Over a period of 18 months, Fair Play For Women has reported the inaccurate and misleading use of the word “woman” in newspaper headlines to the independent press regulator, IPSO. All our complaints were rejected. In this article we discuss the reasons given by IPSO for rejecting our complaints and why their approach on transgender issues doesn’t work for women. We call on IPSO to urgently review and update its 2015 transgender reporting guidance for editors.
Fair Play For Women submitted ten complaints to IPSO between July 2019 and December 2021. In each complaint the word “woman” or “female” had been used to describe an individual whose sex is male but now self-identifies as a transgender woman. In most cases, “woman” appeared in the headline without any clarification in the body of the story that the individual was transgender and not a natal female. Most stories related to sexual or violent offending; some accused and some convicted. In most cases we escalated the complaint all the way to the IPSO Complaints Committee for final review.
“Northwich woman jailed for cocaine-fuelled sex with a dog”
“Teesside woman accused of using sex toy and masturbating in public”
“Female PCSO, 35, who ran survivalist YouTube channel is jailed for 27 months after she was found with homemade bomb and hoard of banned weapons”
“Woman exposed herself in Glebe House car park, Haverfordwest”
“Scorned woman is jailed for five years for framing her ex-boyfriend and his new lover as paedophiles by taking over his Facebook to arrange meet with ’14-year-old girl’ ”
“Woman who once shoved policeman onto Tube tracks jailed for spitting at officer”
“Former female PCSO, 34, who now works as staff member at Lincolnshire Police is charged with making explosives and importing weapons after raid on her house”
“Blackpool woman accessed ‘sick’ child abuse images from hospital bed”
“Woman who ‘bragged about being a paedophile’ approached boys at Remembrance event”
“Sheffield woman found with over 1,000 indecent images of children hauled before the court”
We said that use of the word “woman” in the headline was a breach of Clause 1(i) of the Editors’ Code “The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.”
We argued that when a newspaper covers a story about crime an individual’s sex becomes relevant to the public’s proper understanding of that story. This is because the propensity to commit crime is well known to be highly sex-dependent (most violent and sexual crime is committed by males not females). Most readers will understand the word “woman” in a headline to mean a person whose sex is female not male. As such, the inaccurate and misleading use of the word “woman” in a story about crime distorts public understanding and awareness of male patterns of criminality. It is therefore in the public interest for IPSO to uphold the accurate reporting of sex in these cases.
Nevertheless, IPSO rejected all of our complaints for at least one of two reasons.
Reason 1: It’s not inaccurate if a newspaper is accurately reporting what is said.
Lots of inaccurate things are said in court. IPSO’s position appears to be that these inaccuracies can be repeated in the press as long as it’s clearly presented as someone’s subjective view rather than as an objective fact.
“Newspapers are responsible for accurately reporting what is heard in court; they are not responsible for the accuracy of what is heard by the court”
“The Committee concluded that reporting the identity of the defendant in the same way they were identified in court represents an accurate report of the court proceedings”.
“In reporting on court proceedings, publications are responsible for reporting proceedings accurately, rather than for the accuracy of the information heard”
“We found that the article clearly reported on statements made by Lincolnshire Police, with statements relating to the alleged crime being prefaced or followed by ‘according to Lincolnshire Police’ or similar”.
“The defendant was identified in the articles by the name by which the defendant had been identified in the proceedings and the articles had also referred to the defendant by nouns and pronouns which were consistent with this name. In these circumstances, the way in which the defendant had been described in the articles was not inaccurate or misleading and your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code.”
However, this overlooks the false assumptions newspapers are making about an individual’s sex when they are described in court or by police using feminine pronouns and name. It is a matter of policy that courts and police use “preferred pronouns” to reflect the individual’s gender identity regardless of their sex. Newspapers are conflating sex and gender identity, resulting in misleading and inaccurate headlines.
What is happening in practice is that the court reporter is present at the court hearing and can see a male defendant in the dock. Nevertheless, verbatim reporting means they must accurately quote the pronouns used by the judge when they file the court report. The headline writer, who wasn’t in court, reads about “her” in the copy and presumes “her” sex must be female and writes the headline to match. And what a great headline it is too – a woman caught masturbating in public – this is no run of the mill, everyday story of male sexual offending. This is unusual and shocking – the perfect click-bait headline to drive interest in the story.
Even when a newspaper’s own online comments section proves that some readers were misled into thinking the sex of an individual was female it’s not enough for IPSO to accept a complaint.
“If it was a man that done that sentence would have been much much more”
“Five years for almost destroying a man’s entire life if the truth hadn’t come out. Female privilege”
Sometimes IPSO would agree with us that the individual’s sex was highly relevant to the story, but simply dodged the complaint by citing “editorial discretion”.
“While the Executive noted your view that Julie Marshall’s biological sex is highly relevant to the proceedings and that the biological sex of defendants is in general relevant to the reporting of crimes of this nature, the newspaper was entitled in accordance with its right to editorial discretion to make its own determination on this point”.
What’s happening here is clearly wrong, but inevitable, unless the Editor gives clear direction to staff that pronouns and names must never be used to guess at someone’s sex. If someone’s sex is relevant to the story – which it must be if it ends up in the headline – staff must take extra care to make sure it’s right and clearly distinguish between sex and gender identity when necessary.
By failing to even accept our complaints, IPSO is not presenting these examples to newspaper editors. Editors continue to remain oblivious to the obvious flaws, or can simply ignore it knowing there will never be a case to answer to the regulator.
Reason 2: We can’t decide what’s accurate without the consent of the individual involved.
IPSO often rejected our complaints on the grounds that it was a complaint from a third party, rather than a complaint from the individual who is subject to the alleged inaccuracy. IPSO is allowed to consider complaints from third parties, but in doing so it must consider and prioritise the impact on the first party.
“While the Committee acknowledged the grounds you provided for bringing the complaint, having considered the position of the first party, as it was required to do so under its Regulations, the Committee decided it would not be appropriate to consider your complaint on this point further”.
“It would not be appropriate for IPSO to make a public ruling in relation to the sex and gender identity of X, without that individual’s input and consent. Because of this, we declined to consider your complaint further”.
“Any ruling by IPSO on this matter would result in the publication of information about Ms Thompson, which might not be appropriate without their consent. In these circumstances, we considered that it would not be appropriate to investigate and publicly rule on your complaint without the consent of Chloe Thompson. Because of this, we declined to consider your complaint further.”
To decide whether something was inaccurate or not IPSO would need to investigate and make a finding on what sex the individual actually was. Doing so without the involvement or consent of the individual in question was considered an intrusion of privacy.
“The Committee considered that investigating this issue, without consent, had the potential to be highly intrusive.”
