The power of the trans filter

Naive editors can encourage a narrative of 'passing' via picture use

Should media organisations republish submitted photographs of transgender individuals, or use images from their own socials?

Taking pictures from socials where no editorial images are available is common practice, despite the known ethical issues. But using these from the accounts of transgender people gives another set of problems.

‘Gender-swapping’ face filters have been around since at least 2017 with the launch of FaceApp, with a massively popular Snapchat filter added in 2019. Models such as Madison Werner have spoken freely of their routine use of apps such as Facetune to make broad shoulders narrower, lips fuller and hairlines more appealing.

Werner has also written of being very reluctant to give up control of this image to other professionals, however well-meaning, and feeling uncomfortable with the results.

Trans people are strongly motivated to control this ‘passing’ narrative, and many media professionals may not realise how far this can go.

For example, several businesses will edit childhood photos to reflect an adult gender identity. This can mean something as simple as removing bows from hair and turning dresses into T-shirts, or it can include facial and body changes using AI programmes such as Stable Diffusion.

If used in a media context, such pictures support the trans activist position that gender identity is fixed and unchanging, and observable in children. These images, apparently showing a consistent “feminine appearance” in a male person, serve the narrative of the “trans child” who requires medical treatment.

They also carry ethical issues not just around the depiction of the transitioner, but also for other people in the photograph. For example, changing a picture of a young man with his arm around his girlfriend to make him a young woman, or even a very feminine man, may imply that the girlfriend was aware of his intention to change his identity early in the relationship.

As documentaries such as Behind The Looking Glass have shown, women are often taken completely by surprise when their husbands transition, with catastrophic results. Doctored photographs showing a fantasy past may fulfil a husband’s desire at the expense of his wife’s painful reality.

Occasionally, images have been deliberately altered by news organisations, such as in the case of swimmer Lia Thomas, whose face was softened by NBC’s The Today Show in promotional posts for a segment.

But often the editing is performed prior to the image arriving at the news desk, such as in the glamorous images of cyclist Emily Bridges, copyright sports brand Rapha and used by CNN, New York Post, the Independent and many others.

Most media organisations’ guidelines are clear that their images must not be manipulated in order to mislead, but this line is becoming increasingly blurred.

Getty Images states: “Images need to be delivered to the customer with accuracy, transparency and free of manipulation and bias.” It specifically bans the use of generative AI tools, though photoshop may be permitted for some basic editing for editorial images.

However, different standards apply for “creative” images, distributed on the same platform, which may be far more extensively edited. Getty now has their own Generative AI tool, and says: “Your team can now use AI to edit any creative photo or illustration from the Getty Images creative library. Instantly add elements, remove or replace backgrounds, or create additional sizes, with the results backed by robust legal protections.”

BBC editorial guidelines state: Care should be taken not to use images to mislead the audience. Any digital manipulation, including the use of CGI or other production techniques (such as Photoshop) to create or enhance scenes or characters, should not distort the meaning of events, alter the impact of genuine material or otherwise seriously mislead our audiences.”

But this is impossible to check with submitted images, or images taken from social media channels. These may be captioned as having been sourced from elsewhere, but that will make little impact on the average viewer/reader who simply understands the image as being “on the BBC”.

The result is glamorous images of apparently passing transwomen distributed with the BBC’s authority behind them.

The use of stock images may also given a misleading impression, such as in the controversial report on male breastfeeding which used several stock clips of women breastfeeding. Other news organisations also used stock images of women in this story about a practice condemned as child abuse by many.

An additional problem for the BBC is that their guidelines also state: “Care should be taken not to undermine the reputations of contributors.”

This creates an impossible quandary. If the reputation of a trans-identifying male contributor rests upon a lie - that they are a woman, or pass as a woman - then the BBC is required by its own guidelines to uphold that lie, even if it is seriously inaccurate. This may mean that publicity stills of trans-identifying people appearing on its shows could be doctored to create an illusion that the person’s physical appearance matches their claimed gender identity.

All these small, daily choices serve to perpetuate the myth that trans people can routinely pass in real life. This is a myth that encourages young people to make harmful choices. It emboldens men to enter women’s spaces. And it endangers transmen (females) who may not realise they are instantly identifiable by predators as women.