The case

'Pregnant women' instead of 'pregnant people': BBC recalls journalist after twenty complaints

The British broadcaster's Executive Complaints Unit upheld twenty complaints against the presenter, who was accused of expressing, mainly through her facial expression, a personal opinion on trans identity

by Angelica Migliorisi

6 November 2025

5' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

5' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

When Martine Croxall, the long-standing face of BBC News, corrected "pregnant people" to "pregnant women" during a June news bulletin, many viewers may have thought it was a simple linguistic nuance. Some will have picked up on a stance, others an instinctive, almost trade-like gesture to make the text flow more smoothly. Only weeks later it became clear that those few seconds, with a slight grimace of the face and raised eyebrows, would be read - and judged - as an emblematic case in the tug-of-war between journalistic neutrality, identity battles and 'culture wars' over gender. The BBC's Executive Complaints Unit (Ecu) has in fact upheld 20 complaints, ruling that Croxall violated the broadcaster's impartiality rules.

The fact

The episode takes place on the BBC News Channel, during the introduction to a report on research by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine on individuals most at risk during heatwaves in the UK. In the prepared text, the term 'pregnant people' appeared, consistent with language, increasingly popular in academic and health circles, that is intended to include trans and non-binary people who may carry a pregnancy. Croxall, reading the teleprompter, utters the phrase "the aged, pregnant people... women... and those with pre-existing health conditions", pausing for a moment and vocally replacing "people" with "women". In that passage, the camera catches a facial expression that viewers interpreted as disapproval, annoyance and sarcasm.

The BBC position

In the report published on 6 November, the Ecu writes that that expression gave the 'strong impression' of a personal viewpoint on a controversial issue, in particular public disputes about trans identity. The control unit emphasises that an explicit comment is not necessary to violate the standards: even a gesture or a grimace, in such a polarised context, can be perceived as a stance. In the official reconstructions, the most benevolent motivation for Croxall speaks of 'exasperation' at a script deemed 'clumsy', which quoted the language of the press note, including the inelegant 'the aged' and the wording 'pregnant people', not in line with the BBC's usual style nor with the words used by the interviewed researcher, who in the following clip speaks instead of 'pregnant women'.

In fact, however, Ecu comes to the conclusion that even assuming the good faith of the presenter - i.e. that she was reacting to the form of the text, not to the identity content - the result on the screen was to communicate to the audience a judgement on a sensitive topic. In other words: for the viewer, it is not so important what Croxall 'meant' as what appeared. And it appeared, to a relevant part of the audience, as an implicit critique of gender-inclusive language, at a time in history when every lexical nuance on these issues is immediately politicised.

The case explodes on social media. The short video in which the presenter is seen correcting the text and reacting with her eyes wide open is shared thousands of times, accompanied by opposing readings. On the one hand, observers and trans activists or supporters of the cause read the scene as yet another sign of cultural hostility towards a language with inclusive objectives; on the other, those opposed to the concept of 'pregnant people' see in Croxall's choice a moment of 'resistance' to the drifts of political correctness. Writer J.K. Rowling, for years a central figure on the 'gender critical' front, exults on X and calls Croxall her 'new favourite BBC presenter'.

Croxall herself seems to sense the extent of the clip early on, joking online that she was 'ready to be summoned by the bosses'. Meanwhile, the BBC formally registers 20 complaints that all converge on the same point: the journalist's gesture is described as an expression of disgust, contempt or exasperation towards the expression 'pregnant people'. The Ecu, in assessing the different readings, sticks to that of 'exasperation', judged to be congruent with his superiors' explanation, but emphasises that, overall, the impression of a personal stance was 'widely shared' between people with opposing views on the trans issue. And it is precisely this - the fact that both supporters and detractors of gender inclusion read a political stance into that gesture - that is pointed to as evidence of the problem.

The consequences for Croxall

Formally, the sanction for Croxall is a reprimand: the case has been 'reported to the top management of BBC News' and has been discussed with the presenter and the editorial team involved. No suspensions or more serious measures were reported, but the internal message that went out was that whoever anchors a news programme cannot appear - not even with body language - to be an active participant in a political or cultural controversy. The BBC thus reaffirms a principle that runs through all its editorial codes: journalists, especially on video, are required to 'avoid expressing personal opinions on controversial issues', and this constraint extends to what can be perceived as such.

Previous ones

The Martine Croxall case does not fall on deaf ears, and it is not just about her. For years the BBC has lived in permanent tension between its statutory obligation of impartiality and a deeply polarised British society, in which every word about Brexit, immigration, racism, gender identity or foreign policy triggers immediate reactions. There are those who accuse the corporation of stooping to a 'woke' ideology and those, on the contrary, who denounce an excess of caution that would hold back a necessary debate on minority rights. In the Croxall affair, for example, conservative commentators praise the presenter's choice to 'say women', while others, including religious commentators and Christian conservatives, accuse the BBC of being conditioned by an alleged pro-trans 'internal censorship', citing the very reference to Croxall as evidence of an unbalanced editorial line.

Martine Croxall, however, is no stranger to calls for impartiality. In 2022, during the programme 'The Papers', which aired a few hours after Boris Johnson's announcement not to stand for the Conservative leadership, the host had asked aloud if she was allowed to be 'gleeful', calling the moment 'very exciting' and laughing with the guests about the internal Tory chaos. The BBC, after analysing the complaints, ruled that the programme 'failed to meet impartiality standards' and the journalist disappeared from the screen for about twelve days.

Returning to the June episode, it is significant that the BBC itself acknowledges that the script was inelegant and that the interviewee was talking about 'pregnant women' in the clip used: the correction, therefore, was not in itself devoid of journalistic logic. The crux, for Ecu, remains the extra 'layer', that facial expression which, on such an incendiary topic, shifts the scene from the sphere of mere linguistic precision to that of commentary.