“we also have to consider the potential effect on someone if IPSO undertook an investigation into an article about them without their involvement, particularly where the point of complaint concerns their personal characteristics…. Setting aside the question of whether we have, or might obtain, all the necessary information required to make a finding without their involvement, an investigation and the potential subsequent publication of an IPSO ruling could represent a significant intrusion into their privacy. Having taken into account the above factors we have decided not to consider your complaint further.”
“any ruling by IPSO on this matter would result in the publication of information about Ms Harvey, which might not be appropriate without their consent. In these circumstances, we considered that it would not be appropriate to investigate and publicly rule on your complaint without the consent of Ms Harvey. Because of this, we declined to consider your complaint further.”
IPSO’s insistence that it would need input from the individual even extended to when that person’s sex was obvious and indisputable. For example, when a sex offender was convicted for masturbating their PENIS in public. Or when “male” was written on court records.
This approach of requiring input and consent of the first party normally makes sense. If false information has been written about someone then the person being lied about should be the one submitting the complaint, confirming the truth and seeking the correction. However, this approach falls down when the individual desires the inaccuracy and/or conflation and wouldn’t want it corrected. In this instance, the first party consent rule is not fit for purpose and ensures that individual privacy will always override public interest to know the truth.
IPSO’s trans reporting guidance needs urgent revision.
In December 2020, Charlotte Dewar, the head of IPSO, announced they would be “refreshing” their 2015 transgender reporting guidance. Over 18 months on we are still waiting.
In that time we have had multiple meetings with IPSO including with the chair of IPSO, the head of complaints and the head of standards and regulation. We have brought multiple examples of the problem to their attention, through their complaints system, and given detailed feedback on what’s going wrong. We have also submitted written evidence to Editors’ Code Committee explaining the problem along with possible solutions. It’s now time for IPSO to act.
The Trans Guidance, written in 2015, is focused exclusively on the needs of the trans person. It was written to stop trans people being unnecessarily “outed” or mocked for being trans. Those days are thankfully over, as concluded by independent research commissioned by IPSO in 2019.
However, today IPSO faces a new challenge. It must fairly regulate the press reporting of both sex and gender identity. There is a balance to be struck. Multiple stakeholders are involved.
Transgender advocacy groups do not wish gender identity, sex or transgender status to be reported where it is not relevant to a story. Likewise, women’s sex-based advocacy groups, such as ours, do not wish the male sex to be misreported or misinterpreted as if it were the female sex, where sex is relevant to the story.
The needs of both stakeholder groups should be considered and fairly balanced by IPSO and this is not currently happening and needs to change.
By not even accepting our complaints, IPSO has avoided having to consider where the fair balance lies. What matters more? The privacy of a sex offender to hide his sex or the wellbeing of the victim to read her truth? Should the privacy of an individual always trump the public interest not to be misled? Or are there occasions when sex matters and readers must not be misled?
Getting this balance right matters. Public support for female-only spaces depends on the public’s understanding of which sex commits most sexual and violent crimes. Misleading articles about “female” sex offenders distorts public perception, and along with it societal debate and public policy-making.
IPSO has a responsibility to help the press get this right.
Appendix:
The details of all IPSO rulings are normally published on their website, therefore the reasons why a complaint was upheld or dismissed become available for the public to read. However, because our complaints were rejected without any investigation, none of the context or explanation reaches the public domain. For that reason we have decided to publish most of the correspondence between Fair Play For Women and IPSO relating to each of our complaints here:
Northwich woman jailed for cocaine-fuelled sex with a dog
22nd December 2021
#00051-22
Claire Goodier, previously John Goodier. On Sex offences register for sex offences in 2006 and 2009.
COMPLAINT: The headline breaches clause 1 by using the word “woman” to describe an individual who was born the male sex. The use of the word “woman” without context or clarification in the main text is likely to mislead readers into thinking this convicted sex offender had been born the female sex. The majority of sex offenders are born the male sex. Sexual offending by people born female is rare. Therefore, the sex of the sex offender is important and relevant to the story. Misleading the public about the sex of a sex offender represents a significant accuracy. It is also important and relevant to this particular story that the birth sex is reported accurately because this individual is a repeat offender who is on the sex offenders register following convictions for possession of indecent images of children in 2006 and 2009, both committed while known as John. The reporter did not take care not to mislead the public. He clearly knew the birth sex of the individual was male. The same reporter (Scott Murphy) had written about the case two months earlier on 31st October using the headline “Northwich man admits having sex with dog”. In October the reporter had named the individual as John Goodier “who now goes by the name of Claire”. The Chester Crown Court listed* the individual on 24th November and 22nd December as John (aka Claire) Ernest Goodier. With a note accompanying the listing that court staff show “please address defendant as Claire”. This makes it clear to the reporter that the defendant identifies as a woman but was born the male sex. The reporter will have heard the use of the name “Claire” in court along with feminine pronouns she/her. However, it is standard practice for courts to now refer to court users using their preferred name and pronouns. Reporters should never assume this relates to birth sex. The reporter will not have heard the defendant described as “born the female sex” so using the word ‘woman’ in the headline misleads the public and is not an accurate report of what was heard in court. The name and birth sex of the convicted sex offender is in the public domain. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect IPSO to be able to make a finding on the birth sex of this individual without it being considered intrusive or a breach of privacy. For comparison, the Daily Mail referred to the same individual as “female” in its headline on 22nd December 2021. However, this headline does not breach Clause 1 because the phrase “identifies as female” is used. This makes it clear to the reader that the word “female” is not being used in relation to birth sex. In this instance, the reporter took care to avoid a breach of Clause 1.
RESPONSE: You said that this article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) because you believed the headline was misleading as it described the defendant as a “woman” whereas you considered they were born male. In this case, we decided that the alleged inaccuracy related most closely to Claire Goodier. We noted that you were not complaining to us on their behalf. This means that your complaint is what IPSO considers a third-party complaint, which IPSO may, but is not obliged, to consider. When deciding whether to accept complaints from third parties, we have to take into account the position of the individual most closely involved. What that means in practice differs from case to case. Sometimes it is purely a question about whether we can practically conduct an investigation without the participation of that person; for example, if first-hand knowledge about something they’re claimed to have said or done is needed in order to establish whether an article is accurate. However, we also have to consider the potential effect on someone if IPSO undertook an investigation into an article about them without their involvement, particularly where the point of complaint concerns their personal characteristics. An investigation into your complaint would require IPSO to correspond with you and the publication about whether this person’s sex was accurately described in the article before potentially publishing our findings on our website. Setting aside the question of whether we have, or might obtain, all the necessary information required to make a finding without their involvement, an investigation and the potential subsequent publication of an IPSO ruling could represent a significant intrusion into their privacy. Having taken into account the above factors we have decided not to consider your complaint further. For clarity, this does not affect the ability of any person mentioned in the coverage to make a complaint to us should they decide to, or our ability to consider other accuracy complaints about the article. You also raised concerns under Clause 1 that the use of the word “woman” without context or clarification in the main text would mislead readers into thinking the offender had been born the female sex. You said the majority of sex offenders are born male and that sexual offending by people born female is rare. In this case, we noted that the article was not a report about which sexes commit this category of offence, but was simply a court report about the sentencing of one person. You did not appear to dispute the accuracy of the report of the crime itself, what was heard in the court proceedings or the sentence issued. The Executive did not consider the article to be misleading or inaccurate in the way you described. We did not identify grounds to investigate a possible breach of Clause 1.
