Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Care is needed.

The guidance follows the BBC apologizing to Rowling twice last year. The Harry Potter author was accused of transphobia by trans rights advocates, but the claim was not properly challenged by presenters….

This is what happens when the accusation is simply repeated without challenge. It becomes taken for granted, in a smoke/fire sort of way, that Rowling must be transphobic if all these people are accusing her of being so. By assuming they are acting in good faith (or at least pretending they are), they fail to check whether or not her statements are “transphobic” at all. In bypassing this crucial step, they short-circuit their fact-checking process and uncritically take on board as accurate the aggrieved parties’ particular, peculiar definition of what is transphobic, which, as we have seen, activists are quick to apply to bland statements of what would normally be considered uncontroversial fact. This results in organizations like the BBC acting as political operatives for trans activism, employing activist language and talking points, passing off their now partisan stance as “neutrality.” Their unwillingness or reluctance to admit to capture (when it’s so obvious to everyone else) is even more infuriating, and simply further erodes their credibility.

It added that “careful and accurate use of language” is important and thought should be given to terms that some audience members may find problematic.

Yes, like calling trans identified males “transwomen” when they are not women of any kind at all. Ditto with using incorrect, female-specific pronouns to refer to them. Is there any other group for which the BBC uses novel, idiosyncratic redefinitions of common terms at the behest of activists with a vested interest?

“Some of the terms used, for example ‘cis-gender’ to identify a person who has the same sex and gender identity, are not familiar to many of our audience and may be considered offensive by some,”

They damn well are considered extremely offensive by many. Having sneering men in lipstick shout at us for our “cis” privilege is more than annoying, yes.

And it’s not just a matter of clarity, comprehension, or even offence, it’s a matter of accuracy as well. The concept of “gender identity” and its “alignment” or lack thereof with a given individual’s material, biological body is essentially a religious one. The BBC has accepted what amounts to a particular theological concept with little or no connection to reality, and is viewing the world through the lens of this concept in its reporting on aspects of reality over which this religious stance claims authority and special knowledge. It’s big of the BBC condescending to inform us in this notification what “cis-gender” means, when there’s likely no such thing as “gender identity” at all. It’s a misplaced confidence in knowledge they think is real. Why must we become “familiar” with fictional, delusional ideas in order to understand a BBC show? Telling us what the concepts mean doesn’t make them any more real. We’re not confused or misinformed, we’re not believers. It’s ironic that the BBC and other news outlets continue to refer to the everyday understanding of the reality of the immutable, binary nature of sex as a “belief,” (as if they were some obscure bit of improbable doctrine adhered to by a small sect who must be, begrudgingly, placated) when it is “gender identity” itself that is the obscure belief that pretends not just to orthodoxy, but to reality.

The BBC has decided that the “consecrated” wine and bread really are the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and suggest that anyone who claims that they’re just bread and wine is not only misinformed and ignorant, but bigoted and hateful.

Webb was deemed to have broken editorial rules when he said “trans women, in other words males” during an item discussing whether biological males have an advantage in chess.

Davie said BBC journalists are “doing a very good job” in difficult circumstances, but argued that Webb was guilty of “foot fault” in his language during the August 2023 broadcast.

For those in the are not familiar to the term, a “foot fault” is (in tennis, squash, and similar games) an infringement of the rules made by incorrect placement of the feet when serving.

But tell us where he was factually incorrect. “Trans women” are males. That is a neutral statement of fact. To say that saying this out loud breaks some kind of rule shows just how far Davie and the BBC have internalized gender ideology, and how poorly they understand the very concept of “neutrality.” He is expecting everyone in the Beeb’s employ to toe the genderist line and self-censor accordingly. Davie might want to consider rethinking policy, and issuing Webb his own apology, before continuing down the path he has chosen for the corporation which will result, inevitably, in the need for even more apologies to Rowling in the future.