![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
askygoneonfireTo whom it may concern
During the reporting of an attack on an armoured van and the injuring of the security guard driver (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-11636785), the report on East Midlands today consistently refereed to the injured person as "woman security guard"
Aside from the grammatical unpleasantness of that phrase ("female security guard" is surely preferable) I simply cannot understand why the presumption was that 'security guard' was such an inherently gendered term that we needed to be reminded at least 5 times that this particular security guard was a woman.
Furthermore, the result of repeating this person's gender was to imply that the attack was somehow of greater significance/violence because it was perpetrated against a woman! All violent crime of this type is to be regretted and condemned, we - society - and you - the BBC - should not be straying into such value judgements, much less the sensationalism of "woman hurt! woman hurt whilst in man's job!"
Non biased, non discriminatory language is easy to employ. Until all reports on male security guards start referring to "man security guard" it is wholly unnecessary, offensive and erroneous (I am quite sure her job title merely reads 'security guard') to describe a person as a "woman security guard"
During the reporting of an attack on an armoured van and the injuring of the security guard driver (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-11636785), the report on East Midlands today consistently refereed to the injured person as "woman security guard"
Aside from the grammatical unpleasantness of that phrase ("female security guard" is surely preferable) I simply cannot understand why the presumption was that 'security guard' was such an inherently gendered term that we needed to be reminded at least 5 times that this particular security guard was a woman.
Furthermore, the result of repeating this person's gender was to imply that the attack was somehow of greater significance/violence because it was perpetrated against a woman! All violent crime of this type is to be regretted and condemned, we - society - and you - the BBC - should not be straying into such value judgements, much less the sensationalism of "woman hurt! woman hurt whilst in man's job!"
Non biased, non discriminatory language is easy to employ. Until all reports on male security guards start referring to "man security guard" it is wholly unnecessary, offensive and erroneous (I am quite sure her job title merely reads 'security guard') to describe a person as a "woman security guard"
