the thorny issue of which pronouns to use for transgender people. welcome to newswatch with me, samira ahmed. coming up — was bbc news wrong to describe the transgender murderer scarlet blake as a woman? and why was there no tv news designed for a uk audience anywhere on the bbc at 10pm on tuesday night? the news agenda can sometimes be grim — and this was one of those moments, with a number of murder cases featured across the media. the sentencing in one of those cases took place on monday afternoon, and it was covered beforehand on the bbc�*s news at one. 26—year—old scarlet blake targeted jorge martin carreno as he walked

home from a night out in oxford injuly 2021. well, our correspondent duncan kennedy is at oxford crown court for us this afternoon. now, scarlet blake thought she got away with it. it was only two years later that her former partner living in the united states called british police to say that scarlet blake had confessed to the killing, and she was arrested. the trial revealed some horrific details about this fatal attack and about the murderer — which we'll spare you. but what upset and angered some viewers were references like those we've just heard to "she" and "her". scarlett blake is a transgender woman — a fact that didn't feature in that 1pm news bulletin, or in several of the articles on the bbc�*s website during the trial. marianne mcnulty was among those who got in touch with us after watching the programme. i was really shocked at the way this story was framed, and the language that was used, given that self—id is not law, and therefore, you know,

such inaccurate and misleading reporting, in my opinion, is a breach of the bbc�*s own guidelines on truth and impartiality. basic facts are not being reported in favour of what i would term the language of identity politics. and to me, thatjust as a huge violation of their own mission statement, you know, and their commitment to be trustworthy, reliable, and truthful. others have a different view, with someone called chloe posting this... and alice through the looking glass wrote...

well, let's talk more about this with another viewer who contacted us this week, clare davis. clare, thank you for coming on newswatch. what was your concern about the reporting of this story? my concern was that, since the bbc started covering this hideous crime many months ago, it's always been reported as being perpetrated by a woman. and that's in the headline of articles, in the opening paragraph of online articles, and also in news bulletins. and as a viewer, itjust made it even more incomprehensible that this crime was so horrendous and it had been perpetrated by a woman, when most violent crimes are committed by men. and then it wasn't until this week when i did read that

the perpetrator was transgender. i kind of expected the bbc to refer to its own guidelines — but in my view, those guidelines aren't fit for purpose if they confuse viewers and respect the perpetrator at the expense of the victim and the victim's family. also, thejudge, in his remarks, he stated that there was a sexual motivation to the crime. so i believe that the sex of the perpetrator was very relevant, and that the bbc should have reported this accurately. in a case where you're assigning a heinous, violent crime that's been committed by a man to a woman, i think it's disrespectful to all women. this is obviously a fraught issue, clare — would it be better to refer to transgender people in a crime reporting context as "they"? i don't believe so, no, because i think

that sex is relevant — it's relevant for crime statistics and crime policy. and if we have a problem in in this country and throughout the world with male violence, i think it should be called out as such. i just think if the person identifies as transgender, obviously, fair enough. but the bbc needs to make it clear that they are legally and biologically a male, but they identify as a woman. that would have been clearer reporting than just consistently referring to the perpetrator as a woman when this isn't the case. what would you like to ask the bbc to do differently in reporting cases like this now? well, i would like the bbc to review its own guidelines, because i personally don't think they're fit for purpose if so many viewers could be misled. i would like the bbc to report accurately so that audiences can trust what they say. and in a crime such as this, the biological sex of the offender is relevant and should be clearly stated. clare davis, thank you so much. thank you.

bbc news refused our request for an interview about this, sending us a statement instead — it reads... football fans will have enjoyed two live men's fa cup matches on bbc one this week — but those more interested in the news were left annoyed on tuesday. extra time and penalties in the game between blackburn rovers and newcastle united meant a delay in the broadcast of the news at ten. graham hill turned bbc one on at 10pm, only to be

disappointed twice over. it seems that the programme before it had overrun, so i switched to the news channel, hoping to catch the 10pm on that — but that was showing world news america. wasn't until 10.50pm that evening that the bbc showed the iopm news. so it's really frustrating. i can't understand why you didn't move bbc news at ten from bbc one to the news channel, so that we could watch the bbc news. by doing that, people would still be able to watch football, and the americans would be able to watch their version of your world news, as well. this is really frustrating. perhaps somebody can do something about it. well, in an effort to do something about it, we asked bbc news

