Close Menu
    Martine Croxall broke rules over 'pregnant people' facial expression, BBC says
    United Kingdom

    Martine Croxall broke rules over ‘pregnant people’ facial expression, BBC says

    Share.
    View 19 Comments

    19 Comments

    1. Comfortable-Law-7147 on

      Didn’t Ms Croxall take the Beeb to an employment tribute and they had to give her a payout? 

    2. denyer-no1-fan on

      >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.

    4. [deleted] on

      This was after the Supreme Court ruling, right? We are now allowed to say pregnant women I think. Another storm in a teacup imo.

    5. denyer-no1-fan on

      >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. The contempt BBC has for trans people is absolutely astounding, imagine expressing that against any other marginalised minorities.

      Edit: they’ve edited it and it’s now quoted properly. Archived link here: https://archive.ph/Fd0F3

    7. HMWYA on

      “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.

    12. ReligiousGhoul on

      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.

    13. mildbeanburrito on

      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?

    14. recursant on

      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.

    15. LyingFacts on

      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.

    16. qwerty_1965 on

      Slightly off topic

      Has anyone else read the internal memo by the ex BBC Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board adviser Michael Prescott published in full by the telegraph? I wonder if Croxall was cocking a snook at some of her own colleagues and superiors.

    18. BlackSpinedPlinketto on

      I’m pretty sure you’re not supposed to roll your eyes like it’s bullshit when you present the news. I don’t really think the trans thing is the worst issue here, she was just being too sarcastic, but on the flip side great audition for GB news.

    19. EvolvingEachDay on

      Her facial expression wasn’t the problem, it was her saying pregnant people and then essentially scoffing and correcting it to women. Far more than just a facial expression, a total disregard for objectivity.