Teesside woman accused of using sex toy and masturbating in public
25th November 2021
#12036-21
Claire Thompson, previously Andrew McNab. Convicted at Teesside Crown Court of the sexual assault of a teenage girl in 2011 and sentenced to 12 months in prison. In 2013 jailed for 2 years for attempting to burn ex-wife’s house. By 2021 there are 16 previous convictions for 11 offences. In May 2021 made Tiktok account in name of Chloe without informing police (required as part of the sex register)
COMPLAINT: First print and online headline was “Teesside woman accused of using sex toy and masturbating in public”. After complaints on social media that this headline was misleading because the individual was not female but actually male they changed the online headline to “Teesside woman accused of exposing penis, using sex toy and masturbating in public”. However the print version remained unchanged. Masturbating in public is a crime overwhelmingly committed by males. Females rarely commit indecent exposure. As such the sex of the individual is highly relevant to the understanding of the story. Most readers will understand “woman” to mean a person whose sex is female not male. The court reporter has heard a feminine name and pronouns being used in court. They will not have heard the word “woman” so this is not accurate court reporting. The fact that a penis is involved confirms to the reporter beyond doubt that the birth sex of this individual is male. Using the word woman in the headline is misleading without clarification that this person was born male but simply identifies as a woman. The print version remains confusing and a correction should be made in the next edition.
RESPONSE: You said that this article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it did not make clear that the subject of the article was a transgender woman. IPSO is able to consider complaints from an individual who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice; complaints from a representative group affected by an alleged breach where there is a substantial public interest; and complaints from third parties about accuracy. In the case of third party complaints, we do need to consider the position of the party most closely involved. In this case, we decided that the alleged inaccuracy related directly to Chloe Thompson. In order to make a decision on whether the Code was breached, it appears IPSO may need to make findings on Chloe Thompson’s sex. Any ruling by IPSO on this matter would result in the publication of information about Ms Thompson, which might not be appropriate without their consent. In these circumstances, we considered that it would not be appropriate to investigate and publicly rule on your complaint without the consent of Chloe Thompson. Because of this, we declined to consider your complaint further.
ESCALATED: This decision needs to be reviewed because the premise of the complaint upon which you’ve made your decision has been misrepresented in your response to me. You summarised my complaint as “You said that this article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it did not make clear that the subject of the article was a transgender woman.” Nowhere in my complain did I use the word “transgender” or say that the missing information was that the individual was a “transgender woman” or suggest that being transgender was relevant to a story about masturbating in public. The individual’s gender identity has no relevance to this complaint whatsoever. The complaint is specifically about misleading the reader about the individual’s sex. You have wrongfully conflated sex and gender identity. They are not the same thing. This is surprising because there have been numerous complaints on this topic over the year, from me and others, and it’s disappointing to see IPSO executives making this fundamental mistake. My complaint was that the article breached Clause 1 because it omitted to reference the fact that the individual’s sex registered at birth is male. This is relevant because the fact that the individual’s sex registered at birth is male means they are more likely to commit the crime of masturbating in public compared to someone whose sex registered at birth was female. It is rare for people born the female sex to masturbate in public. The use of the word “woman” without clarification about sex therefore misleads the reader into thinking this individual was registered female at birth when they were not. In this instance making a finding about the sex of the individual is straightforward for IPSO. The fact that a penis is involved confirms beyond doubt that this individual’s sex registered at birth was male.
FINAL DECISION: The Complaints Committee has considered your complaint, the email from IPSO’s Executive notifying you of its view that you were third party to the complaint and its decision not to pursue your complaint, and your email requesting a review of the Executive’s decision. The Committee agreed the following decision: The Committee understood that you considered the individual’s assigned sex at birth significant to their alleged crime, and that the article misled the reader by referring to the individual as a “woman” and omitted to mention that the individual’s assigned sex at birth was male. However as the alleged inaccuracy related directly to Chloe Thompson, for the reasons already provided by IPSO’s Executive, the Committee declined to pursue your complaint. The Committee would like to thank you for giving it the opportunity to consider your concerns.
Female PCSO, 35, who ran survivalist YouTube channel is jailed after she was found with bomb
7th July 2020
#07406-21
Zoe Watts, previously Kyle Watts.
COMPLAINT: The use of the word “female” in the headline breaches Clause 1 on accurate and misleading reporting and should be removed from the headline. Zoe Watts has been convicted and jailed for making a homemade bomb and weapons. It is widely known that Watts was born male and now identifies as a woman. The birth sex of Watts would have been easy for a journalist to find. There is plenty of public domain information available, including previous reporting by other newspapers. Watts has also run transgender awareness courses for the police. By making their trans history public Watts also makes their male birth sex known. https://www.lincolnshireunison.org/assets/downloads/Trans_Awareness_Training_Unison_Lincolns_Police.pdf. The unqualified use of the word “female” in the headline is inaccurate and misleads readers into thinking this person was born female. There was no clarification elsewhere in the article that Watts identified as transgender. It was completely unnecessary to refer to Watt’s sex or gender identity in the headline and should have been omitted to avoid misleading readers in this way. Misrepresenting the sex of the offender in this story has a material impact on the understanding of a story. The central point of the story, as summarised by the headline, is that a female person has been sent to prison for possessing weapons. Most people in prison are male (95%). Most people in prison for possession of weapons are male (97%). MOJ offender statistics show that in March 2021 there were only 10 female prisoners in England and Wales convicted of possessing weapons compared to 314 male prisoners. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2020. It is a fact, evidenced by official statistics, that it is rare for a female person to be convicted of possessing weapons. Most stories of this type will involve someone who was born male and not female. Misrepresenting this news item as if it was one of the rare examples of a female sent to prison for weapons possessions distorts public opinion about criminality patterns in the UK and changes the central point of the story. It turns a commonplace story about a male person going to prison into a rare and unusual story about a female person going to prison.
