Not normally appropriate
Further to that discussion of the BBC’s rebuke of Jenni Murray for writing a think piece about whether or not trans women are women in every sense – the BBC puts it this way:
4.4.31
BBC staff and regular BBC presenters or reporters associated with news or public policy-related output may offer professional judgements rooted in evidence. However, it is not normally appropriate for them to present or write personal view programmes and content on public policy, on matters of political or industrial controversy, or on ‘controversial subjects’ in any area.
Does that cover their rebuke of Murray, or not? Is she a presenter “associated with news or public policy-related output”? Does that describe Woman’s Hour? Was she in fact offering her professional judgement rooted in evidence?
She presents Woman’s Hour. Suppose a bunch of men started writing editorials and tweets saying Woman’s Hour should be about men. Would it be not appropriate for her to write an editorial saying Woman’s Hour should be what it says on the tin? Wouldn’t that be a relevant bit of professional judgement from her?
I will put the first oar in, stop me if I am going on about it too much.
I would say very much so and, I think she would too. That is not all of Woman’s Hour content but it is a very important part of it.
Yes, that would obviously be relevant to her professional judgement, but I don’t think her profession (journalism and broadcasting) makes her any kind of expert in transgender politics. Also, and quite importantly, this would not be a controversial issue.
But her article wasn’t about “transgender politics.” It was about what we talk about when we talk about being a woman. That certainly seems relevant to Woman’s Hour.
That’s perhaps the core of the dispute – are women no longer allowed to talk about their experiences as girls and women? Should trans women be setting women straight on what it is to be a woman? Should trans women be hogging the mic on programs like Woman’s Hour?
I think her profession (presenting Woman’s Hour) does make her any kind of expert on women’s experiences.
I think it was about transgender politics, without that it wouldn’t have really been at all controversial, but even so, being a journalist is no qualification for commenting on what it means to be a woman (thank god) so that would not be a get out. It is relevant subject for Woman’s Hour but under BBC guidleines that makes it even more important that she expresses no personal opinion. She could talk about gardening without any problem.
That’s perhaps the core of the dispute – are women no longer allowed to talk about their experiences as girls and women?
But she is free to talk about her experiences, just not to express an opinion on controversial issues while under her current contract (which she signed and agreed to). This is the same for everybody of her stature, male or female. A male sports commentator could, say, talk about how much he personally enjoyed playing football as a boy and what he thinks it means to boys, but could not express the view that female to male transexuals should not be allowed to pay in boys’ teams or any other personal opinion on that controversy in public.
I don’t think so, I doubt you do, and I know Murray doesn’t. But she is not there to decide, she is there to report the controversy. The fact she has a stated view makes her less effective at that job. So she earned the reprimand.
Clearly the two intersect but they are not the same thing. There’s lots for women to say about being women and about what to say when talking about being women that has nothing to do with trans issues. Trans issues are certainly part of that discussion but a subset. Let’s not make the subset the whole. The worry here, I think, is that the subset becomes the whole.
Given that none of us are privy to her contract, I’ll decline to comment on that. But I will say that if a BBC presenter isn’t allowed to talk about things which are – after the fact – decided to be ‘controversial’, regardless of any conveniently imagined contract, then they can stick their license fee up their fucking arses.
They can talk about anything but they cannot express a view or take a side on controversial issues. They can only inquire and present facts and evidence. That is a standard BBC contract. This is why you won’t hear a newsreader denouncing Donald Trump on the 10 o’clock news. You may not like it but it is why the BBC has the reputation it has and Fox News has a different sort of reputation.
That’s a false binary. We don’t have only two choices: either Fox News or a news service that tells the presenter of Woman’s Hour that she can’t write an article on what it means to be a woman. The situation is not nearly that stark.
Fox news has the reputation they do because if they presented someone on what it means to be a woman, it would probably be Bill O’Reilley or Rush Limbaugh – neither of whom have the slightest idea of what it means to be a woman outside their own opinions of what they would like women to be.
One of the biggest problems with news professionals today is this absolute insistence on “neutrality” which is as often as not a creator of stupidity. Neutrality on global warming leads my students to question any suggestion that there is consensus on global warming. Neutrality leads to banality in most cases.’
Should a person be neutral about rape? Oh, let’s hear both sides. How about genocide? Well, Hitler had an opinion, too, so let’s present the view of the neo-Nazis as though it is legitimate. We can easily see the problem with this, so why is it when we are talking about people who are not neo-Nazis or rapists, we suddenly believe that we must not take a side?
Am I suggesting that not taking a side in the trans issue is as dangerous as the Nazis? No. But it appears to me that this station is not requiring objectivity or neutrality, but that one side of the issue be deemed controversial. Would she have gotten the same sort of reprimand if just assuming trans women were fully women? My guess is no. If that is the case, this is not objectivity, it is silencing. If they are giving the same instructions to trans women, then, okay, they are being neutral – but not necessarily objective, since neutral and objective really don’t mean the same thing, do they?
Pinkeen;
Maybe not, but surely being a woman does qualify Murray to comment on what it means to be a woman. She’s 60, which gives her at least 40 years experience of what it means to be a woman.
Tangentally relafted; I wish somebody would explain to me why, if trans-women are women and want to be acknowledged as women, they don’t just call themselves women? By retaining the trans prefix they are declaring that they are something other than women, not to be confused with those cis-women (or women, as they are properly called). Trans- says ‘different sort of woman’, which is not the ideal way to gain acceptance as a woman. They’re either women or they’re not.
And please can they stop with the cis bullshit? It’s just plain insulting.
Does Rachel Dolezal know what it is to be African American? As an adult, and being of Swedish and German ancestry, she went the*toast ‘n friz* route and then got a job as the local NACCP chief. She feels she’s Black and claims to have been a victim of racism on at least 9 occasions. No proof exists to back up any of those 9 allegations.
Dolezal may have some inkling of what it is to be an adult, Black female in America ( she even gave lectures at a local university on the subject of ‘Black hair’), but having grown up pinky-white and blond, she simply cannot know what it means to grow up Black, and what we grow up as probably constitutes or conditions 90% of what/who we ‘feel’ we are.
And that situation, in my humble opinion, applies to both race AND gender.
Mind you, Rachel also had adopted black siblings and immersed herself in black culture in both life and academia. Sure, that is not the same thing as being born black and living that struggle from birth, but she chose to adopt that struggle as her own, not declare herself black and then explain to black people how they are actually privileged and she has it much worse than them…
I found at least two of her siblings declaring public support for her and even now she has support within the civil rights movement.
Further to what Rob said, Dolezal actually worked for civil rights. And she didn’t insist black people “center” people like her in the movement. She didn’t tell them to watch their language, lest they make trans racial people feel excluded.
That’s an odd way to put it. She can, of course write that article, she just can’t take a position on a controversial subject that falls within her remit. A medical correspondent, for another example, could write an article about what it is like to be a health correspondent, but not write an article accusing the government of underfunding the NHS (even if that were her private conviction).