Their
The BBC has defended its use of female pronouns to describe a transgender killer who stabbed
their[HIS] partner to death with a samurai sword.
Way to undermine what you just said, Telegraph! Y U afraid to say “his”???
Joanna Rowland-Stuart, who was born male and was known as John Stuart, attacked Andrew Rowland-Stuart at their Brighton home in 2024, in what a jury found was an unlawful killing.
The couple had married in a civil partnership but reporting on the court hearing earlier this year, BBC News headlined one story “Wife killed husband with samurai sword” and began: “A woman killed her husband…”.
The BBC used the pronouns “she” and “her” throughout its coverage.
There were complaints; the Beeb brushed them off.
In a written response, the broadcaster’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) said: “The BBC recognises the debate around sex and gender identity involves deeply held and sometimes conflicting views. The BBC’s approach, therefore, is to use terminology which is clear and appropriate to the context.”
EXCUSE me???
What the hell is “clear” about calling a violent murderous man “she”?
And how is it appropriate?
Some complainants said that the BBC’s choice of language was evidence of its “clear deference to gender identity ideology”. However, it said: “Respecting an individual’s chosen gender identity does not mean the BBC is endorsing or supporting any side of the debate around transgender rights.”
Yes it does. It can’t help doing that. What sex we are is not something we can choose, so to burble about chosen gender idenniny is meaningless.
What both the BBC and the Telegraph overlook here is the fact that pretending women commit these crimes is bad for women and therefore unfair to women. This isn’t some idle nitpick, it’s reporting about violent murder being committed by women when that is a lie.
I’m wearing out the italics this morning. Sorry. This stuff makes me angry.
It’s okay. The italics need the exercise. The lazy bums. Just look at their posture.
At least the murderous trannies in England only have blades.
Two days in a row now there have been articles in the Washington Post about trans-identified male criminals that carefully avoid the use of gendered language. Yesterday it was the Nazi in Germany; today the murderer in Minneapolis. Here’s a sample from today’s article:
It continues like that throughout the article. They refer to him by name, or as “the shooter” or “assailant” or so forth, but never with a pronoun or a gendered word; the only reference to his sex is this:
I’m not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, at least they’re not pinning this crime on women, but on the other hand, they’re bending over backwards to avoid the obvious fact that, like most (all?) such killings, this was perpetrated by a man.
WaM @ 3
I noticed the same in a Bulwark article (and others) that talked about the Minneapolis shooting. They are so damned careful not to touch that political live wire.
My husband was noticing it in our local paper, in an AP story. He was quite annoyed to read that the ‘gender identity’ is uncertain.