Martine Croxall ha infranto le regole sull’espressione facciale delle “persone incinte”, afferma la BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3epwz08ewzo
di Adm_Shelby2
Martine Croxall ha infranto le regole sull’espressione facciale delle “persone incinte”, afferma la BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3epwz08ewzo
di Adm_Shelby2
18 commenti
Didn’t Ms Croxall take the Beeb to an employment tribute and they had to give her a payout?
>It added that “congratulatory messages Ms Croxall later received on social media, together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm that the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue”.
The Twitter TERFs are responsible for this complaint being upheld. Ironic.
[removed]
This was after the Supreme Court ruling, right? We are now allowed to say pregnant women I think. Another storm in a teacup imo.
>The ECU said it considered Croxall’s facial expression laid it open to the interpretation that it “indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans ideology.”
The original letter, [seen here](https://www.reddit.com/comments/1opyvj1) says **TRANS IDENTITY**, not “trans ideology”. Fucking BBC can’t even quote their own letter properly.
Edit: they’ve edited it and it’s now quoted properly. Archived link here: https://archive.ph/Fd0F3
[removed]
[removed]
“The ECU said it considered Croxall’s facial expression laid it open to the interpretation that it “indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans ideology.””
I wonder if the ECU realise that describing the existence of trans people as “trans ideology” is also indicating a particular viewpoint, regardless of the action they’ve taken here.
EDIT: It seems this BBC News article has actually edited what the ECU said from “trans identity” to “trans ideology”, which definitely seems like the author of this piece has also breached impartiality by doing so.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
This is so idiotic. Python knew in 1978
“Reg: But… you can’t have babies!
Stan: Don’t you oppress me!
Reg: I’m not oppressing you, Stan! You haven’t got a womb!
[removed]
Not got a dog in this fight but is hysterical that both groups use the exact same rhetoric against each other but literally can’t comprehend the other side at all.
I’d saved the top comment when this story first broke
>Totally normal thing to focus on and care about and totally not deranged and weird.
Out of context, can you really tell me what side this represents lmao.
It’s worth noting when cases like this arise, where there is so much indignation about using inclusive language and how it’s supposedly morally righteous to refuse to do so, that it costs nothing at all.
Yet at the moment the line being pushed by the EHRC, media, and certain government figures that trans people will not be detrimented by mandatory implementation of exclusionary policies, because places will end up providing alternative facilities too even if it has a substantial price tag. How is this believable if trans people can’t even ask for inclusion that costs nothing at all?
And when the very people like Croxall that espouse news stories in a manner shaped by their biases, how is there any hope at all that should there be negative consequences to the equality of trans people due to policies that they favoured then they will honestly report on them?
I remember seeing the clip, it felt needlessly hostile towards trans men.
This Daily Mail article (sorry) shows some people (from the US) who would definitely pass as men, and who are most certainly pregnant.
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13019481/transgender-men-birth-data.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13019481/transgender-men-birth-data.html)
It seems to be an incredibly confused article complaining because they are getting medical help to deliver their babies. Just like anyone else who is pregnant. Not sure what they expect to happen instead.
The DM would typically argue that trans men aren’t really men. Until they get pregnant, apparently, then the DM decides they are men after all, and therefore shouldn’t get any medical help. It is difficult to understand what their point is.
I know people will be outraged, etc etc and I get it. However, this presenter interjected her views with words and expressions prior. To me, she should het a gig at GB News if she doesn’t like impartiality rules within the BBC. To use the privilege of presenting the news on BBC she has prior whilst I’ve watched done expressions to express what she thinks of a story which to me is just not acceptable.