WPUK’ SUBMISSION: IPSO editorial guidelines on sex and gender.

WPUK’ SUBMISSION, IPSO editorial guidelines: This public consultation on IPSO’s draft guidance for the reporting of sex and gender identity is ‘intended to gain as much insight on the topic as possible from members of the public, journalists, academics, and anyone else who chooses to submit a response’. 

You can read IPSO’s final draft guidance here. It is intended to support editorial decision-making on reporting of sex and gender identity. WPUK have read this draft guidance and this is our submission. This is the second submission we have made to IPSO. You can read our 2019/2020 submission here. We also met with IPSO in this same time period.

Please follow this link to the consultation to have your say. It is open to submissions until 12.00pm Friday 10th March 2023. 

 

1.      Do you agree or disagree that: The guidance has struck the right balance between
upholding the principle of freedm of expression with the ability to provide redress for
people who believe they have been treated unfairly.*

Disagree

1b. Do you have any other comments about how the draft guidance strikes this balance?

The main problem with the guidance is that it doesn’t confront the core problem, which is that trans identity is an ideological issue. Terms such as “trans,” “transgender, “transwoman,” “trans man” and “non-binary” all require an acceptance of the idea that everyone has a gender identity, and that in some people that gender identity does not match their biological sex. That is a contested idea, and it is just as unreasonable to compel journalists to present this idea as fact as it is to compel them to present the existence of God as fact. We believe that journalists and editors should be free to refer to a person’s biological sex.

This difficulty is compounded by the guidance’s failure to define relevant terms such as transgender, transwoman and so on. Without a hard-and-fast definition of these terms, the implication is that journalists should respect a person’s own declared identity. But what is the limit to this? The widely-used Stonewall definition of “transgender” includes cross-
dressers: if a male cross-dresser wants to be referred to as “she”, should that be respected? Are journalists obliged to refer to someone by their preferred pronouns (including “they”, “ze”, or even neo-pronouns) at all times? Or would (for example) referring to Sam Smith as “he” give Smith grounds to complain of being treated unfairly? None of this is clear. By failing to provide clarity to journalists, editors and publishers, the document does not fulfil its objective of providing “guidance”.

The guidance also says: “The press should not make pejorative or prejudicial reference to an individual’s sex or gender identity.” On the face of it, this seems reasonable. Yet it’s not clear what is meant by “pejorative” or “prejudicial”. Is “misgendering” someone (ie using sex-based pronouns rather than gender identity pronouns) “pejorative”?

2.     Do you agree or disagree that: The guidance accurately summarises the application of Editors Code to the reporting of sex and gender identity. *

Strongly disagree

2b. Do you have any other comments on the application of the Editors' Code in this
guidance?

The Editors’ Code states: “The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.” Yet every time the press refers to a person by their preferred gender identity rather than their biological sex, they are publishing inaccurate information and therefore breaching the Editors’ Code. IPSO may feel that protecting a person’s feelings is more important than accuracy. If that’s the case, it should say so.

Moreover, the guidance’s statement that “Journalists should take care not to publish inaccurate and misleading information” contradicts another statement: “Journalists should consider whether information about an individual’s gender identity is genuinely relevant to an article.”

Imagine, for example, a news story involving a transwoman who has become the vice-chancellor of a university. The university’s press release reports that the trans woman is the “first woman vice-chancellor” of that university. If a newspaper were to repeat that, it would be inaccurate and misleading. Under the draft guidance, it’s not clear whether it
would be reasonable of the newspaper to make clear that the new vice-chancellor was male/ transwoman.

The most well-publicised example where gender identity (or, more correctly, biological sex) is relevant is in that of male criminals who have adopted a female identity, name and pronouns. There are very many examples of this, but the most well-known recent one is the case of the rapist Isla Bryson. The press, taking its cue from the courts and police, referred
to Bryson as “she”. This was quite clearly inaccurate (Bryson is obviously male) and offensive to Bryson’s victims.

The use of “she” and “woman” to refer to biologically male offenders misleads readers in another fundamental way. It creates the impression that far more women commit crimes sexual offences and violent crimes than is the case. It also risks obstructing justice, particularly in the case of sexual offences. If a crime is inaccurately reported as having been committed by a woman, especially if the offender has also changed his name (as in the Bryson case), then that may prevent other victims from coming forward.