FINAL DECISION: Thank you for clarifying the basis of your complaint: that regardless of the name or pronouns used, it was inaccurate for the article to refer to the individual as “female”. The Committee noted that, following this clarification, it was clear this complaint related not to the court proceedings and the way in which Zoe Watts was referenced in that context, but rather to Ms Watts’ legal sex. The Committee therefore noted that with respect to accuracy complaints brought by third parties, it is obliged to consider the position of the party most closely involved. In this case, the alleged inaccuracy related directly to Zoe Watts. In order to make a decision on whether the Code was breached by referring to Zoe Watts as “female”, IPSO would need to make findings on Zoe Watts’ legal sex. Any ruling by IPSO on this matter would result in the publication of information about Zoe Watts, which could have a significant effect on them. The Committee were concerned about making a ruling about this issue, without the individual’s involvement in our investigation as a complainant, and without their consent. The Committee considered that investigating this issue, without consent, had the potential to be highly intrusive. While the Committee acknowledged the grounds you provided for bringing the complaint, having considered the position of the first party, as it was required to do so under its Regulations, the Committee decided it would not be appropriate to consider your complaint on this point further. For this reason, the Committee declined to re-open your complaint.
Woman charged with exposing herself in Glebe House car park, Haverfordwest
28th April 2021
#04545-21
Marina Peter Diva-Shem
COMPLAINT: This is a short court report containing several basic facts about an alleged crime. The facts include the defendant’s name, age, sex and address. Plus details about the alleged crime including what happened, where and when. Plus court dates. Three of these facts were considered more important than the others such that they were highlighted in the headline: the defendant’s sex (a woman), the alleged crime (exposing private body parts) and where (a car park). The use of the word “woman” in the headline will be understood by most readers to mean that this court report is about a female person exposing female body parts. For that reason, the sex of the defendant is clearly central to the understanding of this news story. If it wasn’t central or newsworthy the newspaper would not have used the word “woman” in the headline. The use of the word ‘”woman” in the headline and sub-headline is inaccurate and misleading, and so breaches the Editors’ Code for Accuracy. The sex of the defendant is not female. The sex of the defendant is male. The defendant identifies as a woman and this information is in the public domain and publicly shared by the defendant on their Twitter profile. They describe themselves as a t-girl which is short for transgender girl/woman. Transgender women are, by definition, members of the male sex (their sex is opposite to their gender identity). The reporter has wrongly conflated sex and gender identity and reported the defendant’s gender identity as if it were their sex. The reporter will have heard/read court staff using the defendant’s preferred pronouns she/her and mistakenly assumed these to mean the defendant’ sex is female. It is court policy to always use preferred pronouns irrespective of the sex of an individual. Reporters should never presume a person’s sex based on pronouns. As such the word “woman” should not have been prioritised as a key fact to be highlighted in the headline because it misleads readers into thinking a female-sexed person has appeared in court. This inaccuracy harms the public interest because it distorts public understanding of male-pattern crimes. It is extremely rare for females to be charged with exposure – less than 1% of people prosecuted for exposure in England & Wales in the past decade were female.
RESPONSE: You said that the articles breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) as you considered the use of the word “woman” was inaccurate and misleading. You stated that the defendant’s sex is male, and that the defendant identifies as a woman, but to describe the individual as a woman was inaccurate. The articles under the complaint were reports of criminal proceedings in the Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court. The defendant was identified in the articles by the name by which the defendant had been identified in the proceedings and the articles had also referred to the defendant by nouns and pronouns which were consistent with this name. In these circumstances, the way in which the defendant had been described in the articles was not inaccurate or misleading and your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code.
ESCALATED: I request that this Executive’s decision to reject the complaint is reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. The reason is: The fact that “the defendant was identified in the articles by the name by which the defendant had been identified in the proceedings and the articles had also referred to the defendant by nouns and pronouns which were consistent with this name” is not in dispute nor is it the basis of my complaint. This problem is that the headline writer has incorrectly presumed that the use of a feminine name and pronouns in the body copy means this person is female, and has inaccurately used the word woman in the headline (the word woman is commonly understood to mean adult human female). However, as I explained in my complaint this person was in fact male and use of pronouns in court should never be used to assume someone’s sex. This misleading headline could have been avoided if the headline writer had simply not used gendered terms at all.
FINAL DECISION: The Committee agreed the following decision: The Committee noted your concern that the article had conflated sex with gender by using the term “woman”. The Committee emphasised the point made by the Executive that the defendant was accurately identified in the article by the name by which they had been identified in the proceedings and the article had also referred to the defendant by nouns and pronouns which were consistent with this name. In this case, the article also used the sex that is widely understood to be referred to when these pronouns are used. The Committee concluded that reporting the identity of the defendant in the same way they were identified in court represents an accurate report of the court proceedings.
13th January 2021
#00408-21
Amy Gray, previously convicted of three offences of sexual assault in 2005.
COMPLAINT: The headline is misleading because it uses the word “woman” to describe the individual who is the subject of the story. Readers only later find out towards the end of the story this is a male-born transgender person. The majority of readers will understand a headline using the word “woman” to mean someone who was born the female sex and will therefore have been misled. The newspaper clearly considers the sex of the individual to be relevant and important to the context of the story because they used the adjective “scorned” next to the word woman, both in the headline and in the main text. This refers to a well-known sexist saying about women; “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. It is a sex-specific phrase. The phrase “scorned man” would not convey the same meaning and would not have been used in the headline. They are using the phrase “scorned woman” to describe how a stereotypical woman reacts to being rejected romantically and this is the context and content of the story. The publication’s description of the individual as a “woman” therefore significantly affects the central point of the article: the crime committed by a woman as part of the revenge on a male partner.
RESPONSE: You said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because you believed it was inaccurate for the headline to refer to Amy Gray as a “woman”, especially as they described her as “scorned”. You consider this to be sex-specific and you said that as Amy Gray’s birth-sex was not female, you consider this misleading. The article focused on how Amy Gray contacted “Predators Exposed” whilst pretending to be her ex-partner in order to frame him for paedophilia. It continued by stating that her ex and his new partner were arrested but police realised the messages were sent from “Gray’s IP address”. The article also made clear that Amy Gray was transgender as it said “[s]he transitioned into a woman” and that she “would struggle in prison as a transgender woman”. While we appreciated that you believed the headline was particularly sex specific, we did not find that the use of the term “woman” was potentially significantly inaccurate or misleading in the context of this article, as you suggested. For these reasons, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1.
ESCALATED: I would like this to be reviewed by the committee please. I don’t think your response explains why use of “scorned woman” in the headline isn’t relevant to the context of the article, and therefore misleading in this instance. My reasons to be shared with the committee are as follows: The context of the article is about the revenge of a scorned lover. It plays on the stereotypical sexist trope of a “scorned woman” taking revenge on her lover after a breakup. The phrase ‘”scorned woman” appears in the headline and early in the main text. The use of the word “scorned” makes the sex of the individual relevant and important to the story. Only females are described as “scorned” lovers, never males. By choosing to use this adjective the newspaper has deliberately drawn attention to the sex of the individual and it therefore becomes central and meaningful to the understanding of the story. The story consists of 19 paragraphs. Confirmation that the individual was not in fact born female happens in the fifteenth paragraph. This means readers will have been misled about the sex of the individual for most of the article, some of whom won’t have read that far. In this instance the combination of highlighting the sex incorrectly as being female with the use of the word “scorned” plus the very late clarification that this person was in fact born male means that overall the reader has been significantly misled. The newspaper could have chosen instead not to highlight the relevance of the individual’s sex in the headline by not using the word “scorned” when they knew in this instance the implied sex of the individual was misleading. Or the newspaper could have clarified in the first quarter of the article that this person was not born female to avoid misleading the readers. By choosing neither the newspaper has unnecessarily breached Clause 1 on Accuracy.
