The importance of clear and accurate language: questions for IPSO
We have written today to the Chief Executive of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, following its ruling that the use of the phrase “a man who claims to be a woman” in this Spectator article, breached Article 12(i) of its Editors’ Code of Practice. The response of the editor of The Spectator is available here.
The text of our letter is below. We draw to the attention of the Chief Executive to research we previously shared with IPSO about the level of public confusion over language in this area, and to recent interventions by human rights experts on the need for clear language in relation to a person’s sex. We also seek clarification about the implications of this adjudication in other contexts, such as the reporting of employment tribunals and criminal cases, and the weight that IPSO gives to a Gender Recognition Certificate.
We note that IPSO has published a ruling in relation to an article in The Spectator (ref. 03844-24 Dawson v spectator.co.uk). This states:
“The complainant said the article breached Clause 12 as she considered the claim that she was “a man who claim[ed] to be a woman” to be discriminatory as she legally changed her gender in 2018. The complainant considered she was deliberately misgendered with the intention being to offend her.
IPSO considered referring to the complainant as a man “claiming” to be a woman was personally belittling and demeaning toward the complainant, in a way that was both pejorative and prejudicial to her gender identity, and was not justified by the columnist’s right to express their views on the broader issues of sex and gender identity. As such, there was a breach of Clause 12 (i) on this point.”
Good journalistic writing should be clear and easily understandable to readers of different backgrounds, Last year, we commissioned polling to test how well people understand what the terms ‘transgender woman’ and ‘trans woman’ tell them about a person’s sex. The findings show that there is substantial confusion about these terms, especially ‘trans woman’. We wrote to IPSO with the findings at the time, as attached.
IPSO’s position on language also raises potential concerns around human rights. We draw to your attention a piece by Dr Claire Methven O’Brien, an internationally renowned expert in human rights, which sets out the human rights obligations of public authorities trying cases of sexual abuse not to re-traumatise victims, and the relevance of correct-sex language in that context: https://claireob1.substack.com/p/should-judges-and-lawyers-in-rape
We note that on 2 December the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem said:
“I am very concerned by the increasing onslaught on women-specific language, which seeks to erase the reality of womanhood itself and deny its innate and sex-related specificity. A number of influential media outlets, organizations, academic and health institutions, and experts are complicit in what can only be described as a new form of #ViolenceAgainstWomen. It must be stated that words such as “non-transgender women”, “cis women” and the like do not reflect any UN- or otherwise internationally-agreed standards. I call on media and all stakeholders to uphold the dignity of women and respect their human rights.”
We are now writing to ask you for clarification, firstly, of whether saying that a man “claims” to be a woman, and analogous wording to that, will be censured by IPSO if used in other contexts where the writer believes the sex of a person is salient to the matter being discussed.
Relevant to this, we note there are currently two separate employment tribunals in progress, both considering whether nurses should be required to share a changing room with a male colleague because he now regards himself as a woman. There have also now been a number of criminal cases, such as that of Isla Bryson/Adam Graham or Alex/Lexi Secker,[1] where a male sex offender has adopted the identity of a woman either before or after committing an offence. Given its ruling in relation to The Spectator, can IPSO clarify whether any press article that referred to ‘a man who claims to be a woman’ in either of these contexts would now be vulnerable to an adverse ruling?
The ruling as published is also open to interpretation that IPSO regarded the possession of a gender recognition certificate as relevant. Could you confirm if this was the case, and, if so, explain on what basis IPSO concluded that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 imposes additional constraints on how a person can be referred to in the press?
[1] We understand that IPSO initially refused to take forward a complaint about the use of female pronouns for Alex/Lexi Secker, in a press report concerning his trial and conviction for rape. It is unclear whether IPSO will consider this further.
Footnote to blog: We have been asked if IPSO responded to our original letter. We received a response at the time, noting our findings “with interest”, informing us that these had been passed to IPSO’s Standards team for information, telling us that when IPSO next reviews this topic it will consider public understanding of terminology and encouraging us to respond, if there is any further public consultation on this issue.