Martine Croxall’s eyes spoke louder than her words when she corrected the clumsy and unnatural use of ‘pregnant people’ on her autocue earlier this year.
As a result, the newsreader found herself slap bang in the middle of the toxic dispute over the language of ‘inclusion’. Despite being congratulated at the time by viewers who were relieved that at least one person at the BBC still knew that women give birth to the next generation, Croxall has now* been censured by Corporation’s Executive Complaints Units. Her facial expression, it was ruled, expressed a ‘controversial view about trans people’.
The thought police ruled that the look on Croxhall’s face gave the ‘strong impression of expressing a personal view on a controversial matter’. Yes, it darn well did. She expressed the common-sense view that everybody understood – and was free to express – until about ten years ago.
What this sorry mess also exposes, however, is the alternative ‘personal viewpoint’ shared by whoever wrote the script Croxall read from. While rebuking Croxhall, the corporation has completely failed to recognise its own massive breach of neutrality. This was not so much a speck in Croxall’s eye as a plank in the BBC’s. Impartial, this organisation is not – certainly when it comes to the transgender debate and which views are acceptable to share.
Let me be clear: it is women who become pregnant and women who give birth. This only becomes controversial if someone decides to change our language, perhaps in a futile attempt to change the way that we think about other human beings.
Even if it is futile, it is still a problem when our words are policed. On one level, not being able to call a woman a woman – without the risk of censure – has caused confusion. It has also left those doing the policing in a position of power over those who are being policed. That needs to stop.
I say that as a trans person myself. I might have transitioned – changed the way I present myself in public – but I am still the same human being and I still have the same biology. I don’t need virtue signallers to insist that everyone minds their language around me. I want people to use language that is readily understandable by everyone, common sense in other words. It should not be seen as hurtful or demeaning – or even controversial – to say that women become pregnant. Everybody knows it and nobody should feel the need to deny it.
If any good has come from this BBC edict then it could be that the public have been reminded that even after the Cass Review and the Supreme Court judgment, the language police have not yet gone away. We might all know that the emperor has no clothes but it still needs pointing out.
I hope that Croxhall is able to turn this rebuke into a badge of honour. While others might have gone along with the autocue – perhaps complaining about it privately afterwards – she showed courage in the moment. Her one pair of eyes said more than a thousand words. We should all wish her well.
Debbie Hayton is a teacher and journalist.
Her book, Transsexual Apostate – My Journey Back to Reality is published by Forum
* This article was first published by The Spectator on 7 November 2025: Why has Martine Croxall been censured by the BBC?
Debbie Hayton 
5 replies on “Why has Martine Croxall been censured by the BBC?”
Spot-on, Debbie! Most sane people have applauded her and it shows that the Thought Police on their latest junket into gender madness does not go down well with the average person who believes that there are only two genders. Men and women. I think we all rolled our eyes with her. She got enormous support on X. If the BBC is so worried about facial expressions then perhaps they should have a talk to the other presenters who curl their lips, pull their faces, raise their eyebrows, and sneer when having to mention topics/people they disapprove of: Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Israel, the Tories, the list goes on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed! I think everyone is tired of nonsense like ‘pregnant people’.
LikeLike
The woke establishment has tried to pull the wool over people’s eyes for ten years now and the vast majority of us have had enough of this nonsense. You would think that after the BBC splicing together two parts of the Trump speech to create a completely different impression would have shamed them into good behaviour but apparently they still think they are above the law and above normal thinking.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve never understood why women who think they should be men might still want to go through pregnancy. Do they just want to keep all options open? In which case don’t involve the rest of us. Also I may have mentioned this before but how is is good for a child to be incubated by a woman who has messed up her hormones and taken all sorts of other drugs?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, this is pretty astonishing. I feel so sorry for that lady. I hope Croxall hasn’t apologized or anything like that. Indeed, the BBC needs to apologize to her (have they?). At times like these, I wish I were British so I could dash off a nasty note to the British Broadcasting Cabal.
Sometimes, news organizations completely misjudge their viewers/listeners. Years ago, an American radio station tried to drum up hostility towards people who left their American flags in the weather too long so that the flags got tattered. Well, they got a ton of feedback telling them to just leave those people alone. On another occasion, a newspaper tried to shame people who wouldn’t give money to beggars on the subway. But the beggar they tried to drum up sympathy for routinely harassed the riders.
On quite a few occasions I have commented here that the Washington Post is 1000% behind everything trans. They are still trying to drum up sympathy for trans people, but they have backed off a little in their sympathy for drag queens, those misogynists who try to make women look ridiculous. In one article they showed pictures of trans people parading around in public wearing women’s underwear — presumably, the Post thought that would somehow evoke sympathy for the drag queens. Instead, it revealed the misogyny underlying drag.
LikeLiked by 2 people