for a response to graham's point — and they told us... on last week's programme, viewer paul kirkwood told us his enjoyment in watching the bafta film awards ceremony programme on bbc one was spoiled by receiving a news alert on his phone, informing him of the prize—winners before they were announced on tv. you question whether the baftas were significant enough to merit a news alert. they're more just entertainment, you know, rather than, in my opinion, newsworthy, so to speak, or especially, you know, alert—worthy, i guess. as soon as you look at your phone, you get the alert, you know, there and then without even accessing the phone, you just need to lift your phone up. i mean, even if they put something like "spoiler" or something like that, then that means that, you know, as soon as someone like myself sees it,

then we can just instantlyjust not look at it and put the phone down, for instance, whilst you know... and takes that kind of differentiates away from the, like, a political news alert, rather than a bafta news alert. well, that suggestion of being able to distinguish between different types of news alerts you receive is, as it happens, already being acted on. here's stuart miller, digital news editor of bbc news, talking about push alerts or notifications on tuesday's pm programme on radio 4. we do understand that a lot of audiences feel sort of, you know, overwhelmed by them. so we are working on much better tooling just now that would allow people to sign up, opt out, follow different types of topics — because at the moment when we send pushes, it goes to all eight million of our app users in the in the uk, you know, whether they like or not. he went on to admit that paul and others who'd complained about phone alerts spoiling their enjoyment of the baftas on television had a point.

we got an awful lot of feedback on that, and we take that on board — and on reflection, we probably wouldn't do it that way again. who says the bbc never takes any notice of feedback? finally, a plea from viewer alan watts to bbc news regarding coverage leading up to next wednesday's budget statement from the chancellor. we'll see next week if allen's wish for a ban on pre—budget predictions is granted — but the prospects, frankly, aren't good. an article on the bbc website this week pointed out that there had been a lot of speculation about whether the chancellor would announce tax cuts — while elsewhere, indulging in some speculation itself.

thank you for all your comments this week. if you want to share your opinions about what you see or hear on bbc news, on tv, radio, online, and social media, email newswatch at bbc.co.uk or you can find us on x — formerly known as twitter — at @newswatchbbc. you can call us on 0370106676. and do have a look at previous interviews on our website, bbc.co.uk/newswatch. that's all from us for now. thank you forjoining us. do think about getting in touch and perhaps even coming on the programme. we'll be back to hear more of your thoughts about how the bbc covers the news next week. goodbye. this is bbc news. we will have the headlines for you at the top of the hour, which is straight after this

programme. no longer taboo, the menopause has finally become a hot topic, with what many women can go through hopefully becoming better understood. so i've had a bit of a rubbish day today, with feeling quite anxious. i had quite a bad night's sleep last night. hey, so i'm just between cases today at work. just had quite an embarrassing hot flush. i'm struggling with the light, i'm struggling to see. so it's 6am on sunday morning, and i'm wide awake. i've been perimenopausal for the last...seven or so years? one of the most challenging symptoms

i found over the last few years has been the brain fog. trying not to be too, erm, too upset about it. maybe, though, the way that women's reproductive health plays out doesn't need to be inevitable. i've been to meet some scientists who are working on the idea of delaying menopause. at the buck institute for ageing, in california, neuroscientist jennifer garrison studies the connection between the brain and the ovaries. menopause is basically what happens when a woman's ovaries stop working. essentially, it leads to a whole host of really dramatic health consequences. so, ovaries are producing notjust eggs for making babies, but also a whole host of really important hormones that are absolutely essential for overall health. when those beneficial hormones go away, what happens is a woman's risk of osteoporosis,

heart disease, stroke, cognitive decline, all sorts of things, arthritis, depression — all of those risks go way up. if we don't address menopause or reproductive span in women, then essentially, we're going to be making gender inequality worse and not better — and that's because female humans born today can expect to live on average about 100 years. and so, what that means in practice is that soon, women will be living more of their lives after menopause than before. well, i can see the problem, but can menopause be delayed? we hope so. there are very few animal species that actually go through menopause. so what that means to me, as a scientist, is that it's probably not a biological imperative. there's no benefit to it that i can see. combine the latest scientific understanding of menopause, and the often—symptomatic years running up to it — the perimenopause — with big data, and things

get really interesting. at cambridge biomedical centre genomics, stana stankovic is trying to develop reliable menopause prediction tests. the access to these kindd of data basically allows us to read the dna of over 200,000 women who are menopausal. we can basically analyse and understand what are the differences in their dna that actually determine at what age they will become menopausal. some of the scientists i've spoken to have been focused more on health equality — it seems for you, this is also about fertility. we actually capture both sides. it is really necessary for the tests in the clinic to have long—term predictive potential. and at the moment, theyjust tell you whether you're menopausal or not. exactly — but once you detect the problem of infertility, you're usually too late to do anything about it, such as go

through ivf or cryopreservation.