From the desk of ROLAND ROCCHICCIOLI

IT was when the BBC was the exemplar of broadcasting. It fashioned a universally mirrored touchstone for impartiality. During WW2 it was the defiant voice of hope for Nazi occupied Europe. Its recent catalogue of dereliction is lamentable.

The BBC newsreader, Martine Croxall, has been rebuked for inappropriately ‘making-a-face’ on-air when she altered the scripted portrayal of pregnant ‘people’ to ‘women’.

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘people’ as human beings — or men, women, and children; often used as the plural of person. By any reasoned logic, pregnant ‘people’ would collectively embrace men, women, and children. We refer to animals as being pregnant but are censured for pronouncing the same for ‘women’. Categorically, the common nouns ‘people’ and ‘pregnancy’ are syntactically allergic in any explanation of human reproduction.

The accuracy notwithstanding, it was deemed Croxall breached the BBC’s impartiality guidelines. The Executive Complaints Unit considered her facial expression, ‘however unintentional’, could be interpreted as a personal viewpoint. Their conclusion is illogical. The widening of her eyes in clarifying the provocative gender-neutral language served only to emphasise the word “women”. Any critical interpretation of her countenance is profoundly subjective.

Ms. Croxall is a senior reader with a formidable reputation for fairness and conscientiousness — unafraid to dispute or ask challenging questions. Broadcasting live, she read and corrected the autocue as she introduced her guest: “Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people … ‘women’ … and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions.”

It is an immutable, universal truth: women — and only women — those born with a uterus — are able to conceive and fall pregnant. Shrill, contradictory disputation does not negate fact. Universal history holds no documentation of a biological male pregnancy. If someone ‘identifying’ as male is pregnant it should not be extrapolated to be a ‘male pregnancy’. It is not a biological male miracle.

The BBC’s outraged contingent of simpatici and pro-trans voices reportedly lodged a string of collective complaints, none of which was recognised in the final arbitration. Bafflingly, they took no umbrage with the description: ‘the aged’ — contained in the same sentence and deemed inappropriate by the BBC. Their unabated fury was restricted only to those deemed unsupportive of their militant viewpoint, and which presented a public opportunity to rampantly espouse their inflexible perspective. The cause would be better served if the implacability were less antagonistic and warmly accommodating of other moderate mindsets.

Accepting with alacrity same sex marriage, irrefutably the majority of marriages occur between heterosexual, self-classifying ‘men’ and ‘women’. Sexual anomalies and gender identification issues are complicated and nuanced. Personal classification is private and tricky. To “change record of sex” is legal. Any lack of public and familial inclusivity significantly exacerbates mental health concerns resulting in isolation, distress, and suicide.

Emphatically, an accident of birth must not prove an impediment to personal fulfilment. There is empirical scientific and medical differentiation between sex and gender. Without exception, every family is touched by sexual anomalies; however, public opinion is mixed and often polarised; majority acquiescence depends on wording and context. Put simply: your ‘yes’ does not carry more weight than my ‘no’. It is not mandatory to embrace a minority opinion; conversely, the harassment of any minority is intolerable in a civilised society.

Consensus is an abstract. Let us agree to disagree with respect, and gentleness.

Roland talks with Brett Macdonald radio 3BA Monday 10.40am. contact: [email protected]