy Corbyn. 

He should have resigned. 

And I don't agree with how Andrew Marr far too generously characterised Sir Keir today. 

If you talk to...if one talks to a wide range of your colleagues, a similar picture seems to come through. They almost all say, Sir Keir Starmer, honest as the day is long, punctilious, hard-working, thoroughly decent, but in the end he's not really a politician, he doesn't have the oomph and the edge to cut through in those big seats - but in the end he is not really a politician, and these are the days when you need someone who's a bit of a showman, who can really let rip and show who they are emotionally, and you're not that man.

Is he ''thoroughly decent'' and ''honest as the day is long''. Well, Andrew, there's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. 

Anyhow, here's the transcript.

 

Andrew Marr: Does someone who thinks only women have a cervix is [sic] welcome in the Labour Party?

Sir Keir Starmer: Now, look, Andrew. we need to have a mature, respectful debate about trans rights...

Andrew Marr: Yeah.

Sir Keir Starmer: ...and we need to, I think, bear in mind that the trans community are amongst, you know, the most marginalised and abused communities, and wherever we've gone to with the law, we need to go further - and we want to go further on that - but whatever the debate is it needs to be a tolerant debate, and I am absolutely sure that our conference will be a place which is safe for that debate to take place, and it is.

Andrew Marr: Is it transphobic to say that only women have a cervix?

Sir Keir Starmer: Well, it is something that shouldn't be said. It is not right. But, Andrew, I don't think that...

Andrew Marr: So Rosie Duffield should not have said that? Can you explain to people watching why she should not have said that?

Sir Keir Starmer: Well, Andrew, I don't think that we can just go through various things that people had said. Rosie Duffield...I spoke to Rosie earlier this week and told her that Conference was a safe place for her to come, and it is a safe place for her to come. And I spoke to others to make exactly the same principle. We do everybody a disservice when we reduce what is a really important issue to these exchanges on particular things that are said. But the trans community are, as I say, the most marginalised and abused of many, many communities and we need to make progress on the Gender Recognition Act.

Andrew Marr: You could say that 'exchanges' is how people communicate and resolve these things.

Sir Keir Starmer: Yeah but, Andrew, this debate...I am concerned that this debate needs to be conducted in a proper way in which proper views are expressed in a way that is respectful.

Andrew Marr: Sure. You've spoken to Rosie Duffield. We've spoken to Rosie Duffield. After your conversation, she still doesn't feel comfortable about coming to this Labour Party conference. What does that say about the Labour Party?

Sir Keir Starmer: Well, Andrew, I spoke to Rosie just earlier this week and made it absolutely clear to her that this is a safe Conference for her to come to.

Andrew Marr: She doesn't agree with that.

Sir Keir Starmer: Well, Andrew, I spoke to her, and what she said...

Andrew Marr: As did we.

Sir Keir Starmer: What she said to me was that she didn't want to come because it would cause a distraction from the ideas that we are putting forward at this Conference, and i asked her when I spoke to her whether that was something I could say on her behalf and she said yes. So that's what Rosie says about this, and I'll take that from Rosie.

Andrew Marr: OK. She said to us that she didn't feel comfortable.

Wonder what that Rosie/Sir Keir phone call actually said? I'm not sure I quite believe Sir Keir's gloss on it.