Update – please send this full response to the complaints committee. The context of the article is about the revenge of a scorned lover. It plays on the stereotypical sexist trope of a “scorned woman” taking revenge on her lover after a breakup. The phrase ‘scorned woman’ appears in the headline and early in the main text. The use of the word “scorned” makes the sex of the individual relevant and important to the story. Only females are described as “scorned” lovers, never males. By choosing to use this adjective the newspaper has deliberately drawn attention to the sex of the individual and it therefore becomes central and meaningful to the understanding of the story. The story consists of 19 paragraphs. Confirmation that the individual was not in fact born female happens in the fifteenth paragraph. This means readers will have been misled about the sex of the individual for most of the article, some of whom won’t have read that far. In this instance the combination of highlighting the sex incorrectly as being female with the use of the word “scorned” plus the very late clarification that this person was in fact born male means that overall the reader has been significantly misled. The newspaper’s own online comments section prove that some readers were misled into thinking the sex of this individual was female and the phrase ‘scorned woman’ had been significant to their understanding of the story. Screenshots of comments attached. They include: “I’m aghast, a woman is actually sent to jail at last”; “They say nothing like a women’s scorn” “Hell hath no fury. To be fair I congratulate the judge on jailing her at all because more often than not if a woman is the culprit then prison seldom enters the equation. Absolutely despicable behaviour”; “I couldn’t get to the end. My head began to hurt a little”; “If it was a man that done that sentence would have been much much more”; “Women can be so toxic”; “Five years for almost destroying a man’s entire life if the truth hadn’t come out. Female privilege”. The newspaper could have chosen instead not to highlight the relevance of the individual’s sex in the headline by not using the word “scorned” when they knew in this instance the implied sex of the individual was misleading. Or the newspaper could have clarified in the first quarter of the article that this person was not born female to avoid misleading the readers. By choosing neither the newspaper has unnecessarily breached Clause 1 on Accuracy.
FINAL DECISION: The article under complaint was a report of criminal proceeding at Hull Crown Court. The defendant had been identified in the proceedings and the article had also referred to the defendant by nouns and pronouns which were consistent with this name. In these circumstances, the way in which the defendant had been described in the article was not inaccurate or misleading and your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code. As such, the Committee declined to re-open your complaint.
Woman who once shoved policeman onto Tube tracks jailed for spitting at officer.
17th February 2020
#01292-20
Paris Valeta Bregazzi; 90 previous convictions.
FINAL DECISION: You said that this article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) by describing the defendant as a “woman”. You said that the article was misleading by omitting the fact that the defendant was a trans woman. IPSO is able to consider complaints from an individual who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice; complaints from a representative group affected by an alleged breach where there is a substantial public interest; and complaints from third parties about accuracy. In the case of third party complaints – such as your own – we do need to consider the position of the parties most closely involved. In this case, we decided that the alleged inaccuracy related directly to Paris Valeta Bregazzi. As part of any IPSO investigation, in order to determine whether the use of the word “woman” gave rise to any significantly misleading impression, we would need to make findings in relation to the sex and gender identity of Paris Valeta Bregazzi. In order to do so, IPSO would require the involvement of a party well-placed to provide this information, as well as in relation to what had been heard by the court on these points; you did not appear to be in a position to provide such information. In addition, it would not be appropriate for IPSO to make a public ruling in relation to the sex and gender identity of Paris Valeta Bregazzi, without that individual’s input and consent. Because of this, we declined to consider your complaint further.
7-Oct-20
#28445-20
COMPLAINT: The headline and accompanying text is misleading because repeated use of the word “female” means the majority of readers will understand this to mean someone who was born the female sex. It was not made clear at any point that this person was not born female but instead “identified as female”. This is an important distinction because it means the birth sex of this individual is male. Readers will have been misled into believing the birth sex of this person is female rather than male. The birth sex of the individual would have been easy for the journalist to find. There was plenty of public domain information available revealing that the individual was a male-born person who identifies as transgender. Other newspapers were aware of this information on the same day of publication. Also, the subject Watts is known to run a trans awareness course for the police in which she delivers “personal accounts of the transgender experience and journey”. Watts also makes their transgender status known in publicly available YouTube videos. One such video is called “coming out with the lacerating glass bigot twatter (LGBT)” in which Watts is seen hitting a picture of feminist Germaine Greer with a glass-encrusted baseball bat. By making their trans status clear they also make their male birth sex known. The male birth sex of the individual is both relevant and important to the story. The individual has been charged with possession of prohibited weapons and making explosives. The overwhelming majority of all violent crimes are committed by people whose birth sex is male. It is rare for people whose birth sex is female to commit these types of crimes. It is therefore in the public interest not to be misled about this individual’s birth sex so as not to distort public perception about the reality of these types of crimes. Sex should either not be mentioned or if it is then it should be made clear this individual was not born female. Since this individual has made no attempt to hide their transgender status (and therefore their male birth sex) it cannot be argued that their right to privacy about their birth sex over rides the public interest to read accurate information about their birth sex when it is both important and relevant to the story.
