The Guardian apology ... and beyond
Sunday 4th July, 1999
The trans woman who secured an apology from the Guardian for its coverage of her employment tribunal case, explains how she did it … and how others can challenge bad reporting. (See also The Guardian’s apology)
Diversity is, to me, the spice of life, and the expression of considered opinion in newspapers is no exception. When I started my claim for unfair dismissal at the end of last year, I was in no doubt that the hacks would be at my heels and that their reporting would scandalise my gender identity on the back of superficial review of the Tribunal hearing.
In the original Guardian article, however, it was clear that somewhere in the system, consideration was noticeable by its absence. It didn’t matter to me whether the misrepresentation of my gender was deliberate or not - the article exacerbated a public misconception that however I live, I will never be female, at least as the sex is commonly perceived. The issues of the claim against my former employer are of little relevance here, but the few words in the Guardian introduced a separate element of general discrimination against people undergoing gender reassignment, and I could not let the matter pass without an obvious and very public correction.
In the context of the Defamation Act’s clauses on privilege, I was aggrieved that although the essential requirements of fair and accurate reporting had not been satisfied, the onus of demonstrating malice in the breach was effectively prohibitive in terms of both cost and probable outcome. Perhaps without the sense of advice from PFC and others, I might have made the mistake of trying to dismantle the wall with bare hands, and achieved nothing or worse in the process.
Christine Burns has already said much about the Press Complaints Commission, all of it relevant, but there are some personal observations from my recent experience that perhaps deserve attention as well. First and foremost is the fact that the Guardian apology, fulsome as it may be, is not the end of the matter. I am grateful to Reader’s Editor Ian Mayes for his frank approach, but the paper’s error was only a symptom of an underlying malaise. There is no comfort in living with the knowledge that a problem has been identified and acknowledged, without wider measures being taken to prevent its reoccurrence. The Guardian’s apology is just a tool with which we can all work towards those little changes that will one day bring the isolation of transgendered people to an end.
The PCC is an interesting phenomenon, in that it ratifies - and adjudicates on the basis of - a Code of Practice drawn up by the newspaper industry, as represented by the Code of Practice Committee. If nothing else, this serves as a reminder that the press recognises the responsibility of reporting without prejudice, invasion of privacy, discrimination or antisocial motivation, financial and otherwise. Complaints to the PCC also cost time and money, not to mention the potential detriment of orders to publish PCC adjudications. Against this background, it is not surprising that the Guardian was keen to resolve my complaint. I add here for others contemplating similar action that I was treated with consideration and respect by both the editors and by the PCC.
Given the nature of my particular complaint, a straightforward apology was always on the cards, but as Christine Burns has pointed out, “If you do not ask, you will never get …. If you change things for yourself, you will so often improve the lot of others .. “. Ian Mayes recognised the opportunity to use his column not only to set the record straight, but also to reaffirm the Guardian’s commitment to fair and accurate reporting. I recognised the opportunity to persuade readers to think again and review their preconceptions. I spent much of an afternoon with Ian Mayes, discussing the extraordinary diversity of gender and the complicated interplay of people’s sense of identity with their perceptions of others. We talked not only of the philosophical and societal aspects of gender, but also the very real and often painful experience of those who live at, between and beyond the gender boundaries each society adopts for its laws, its occupations, indeed its structural core.
It was then disappointing that the lack of space precluded other comment in the article to foster greater understanding, but the Guardian did accede to a specific request for the inclusion of contact information for organisations working for the interests of trans people, not only in the printed edition, but also as URLs in the copy on their web site. We agreed the potential for future contributions and generated a climate of support for an amendment to introduce gender identity to the discrimination clauses of the Code of Practice.
All said, not a bad day’s work, but there is more to do tomorrow, next week, next year. As I said in my opening paragraph, I thrive on diversity. I love this world and its people. I’m thankful for differences of opinion, because they are my motivation to generate the tolerance and understanding that will preserve those differences without the persecution or abuse of people merely for who they are and what they believe.
You don’t have to be an activist to make the gradual changes that brighten our future. You don’t have to suffer discrimination without the ability to defend yourself. You don’t even have to be transgendered to speak up for trans rights. Use the resources at your disposal and support the organisations that provide them.
Eleanor Lynall, July 1999
