Complaining to the BBC about anti-trans reporting

Another day, another attack on trans people. This time, in how the BBC described the teenage victim of Graham Linehan’s crime. In the article “Linehan cleared of harassing trans activist but guilty of damaging phone”, culture reporters Ian Youngs and Paul Glynn include the following wording to describe the then-17-year-old trans girl whose phone was thrown to the road by Linehan (my emphasis):

The pair met in person in October 2024 when Brooks, who was born a biological male but identifies as a woman, confronted Linehan and filmed him outside the Battle of Ideas conference in London.

Using transphobes’ terminology to describe a trans person is, frankly, disgusting, let alone a breach of the BBC’s editorial guidelines around Impartiality and “Hate and Offence”.

So here is my complaint to the BBC:

Category: Offence

Subject: Anti-trans language to describe victim of crime

I was shocked and disappointed to see that the teenage victim of Graham Linehan’s criminal damage described as “a biological male who identifies as a woman”.

Is it standard editorial policy to refer to trans people in these biased and offensive terms? Do you consider it acceptable for your reporter to use this degrading and offensive language to describe anyone, let alone a young person victim of crime? This language is dismissive of Sophie Brooks’s identity and would be considered unacceptable in the workplace, so I am appalled to see it being used on BBC News. Should I expect that, if I were to be a victim of crime, I would be described as “a homosexual” rather than gay or queer?

I can understand that there is a very loud and vocal minority of people campaigning against the existence of trans people in public life. However, the Editorial guidelines on Impartiality are quite clear: “The BBC needs to be able to portray and include the full range of interests and views across all the audiences it serves. Those views and interests should be reflected fairly and accurately, and the BBC should not be seen to be promoting or revealing opinions of its own. … Impartiality does not mean detachment from fundamental democratic values, including freedom of expression, the right to vote, the rule of law and freedom from discrimination.”

Similarly, guidelines on Harm and Offence state that “Potentially offensive content includes … violation of human dignity, and discriminatory treatment or language” and the Introduction states “In exercising freedom of expression, appropriate protection must be offered to vulnerable groups and the BBC must avoid causing unjustifiable offence.”

Using wording preferred by anti-trans groups rather than neutral terms that reflect Miss Brooks’s identity and human dignity, is surely a clear breach of these guidelines.

In your response to me, please confirm whether this wording was approved by the Editorial Policy team, per Impartiality §2.3.6

If you also want to be heard on this matter, you may wish to go visit Contact the BBC > Make a Complaint