RESPONSE: You said that the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) by failing to refer to the fact that that Zoe Watts is a transgender woman. You said that this rendered the article inaccurate because a majority of violent crimes are perpetrated by men, and you considered that the absence of any reference to Ms Watts’ transgender status may “distort public perception about the reality of these types of crimes.” We found that the article clearly reported on statements made by Lincolnshire Police, with statements relating to the alleged crime being prefaced or followed by “according to Lincolnshire Police” or similar. Where you have not suggested that Lincolnshire Police identified Ms Watts as a transgender individual in their statement, or that the publication inaccurately reported the statement made by Lincolnshire Police, we did not find that omitting to refer to Ms Watts’ transgender status raised a possible breach of Clause 1
ESCALATED: I would like to request this decision is reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee based on 2 points: 1) Your summary of the complaint misrepresents the details of the complaint made and therefore calls into question the reasoning behind your decision. You said the complaint was about a breach of accuracy “by failing to refer to the fact that Zoe Watts is a transgender woman” and the “absence of any reference to Ms Watts’ transgender status may distort public perception”. You did not find that “omitting to refer to Ms Watts’ transgender status raised a possible breach of Clause 1). This misrepresents the complaint that was made. Nowhere did the complaint say that Ms Watts’ transgender status should have been reported. Rather, the complaint was about inaccurate reporting of sex not about failing to refer to anyone’s gender identity or trans status. The complaint was very specifically about “repeated use of the word female” which the majority of readers will understand to mean “someone who was born the female sex”. This is its well-established meaning and the word female is a term used to describe sex in many species, not just humans. The complaint went on to explain that “The male birth sex of the individual is both relevant and important to the story” because “The overwhelming majority of all violent crimes are committed by people whose birth sex is male. It is rare for people whose birth sex is female to commit these types of crimes”. So, to avoid misleading the public I suggested that “Sex should either not be mentioned or if it is then it should be made clear this individual was not born female”. There was no reason for the newspaper to use the word “female” in the headline or the text and it could have avoided any inaccuracy or misrepresentation of the individual’s sex by omitting it from the headline. By making the editorial decision to refer to the individual’s sex by using the word female the article caused the breach of clause 1 accuracy. The fact that a complaint referring to accuracy about sex was misunderstood to be a complaint about inaccuracy of gender identity shows a fundamental misunderstanding within IPSO about the difference between sex and gender identity. This mismatch between IPSO and mainstream public opinion is undermining the ability of IPSO to deal effectively with complaints relating to the accurate reporting of an individual’s sex. This is all the more surprising because a detailed report about this issue has been submitted to the Editors’ Code of practice review and head of complaints at IPSO. The first finding of that report was that “IPSO is wrongly conflating the meaning of sex and self-declared gender identity and is permitting gender identity to be presented as if it were an individual’s sex”. For that reason it is unclear why my complaint about sex was misunderstood in this way. An individual’s trans status is only relevant to this complaint because it means they may wish to keep their birth sex a secret and this may be a good reason for a newspaper to omit any reference to sex at all. 2) Your decision to reject the complaint was based on the finding that “the article clearly reported on statements made by Lincolnshire Police, with statements relating to the alleged crime being prefaced or followed by “according to Lincolnshire Police” or similar” and that newspaper had not “inaccurately reported the statement made by Lincolnshire Police”. However, at no point did the statements made by Lincolnshire police reference Ms Watts’ sex. The statements reported were: “Force said Watts was charged and will appear before the city’s magistrates’ court”. “Zoe Watts, 34, was arrested on Sunday after chemicals of a potentially explosive nature were found at her home in Lincoln, according to Lincolnshire Police”. “The force said Watts will appear before the city’s magistrates’ court charged with one count of importing prohibited weapons….”. “‘We within Lincolnshire Police share these feelings and, although this relates to someone who works for the force, we will investigate this meticulously without fear or favour.” “Please be mindful that, as a person has now been charged with offences, this is an active investigation….”. “Lincolnshire Police said Watts will appear before the city’s magistrates’ court, pictured, and has been suspended from the force while the investigation takes place”. In these statements the Police referred to Ms Watts either by name or using sex-neutral terms such as “someone” or “a person”. They did not refer to Ms Watt as a “female” person. Therefore, it is the newspaper that decided to add the inaccurate reference to Ms Watts’ sex as female in the headline. Therefore, it is wrong to reject this complaint by finding this was the accurate reporting of a false or misleading statement made by the police – as suggested in the IPSO findings. Note, the newspaper did accurately report the police referring to Ms Watts using the pronoun ‘her’. It is to be expected that the police will be using Ms Watts’ preferred pronouns associated with their ex-employee’s self-declared gender identity. It is wrong to assume in this instance that use of the pronoun “her” informs the reporter in any way about an individual’s birth sex. It is well known that some people who identify as women will have been born the male sex and some will have been born the female sex. Therefore, it was not appropriate for the newspaper to assume Ms Watts’ birth sex was female based on the statement from the police referring to “her”. The newspaper added this fact about sex themselves and did so inaccurately because it is known that Ms Watts was in fact born male. Accurate reporting of the police statement would NOT have included the descriptor “female” in the headline. For this reason there has been a breach of clause 1 accuracy. IPSO must take special care with any rulings regarding the language of sex and gender identity because of the potential for political and societal ramifications. Transgender advocacy groups do not wish gender identity, sex or transgender status to be reported where it is not relevant to a story. Likewise, women’s sex-based advocacy groups, such as ours, do not wish the male sex to be misreported or misinterpreted as if it were the female sex, where sex is relevant to the story. The needs of both stakeholder groups should be considered and fairly balanced by IPSO and this is not currently happening – this rejected complaint being a very good example of where it is going wrong.
FINAL DECISION: The Committee noted your concerns about the reporting of transgender issues and acknowledged that journalists and editors must take care to ensure that their approach reflects and takes into consideration the complexities, sensitives, and nuances of this matter. However, in this instance, the Committee considered that the publication’s description of Ms Watts as a female did not significantly affect the central point of the article: the arrest of Ms Watts and her subsequent suspension from Lincolnshire Police.
Blackpool woman accessed ‘sick’ child abuse images from hospital bed
14th July 2020
#11916-20
Julie Marshall, previously John Marshall. Convictions for possession of class A images (child rape) between 2004 – 2018
COMPLAINT: The headline “Blackpool woman accessed ‘sick’ child abuse images from hospital bed” is misleading because use of the word “woman” means the majority of readers will interpret this to mean someone who was born the female sex. The sex of the individual is male*. This was not made clear at any point in the article meaning readers will have been misled into believing the sex of this person is female. *Here is the court record confirming that Julie Marshall’s legal gender is male. The sex of the individual is relevant and important because the story refers to them as a sex offender. It is an established and well-documented fact that the vast majority of sexual crime is committed by the male sex. For example, in England and Wales over 14,000 males are in prison for sexual offences compared to fewer than 150 females. This means that in press reporting of sexual crime it is common-place for the story to involve a male perpetrator. In contrast, stories involving a female perpetrator will be unusual, high-impact and considered more newsworthy. For this reason accurate reporting of the sex of the perpetrator of sexual crime, whether male or female, is both important and relevant. This is a third party complaint made by a representative group on behalf of women and girls affected by this breach of the Editors’ Code. This breach is significant and in the public interest because when a newspaper presents misleading information regarding the sex of a perpetrator it distorts public perception of the societal reality that most sexual and violent crime is committed by the male sex. This understanding is necessary and important to women and girls so they can effectively evaluate risk in vulnerable situations, and indeed it is the reason the law makes provision for female-only services and spaces. Accurate reporting of the perpetrator’s sex will also matter to the victim who experienced the crime. Misleading click-bait headlines and articles that normalise the idea of female violence are quite clearly not in the public interest. Fair Play For Women, and the women and girls we represent, were not at the court hearing but in the UK we benefit from court proceedings being held in the open. Criminal proceedings are not a private matter. We rely on accurate media reports of court proceedings precisely because they are in the public interest but most people cannot be present. This complaint does not require IPSO to make findings on this individual’s gender identity. The article is a court report and accurately reports the proceedings using the same gendered terms used by the judge (she, her) but the breach occurs because it fails to make clear that these are not factual assertions regarding an individual’s sex. The Equal Treatment Bench Book advises judges and court staff to address defendants according to the defendant’s wishes. Defendants can choose to be referred to according to their self-declared gender identity instead of their legal or biological sex. This means gendered references in court should never be considered a factual assertion about the defendant’s sex, but instead the opinion and preference of the defendant. By using the word ‘woman’ in the headline the publication has given the false and misleading impression that the defendant’s sex is female as if it were fact. This is a breach of Clause 1(iv). If gendered terms are used to describe a self-declared gender identity which is different to an individual’s sex this can be misleading, unless additional explanation regarding the intended meaning is used. In this complaint the gender identity of the individual was accurately reported but it was not made clear that the words “woman”, ‘”she”, “her” were being used to refer to a self-declared gender identity and not the more commonly understood meaning of someone’s sex. Use of the words “transgender woman” in the headline would have been more appropriate and would have been a simply way to avoid misleading the public. Alternatively no reference to sex or gender could have been made in the headline. In this complaint IPSO is being asked to make a judgement on whether the rights of the individual to keep their sex private outweighs the right of the public to accurate information about their sex. In this instance we argue that the sex of the individual is relevant and important to the public’s understanding of the story regarding sexual crime. The birth sex of this individual is in the public domain. The individual’s former name was John and court records state male. The individual is also visually identifiable as male. Here the use of the word “woman” misleads the public regarding the sex of the perpetrator, resulting in a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy).