IPSO guidance states that, in reporting on court cases, editors should consider “the way that the defendant is identified in court, including the name used and the pronoun used by court officials and/or any witnesses.” We believe IPSO needs to make it clear that the press should be free to ignore a person’s declared self-identity in the case of sex offenders such as Bryson, even if the courts and the police are using misleading terminology.

Compelling journalists to tell lies flouts journalists’ obligation to report facts truthfully, and
undermines readers’ trust in the press.

3  Do you agree or disagree that: The guidance is well-structured to support journalists in their reporting and editorial work. *

Disagree.

Do you have any other comments on how the draft guidance is structured?

The decision to follow the structure of the Editors’ Code may appear helpful in theory, but is less so in practice. Journalists need concrete examples of what they should do in particular situations. Moreover, the guidance fails to tackle the fundamental problem, which is that there is no neutral option: a journalist has to pick one side or another. Referring to Isla Bryson as “she” means coming down on one side; referring to Bryson as “he” means coming down on the other. One possible option the guidance could have taken would be to leave it to individual publications to decide what to do.
It would also have been helpful to have a section on the law relating to sex and gender,including a reminder that gender-critical beliefs are protected by the Equality Act.

4      Do you agree or disagree that: The guidance is accessible and usable for all audiences. *
Do you have any other comments about the accessibility of this guidance?

It’s hard to use guidance that is unclear and in some places contradictory. For example, the guidance states that the Editors’ Code “requires that any references to an individual’s sex or gender identity are accurate.” This sentence contradicts itself. If you refer to a transwoman as “he” you are being accurate about sex, but not gender identity – and if you use “she”then it’s the other way around. The only way to resolve this tension is to explain that the person is a biological male identifying as a woman, but this would contravene the part of the guidance stating that referring to a person’s gender identity could be “intrusive”.

Do you agree or disagree that: The language used in this guidance is clear and fair. *

Disagree

5b. Do you have any other comments about the language used in this guidance?

The guidance is very vague and, as a result, not helpful. It doesn’t provide definitions of terms such as transgender, trans woman, trans man or non-binary.  Arguably the guidance serves to further obfuscate rather than clarify this complex and sensitive topic.

The guidance wrongly describes gender identity as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, which it isn’t. (The relevant protected characteristic is gender reassignment).

6. Please use this space for any other comments about this guidance.

The guidance evades difficult issues. The section entitled Children, for example, states that “Publishing material relating to an individual child’s welfare, including their gender identity, engages the protections under Clause 6.” This implies that a child has the right to be referred to by their chosen gender identity rather than their biological sex. This is troubling because it assumes that a child can choose a trans identity – an ideological assumption that is highly contentious. Referring to a six-year old boy as a “girl” and “she” is a political decision that endorses the concept of a trans child. The NHS commissioned,  Cass Review interim report into gender identity services stated that:

Social transition is not a neutral act.

Hilary Cass Interim Report.

Therefor, uncritically accepting a child’s belief that he or she is the opposite sex may be actively harmful. This  expert guidance is clearly in direct contradiction to the IPSO editors code.

We would also like to see the guidance give recommendations on how journalists should discuss suicide. One of the claims of political lobby groups, sometimes repeated in the press, is that trans people are at greatly increased risk of suicide. (See Suicide by Clinic-Referred Transgender Adolescents in the United Kingdom, Prof. M Biggs for a discussion of this claim.) As well as greatly exaggerating the suicide risk, the frequent repetition of such statements can only serve to create anxiety and distress amongst people who identify as trans. This goes against the Samaritans media guidelines on reporting suicide and, as such is irresponsible.

“Oversimplification of the causes or perceived ‘triggers’ for a suicide can be misleading…. the suggestion that a single circumstance or incident, such as bullying, job loss, relationship
breakdown or a bereavement, was the cause increases the risk of contagion. Vulnerable people experiencing similar issues are more likely to over-identify with the deceased when a single reason is given.”
The Samaritans.

We would also like to see a warning against repeating oft-made claims that trans people are at greater risk of sexual violence or domestic abuse than any other group. There is no reliable UK-based evidence to support this claim, but it is sometimes repeated unquestioningly. (The murder rate of trans people in the UK is significantly lower than for
other groups: Karen Ingala Smith, founder of The Femicide Census).

In the list of resources, we recommend you include Sex Matters’ Media Handbook.

We also refer you to our previous evidence submitted to IPSO in 2019/2020. We are disappointed by the quality of the Ed guidelines,  that following our submission and meeting with you.