ABSTRACT

This article looks at transgender media representations from the aspect of press regulation which is so far under-researched. Placing the analysis within the fragmented post-Leveson UK press landscape, it examines the two UK press watchdogs’ provisions relating to transgender reporting. The study evaluates IPSO’s and IMPRESS’ editorial standards through the lens of queer legal theory, offering a fresh perspective on the key role of these bodies in establishing (trans)gender ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’ in the ongoing trans rights debate of which the press forms a key part. It is argued that, although both regulators have taken steps to tackle trans-discriminatory reporting, IMPRESS’ approach seems to strike a more constructive balance between freedom of expression and trans people’s rights than IPSO. The paper concludes by making recommendations for both press regulators to address the complexities of trans issues and tackle the discursive harm of transgender media ‘othering’ more effectively.

摘要

本文从迄今为止研究不足的新闻监管方面着眼于跨性别媒体的表现。将分析置于支离破碎的后 Leveson 时代英国媒体格局中，它检查了两个英国媒体监管机构关于跨性别报道的规定。该研究通过酷儿法律理论的视角评估 IPSO 和 IMPRESS 的编辑标准，为这些机构在正在进行的跨性别权利辩论中确立（跨）性别“局外人”和“局内人”的关键作用提供了一个全新的视角，其中新闻形式是一个关键部分。有人认为，尽管两个监管机构都已采取措施解决跨性别歧视报告问题，但 IMPRESS 的方法似乎比 IPSO 在言论自由和跨性别者权利之间取得了更具建设性的平衡。