RESPONSE: You said that this article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it described Julie Marshall by her self-declared gender identity (“woman”), rather than the legal or biological sex (“male”) that was recorded in court documents relating to the case. You said that both the article and its headline were inaccurate and misleading as they failed to adequately make clear that Julie Marshall was a transgender individual. It appears to be accepted that throughout the proceedings on which the newspaper was reporting Julie Marshall was referred to as a woman, which the Executive understood from your complaint is in accordance with the court’s policy. Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish and to decide what information is relevant, as long as this does not otherwise lead to a breach of the Code. While the Executive noted your view that Julie Marshall’s biological sex is highly relevant to the proceedings and that the biological sex of defendants is in general relevant to the reporting of crimes of this nature, the newspaper was entitled in accordance with its right to editorial discretion to make its own determination on this point. Given this, the Executive found that adopting the court’s terminology in a report of court proceedings did not constitute a failure to take care over the accuracy of the report in breach of Clause 1 (i) or a significant inaccuracy or misleading claim, such that a correction or clarification was required under Clause 1 (ii), given the way in which she was identified during the proceedings. Nor did adopting the court’s policy in its references to Julie Marshall constitute a failure to distinguish comment, conjecture, and fact under Clause 1 (iv). In light of these considerations, the Executive concluded that your complaint did not raise a possible breach of Clause 1. The Executive noted that in your complaint you asked IPSO to make a judgement on whether the rights of the individual to keep their sex private outweighs the right of the public to accurate information about their sex. For the avoidance of any doubt, we have not undertaken such a balancing exercise in this instance; this complaint has been addressed as a Clause 1 (Accuracy) complaint only. Any complaint relating to the privacy of Julie Marshall would need to be made by Julie Marshall, her authorised representative, or a representative group affected by the alleged breach of the Code.
ESCALATED: I would like to request this rejection is reviewed by the IPSO complaints committee. There are 2 reasons, firstly your summary of my complaint does not accurately reflect the nature of my complaint. In your summary you stated “ You said that both the article and its headline were inaccurate and misleading as they failed to adequately make clear that Julie Marshall was a transgender individual.” This suggests a basic misunderstanding of my complaint. I have been very clear in my complaints on this topic, this and previous ones, that this is not about a newspaper being clear or otherwise on an individual’s transgender status. This is about an individual’s sex as either male or female being relevant and important to a story about sex offending. When the article chooses to describe the subject using the term “woman” most readers will interpret this to mean the sex of the individual is female. This is inaccurate and misleading. Someone’s trans status is irrelevant to the story, but their sex is not. If a paper chooses to use words relating to sex they should be accurate or not used at all. Secondly, you reject the complaint based on the fact that “Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish and to decide what information is relevant, as long as this does not otherwise lead to a breach of the Code”. While the editorial decision to follow the court’s terminology may well be an example of ‘taking care over accuracy of reporting’ (Clause 1(i)) this does not also mean Clause 1(ii) has not been breached. By selecting only certain facts at the expense of others has, in this case, amounted to a distortion. When a publication omits information which, had it been included, would have given a very different impression to the reader it is reasonable to consider this a breach (of clause 1(ii) – misleading). It would be helpful if you could provide me with some examples of where “omission of information” in other cases has been considered a breach of Clause 1(ii) and whether this has ever occurred in relation to a court report. I am also unclear what your reasoning is behind your rejection of a breach of Clause 1 (iv). If by adopting the courts policy on terminology this is considered sufficient to defend against a breach of 1(i) and 1(ii) then it is reasonable to expect the report to be clear such that readers know that in this case use of the word ‘woman’ is referring to the unusual court policy to reference only gender identity rather than the widespread and commonly understood meaning that women = female sex. The newspaper made no attempt to make that clear meaning readers will have been misled. Therefore a breach of clause 1 (iv) remains. In short, we have an ongoing situation where male-born sex offenders are being described in court as if they were female. Newspapers are unquestioningly following this court policy without comment or context and as a result misleading their readers, and this approach is currently being supported by IPSO. There is a clear difference in these cases between “court facts” and ‘”actual facts”. Clause 1 was surely written and conceived to relate to breaches involving “actual facts”. Accurate reporting of false or misleading information should not be considered upholding accuracy.
FINAL DECISION: The Committee would first like to note that it understands that this is a nuanced topic for publications to approach, and would like to reassure you that it does keep such matters under review. With regards to this specific article, while the Committee understands that you consider that the biological sex of the defendant was relevant due to the nature of the conviction, the Committee agreed with the Executive’s finding that the newspaper was entitled to make its own decision regarding the relevance of the subject’s biological sex, and that failure to include this information did not render the article significantly misleading, where the article’s subject was referred to as a woman during court proceedings. The Committee noted that you questioned the accuracy of the court in referring to the article’s subject as a woman, and that you believe adopting the court’s terminology rendered the article inaccurate. Newspapers are responsible for accurately reporting what is heard in court; they are not responsible for the accuracy of what is heard by the court, and you did not dispute that the court heard that the subject of the article was female. As such, the article was entitled to report that the subject of the article was female. For this reason, and the reasons already provided by IPSO’s Executive, the Committee decided that your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code. As such, it declined to re-open your complaint.
