Broadcasters should air the opinion that trans women are women when covering transgender topics, the UK’s media watchdog has reportedly suggested.
Ofcom allegedly told GB News that transgender issues should not be seen as ‘settled’ despite the Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that the legal definition of a woman should be based on their sex at birth.
The Telegraph say they have seen a letter from the watchdog where they tell the channel that broadcasters should potentially share the view that a woman could be someone who has been born a biological man.
So, we have a regulator that insists that broadcasters peddle lies. Ofcom is not a regulator; it is an activist organisation. It needs to be disbanded. If Reform win the next election, defunding the BBC and disbanding Ofcom need to be pretty high on the agenda.
The newspaper say GB News posed the point that the ruling had made it a ‘settled matter that a trans woman is not a biological female, and a trans man is not a biological male’.
The ruling merely confirmed the original legislation, and that merely confirmed objective reality. I am way beyond the point of politeness with this cult and refuse flatly to play their game. This is what happens when you push too hard. Ordinary, decent people who are predisposed towards politeness will cease to cooperate. And this is now where we are.
The channel reportedly added: ‘Following the Supreme Court judgment we are of the view that (provided there is no deliberate intention to cause harm or offence), contributors should generally be able to use biological pronouns.’
Correct. I am sick of the media referring to an obvious male as ‘she’ or twisting the language to breaking point as they make their copy unreadable by using they/them when they should simply refer to the individual by their sex.
However, the watchdog is said to have responded that the ruling should be contextualised in the Equality Act, suggesting that a person’s preferred choice of identity should instead be used on air.
To which the correct answer is ‘fuck off, then fuck off again and keep fucking off until you have vanished beyond the horizon.’
The newspaper went on to say that Ofcom labelled GB News’s propositions as ‘dogmatic’ and that the topics required ‘nuanced decision-making’.
Mrs Pot, have you met Mr Kettle?
Their response allegedly said that they did not follow the thought that the Supreme Court ruling had ‘settled’ wider debate about the ‘appropriate meaning, usage and effect of such terms in all contexts outside the scope of the Equality Act’.
See my earlier comment regarding fucking off.
The Ofcom response reportedly continued to say that each broadcaster has a right to ‘freedom of expression’ as well as the ‘editorial discretion which uncontroversially accompanies the exercise of those rights on issues of significant public interest’.
Unless you are4 GB News, in which case Ofcom will carry out vexatious investigations. Ofcom needs to be disbanded. Not only is it unfit for purpose, it has no purpose. We have no need for a watchdog. Get rid of it, toot sweet.
“Ofcom allegedly told GB News that transgender issues should not be seen as ‘settled’ despite the Supreme Court ruling”
Only until the Supreme Court agrees with them and THEN it is settled.
Non binary translated into Spanish becomes no binario or no binaria, according to gender.
Can’t Ofcom be hauled up for contempt of court?
“they did not follow the thought that the Supreme Court ruling had ‘settled’ wider debate about the ‘appropriate meaning, usage and effect of such terms in all contexts outside the scope of the Equality Act.”
Sounds contemptful to me (of course IANAL)
The BBC is well ahead of the Ofcom letter, as indicated by this nonsense:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgwwv3k5wxo
“Can’t Ofcom be hauled up for contempt of court?”
No, because the Supreme Court judgement doesn’t do what everyone thinks it does. It actually has no effect, because the purpose of the EA is to *ban* single-sex spaces, unless they are “a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate purpose”, the definition of which isn’t specified and hasn’t changed. You still can’t discriminate against the gender reassigned. You still can have shared single-sex spaces (using any definition) if it’s a proportionate means to avoid people having to undress in front of people they’re uncomfortable undressing in front of. It was always thus. Nothing has changed.
The rules on who can go where are not set by law, they’re defined by the property owner – the same as who is allowed in your garden. It’s done by the law on trespass. The law doesn’t say what rules you must set, but it forbids setting rules that discriminate against protected classes, unless there’s a good reason and you can’t do it in any other less-discriminatory way. All you have to do is make sure people of every protected class have somewhere equally nice to go.