The gender ideology thread

[Taf]

I bet the BBC Lefties would love to replace all the Newsreaders with AI characters that couldn't go off-script.

Originally Posted by Anonymouse

Her correcting the autocue is, hopefully, the beginning of the end for political correctness. The term 'pregnant people' is grammatical nonsense - the term 'people' is generic, covering men, women and children. But men can't be pregnant (without drastic surgery), nor (without premature puberty) can young girls, and boys can't, either. There is one, and only one, kind of person who can be pregnant: A WOMAN.

It seems Martine is of the 'call a spade a spade' crowd. Good. We need more like her.

Not that I watch TV, of course; I found out about this via random surfing.

I agree, but this doesn’t raise sufficiently different issues to those already under discussion here in the gender ideology thread, hence thread merged

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------

Lots of newspapers have covered this; notably the BBC news website is ignoring it completely. Here’s one without a paywall that includes the relevant clip of Croxall rolling her eyes and saying women after visibly stuttering when she encountered the term ‘pregnant people’ on her autocue.

https://www.ladbible.com/entertainme...13377-20250624

[RichardCoulter]

My concern is that a newsreader should be reading the prepared script and not inputting their own opinion into a news bulletin. What next, a remark about who is right/wrong when the Government & their opposition are at loggerheads or an opinion on who is right/wrong in the conflict between Israel/Iran??

This unprofessional behaviour calls into question the impartiality of the BBC.

I would feel the same if the script had of said 'women' and she had changed it to "people".

Originally Posted by Chris

Here’s one without a paywall
https://www.ladbible.com/entertainme...13377-20250624

That site pops up a paywall for me.

Weird … it offered me free with ads or paid without … I chose the former.

Here it is in student rag, “The Tab”. It’s a straight report but their newsdesk will be seething.

https://thetab.com/2025/06/24/bbc-ba...o-women-on-air

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

My concern is that a newsreader should be reading the prepared script and not inputting their own opinion into a news bulletin.

If you’re a news reader in North Korea, Iran or Russia, absolutely

What next, a remark about who is right/wrong when the Government & their opposition are at loggerheads or an opinion on who is right/wrong in the conflict between Israel/Iran??

She was correcting an editorial mistake, explain what bit she got wrong?

This unprofessional behaviour calls into question the impartiality of the BBC.

I would feel the same if the script had of said 'women' and she had changed it to "people".

That last sentence doesn’t make sense, in your opinion in what part was she incorrect?

Only women can give birth - whilst ‘women’ are a sub-group of ‘people’, it’s a bit silly to use the two as interchangeable in this scenario…

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

My concern is that a newsreader should be reading the prepared script and not inputting their own opinion into a news bulletin. What next, a remark about who is right/wrong when the Government & their opposition are at loggerheads or an opinion on who is right/wrong in the conflict between Israel/Iran??

This unprofessional behaviour calls into question the impartiality of the BBC.

I would feel the same if the script had of said 'women' and she had changed it to "people".

The incident does call the BBC’s impartiality into question, but not in the way you think.

“Pregnant people” is activist language. Only women get pregnant. The use of “people” is intended to prioritise women who think they are something else (so-called trans men, or non-binary). Prioritising questionable social theories by using highly contested language without making clear that’s what you’re doing represents a loss of impartiality, and in discussion of medical issues where biology is of primary importance it is also reckless.

Croxall correctly addressed that lapse in editorial judgment by making an important clarification when she realised the script she had been given was sub-standard.

N.B. “Only women get pregnant” is not a matter of opinion. If you think it is, you need to give your head a wobble.

[Stephen]

I think the point being made is the scripts are written to be read as is.

By using the term people they are also covering those women who transitioned become trans men and those not wishing to conform to typical gender roles ie non binary or gender fluid etc.

Nothing to do with trans women.

Originally Posted by Stephen

I think the point being made is the scripts are written to be read as is.

By using the term people they are also covering those women who transmitted to become trans men and those not wishing to conform to typical gender roles ie non binary or gender fluid etc.

Nothing to do with transmen.

(Emphasis mine - do please make your mind up )

I’m well aware of why they say “pregnant person”. I object - strongly - to activist language that minimises “woman” as an essential, immutable, important binary category of human existence. In medical issues, biology is paramount, not one’s ineffable sense of self.

I don’t care if as a woman you* think you’re a man, or some other entirely internal, unfalsifiable sense of otherness. That’s your business. However, the thoughts inside your head don’t give you the right to re-write language and expect the rest of us to go along with it. And in discussion of biological issues, most particularly sex-specific issues like pregnancy, it is of primary importance that you acknowledge the essential fact that you are, always were and always will be, a woman.

*Not you personally obvs

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Chris

(Emphasis mine - do please make your mind up )

I’m well aware of why they say “pregnant person”. I object - strongly - to activist language that minimises “woman” as an essential, immutable, important binary category of human existence. In medical issues, biology is paramount, not one’s ineffable sense of self.

I don’t care if as a woman you* think you’re a man, or some other entirely internal, unfalsifiable sense of otherness. That’s your business. However, the thoughts inside your head don’t give you the right to re-write language and expect the rest of us to go along with it. And in discussion of biological issues, most particularly sex-specific issues like pregnancy, it is of primary importance that you acknowledge the essential fact that you are, always were and always will be, a woman.

*Not you personally obvs

Sorry stupid auto correction stuff. Fixed it

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by Paul

That site pops up a paywall for me.

I could read it.. There was a spam ad but it didnt show.........

Originally Posted by Stephen

Sorry stupid auto correction stuff. Fixed it

Thanks, that does make sense now

I agree, it is nothing to do with making so-called “trans women” (i.e. men) feel included. The language is intended to acknowledge that women who think they’re not women also get pregnant. It attempts to avoid hurting their feelings by avoiding calling them “women”. And in doing so it disrespects women everywhere, queering language so that it becomes ever more difficult to discuss issues in the terms male/female categories that genderists have decided are undesirable.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I think the point being made is the scripts are written to be read as is.

By using the term people they are also covering those women who transitioned become trans men and those not wishing to conform to typical gender roles ie non binary or gender fluid etc.

Nothing to do with trans women.

I agree. It's not for a newsreader to change a prepared script quoting a comment from a health professional in order to put across a personal political comment. IMO it's irrelevant as to whether one agrees or disagrees with said point of view.

I've spent this evening watching an excellent series that (based on a true story) humanises the experience of what it was like to grow up trans in a working class area of Nottingham:

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/a64933...ke-for-a-girl/

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I agree. It's not for a newsreader to change a prepared script quoting a comment from a health professional in order to put across a personal political comment.

It is, if it is to correct an ideological political comment.