“Woman who ‘bragged about being a paedophile’ approached boys at Remembrance events”
15th May 2020
#06585-20
Leah Harvey, previously Joshua Harvey. Convicted in May 2018 of five counts of attempting to incite a girl to engage in sexual activity, and jailed for three years and eight months. A sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) was imposed, banning contact with children. Harvey was then convicted of two breaches of a sexual harm prevention order and jailed in May 2020 for two years.
COMPLAINT: The headline “Woman who ‘bragged about being a paedophile’ approached boys at Remembrance event” is misleading because use of the word “woman” means the majority of readers will interpret this to mean someone who was born the female sex. The sex of the individual is male. Aside from a single reference* to a former male name towards the end of the article, there was very little to inform readers that this sex offender was not female. *”Leah Harvey, formerly Joshua Harvey, 25, who is in HM Parc Prison in Bridgend admitted two breaches of a sexual harm prevention order.”
RESPONSE: You said that this article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it referred to the subject of the article as being female, and this is not a factual assertion that the publication is able to make. IPSO is able to consider complaints from an individual who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice; complaints from a representative group affected by an alleged breach where there is a substantial public interest; and complaints from third parties about accuracy. In the case of third party complaints, we do need to consider the position of the party most closely involved. In this case, we decided that the alleged inaccuracy related directly to Leah Harvey. In order to make a decision on whether the Code was breached, it appears IPSO may need to make findings on the legal gender of Leah Harvey. To do this, we would require the involvement of an individual with first-hand knowledge of them; you did not appear to be in a position to provide this information. In addition, any ruling by IPSO on this matter would result in the publication of information about Ms Harvey, which might not be appropriate without their consent. In these circumstances, we considered that it would not be appropriate to investigate and publicly rule on your complaint without the consent of Ms Harvey. Because of this, we declined to consider your complaint further. For clarity, this does not affect the ability of Leah Harvey to make a complaint on this point.
Sheffield woman found with over 1,000 indecent images of children hauled before the court
19th July 2019
#05422-19
RESPONSE: You said that this article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it referred to the subject of the article as a “woman” on a number of occasions; you said that the subject of the article was biologically and legally male. We noted that the article was a court report. In reporting on court proceedings, publications are responsible for reporting proceedings accurately, rather than for the accuracy of the information heard. In this instance, you do not appear to have been present at the court proceedings, and it was apparent from the article’s report of the prosecution case that the subject of the article had been referred to as “Ms Prince”, and using female pronouns, during the course of proceedings. In relation to this point, IPSO is able to consider complaints from an individual who has been personally and directly affected by the alleged breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice; complaints from a representative group affected by an alleged breach where there is a substantial public interest; and complaints from third parties about accuracy. In the case of third party complaints – such as your own – we do need to consider the position of the parties most closely involved. In this case, we decided that the alleged inaccuracy related directly to Toni Prince and other individuals who were a party to the court proceedings. As part of any IPSO investigation, in order to determine whether the use of the word “woman” gave rise to any significantly misleading impression, we would need to make findings in relation to the sex and gender identity of Toni Prince. In order to do so, IPSO would require the involvement of a party well-placed to provide information relating to these issues, as well as in relation to what had been heard by the court on these points; you did not appear to be in a position to provide such information. In addition, we were concerned about the possibility of making a public ruling in relation to the sex and gender identity of Toni Prince, without that individual’s input and consent. Because of this, we declined to consider your complaint further.
ESCALATED: I would like to request that the complaints committee look at this complaint and carry out a review of the decision, on 2 points. Firstly, I appreciate that things heard in court can be published. However, Clause 1 Part iv says that whilst free to editorialise and campaign, publications “must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”. The headline fails to make the distinction. Many things are said in court, but for a headline to repeat an inaccurate claim without making it clear that this was said in court rather than being a fact, is still deeply misleading for readers. Shoaib Khan made a complaint to IPSO which was upheld, because the Daily Mail had published inaccurate information about an Iraqi man named Abd Al-Waheed. In this case, information that had been heard in the court wasn’t accurate, but the paper reported it as if it were accurate / true which it was not. It may have been heard in court that Toni Prince is a woman but this is of course inaccurate and readers must not be misled. It will also have been heard in court that Toni Prince identifies as transgender, and this is referred to later in the article. This means individuals party to the court proceeding will be aware of the sex of Toni Prince, whereas readers of the headline will not. The vast majority of readers will understand the use of the word “woman” in the headline to mean an adult female, in line with the standard dictionary definition. The perpetrator of the crime is not a female, either biologically or legally, so calling the person a “woman” is misleading, inaccurate and distorting the information. I would also like to clarify two reasons why this inaccurate headline is significant, and in the public interest to be corrected or clarified. Male violence against women and girls is very real, and there are certain types of violence which are carried out almost exclusively by males, including the crimes that Prince was found guilty of. For most stories, a person’s biological sex wouldn’t matter to the story, and neither would the gender identity that they claim to have. But sexual crimes against females and children are overwhelmingly carried out by males, and when a newspaper inaccurately presents information to the contrary on specific cases, with an inaccurate headline, they mislead their readers on the reality of sexual violence in which the perpetrators are overwhelmingly members of the male sex. The second point is that IPSO “decided that the alleged inaccuracy related directly to Toni Prince and other individuals who were a party to the court proceedings”. This decision should be looked at again. IPSO also says that “Any member of the public or any organisation can make a complaint under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code, if they are looking to correct a significant inaccuracy”. The reason given for why a person involved in the court proceeding could have a complaint taken forward is, according to IPSO, that “we would need to make findings in relation to the sex and gender identity of Toni Prince”. The article has already made clear the sex and the gender identity of Prince, when it says Prince is “a transgender woman”, so we have been told that this is a male person who identifies as transgender. No further information is needed on this point from anyone else. IPSO shouldn’t attempt to argue that they do not know Anthony / Toni Prince is a male person, because this would be disingenuous. I would like to add that the UK is in the process of potentially implementing legal changes so that male people such as Prince will be very easily able to change their legally-recognised sex to say “female” on birth certificates (part of the changes being considered by government as part of the Gender Recognition Act). Part of this wider societal debate around sex and gender includes looking at the extent to which male sexual offenders who say that they identify “as transgender” or “as a woman” should be treated in practice. There is ongoing societal and political discussion on matters relating to male sexual offenders who claim to identify as transgender, in the justice system and prison system. We know that male rapists and child sexual abusers have continued to sexually abuse female victims when placed in women’s prisons (e.g. Karen White). It is in the public interest that the biological sex of sexual offenders is accurately reported in headlines, regardless of how they claim they identify.
FINAL DECISION: For the reasons already provided by IPSO’s Executive, the Committee decided that your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code. As such, it declined to re-open your complaint.