Why navigating the ‘culture war’ of gender and sex is so difficult for some journalists

The media used to be caught in the crossfire – now we’re being shelled by both sides, writes Sean O'Grady

Cis or sissy? There’s a tricky new language to master (Getty/iStock)

I well remember some years ago being told that I was “cis” (short for “cisgender”). I’d never heard the expression before, I’m embarrassed to admit, and mistook it for a different taunt from the playground, “sissy”, which was still puzzling because it was so archaic.

Then the whole cis thing was explained to me and of course, now I am glad to say I am better informed about gender, trans issues, and the struggle for acceptance and equal rights, which I fully support. I do not think I am alone in finding I have to learn a new language these days.

However, I’m still sensible enough not to wade into the debate about JK Rowling’s much-publicised views, for example, because I feel under-qualified to write about them and, to be frank, I’m not sure I’d want the hassle. So best to keep listening and learning about gender identity for now.

In any case, we do need to hear more from the people whose lives are being affected.

However, that is not an option afforded to news reporters who do have to cover the resurgence of passionate “identity politics”. Words are loaded, after all. What, for example, to call the people who turned out to protest against the last Black Lives Matter protest that didn’t actually take place in the end? They call themselves “patriots”, while others call them “racist”. Some of them would argue they’re not racists; others declare “White Lives Matter”. Or, alternatively they are anti-anti-racists. So if they have a rally, and there’s a counter-demonstration, then there would be a scrap between anti-anti-racists guarding some statues, say, and anti-anti-anti-racists who’d be shouting at them, or worse. Was Churchill a racist or an anti-fascist or in fact both? Was Baden-Powell just an old codger in shorts, or a monster, or in fact both? If both, what then? That all may sound a bit flippant, but the point is that whatever words journalists use to describe people, may upset someone.

Nowadays, even the description of journalism itself is mutating. We hacks get called the slightly conspiratorial “mainstream media” by Corbynites and Farageists alike. We can cope with that although the notion that mainstream = fake is a dangerous as well as an illogical one. We cannot all simultaneously be controlled by the metropolitan left and by the fundamentalist right. If you believe what you see on Twitter, Laura Kuenssberg has got more puppet masters than The Muppet Show.

It’s tougher to shrug off the “scum media” stuff though, and the violence now increasingly directed at camera crews, photographers and reporters doing their job. The media used to be caught in the crossfire; now we’re being shelled by both sides and quite lost for words.

Yours,

Sean O’Grady

Associate editor