1. The Regulatory and Ethical Framework
Sexual orientation and gender identity are explicitly named in the IPSO Editors’ Code. Clause 12 (Discrimination) requires the press to avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and to avoid publishing details of those characteristics unless they are genuinely relevant to the story. Clause 1 (Accuracy) requires care not to publish inaccurate or misleading material, and Clause 2 (Privacy) protects a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of their private and family life.
Broadcasters follow the Ofcom Broadcasting Code rather than IPSO. Section 3 (Crime, disorder, hatred and abuse) restricts hate speech and abusive or derogatory treatment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, except where justified by context, and Section 2 (Harm and offence) covers discriminatory language and material likely to cause harm or widespread offence. IMPRESS-regulated publishers apply the equivalent provisions of the IMPRESS Standards Code.
The NUJ Code of Conduct and the union’s LGBTQ+ reporting guidance ask members to reference sexual orientation and gender identity only where genuinely relevant and to use accurate, respectful terminology. This guide sets out what those professional standards require. Where framing or terminology is genuinely contested, it points to the codes rather than taking a partisan position.
2. The Relevance Test
The relevance test is the working heart of Clause 12. Before a person’s sexual orientation is mentioned, the question is whether it is genuinely relevant — whether the story would be materially incomplete or misleading without it. In the great majority of reports it is not, any more than any other private characteristic would be, and it should simply be left out.
Relevance is distinct from availability and from truth. A detail can be accurate and known and still fail the test because it does nothing to inform the reader. Where orientation genuinely is central — for instance in a person’s own account of discrimination, or in a profile where the individual has made it part of their public life — it is appropriate, and should then be reported accurately and in the terms the person uses.
3. Privacy and Not Outing People
Disclosing that a person is LGBTQ+ without their consent — outing — is one of the most serious privacy risks in this area. Sexual orientation and gender identity are ordinarily private matters, so their disclosure engages Clause 2, which protects a reasonable expectation of privacy in a person’s private and family life. Outing an individual generally requires a genuine and proportionate public-interest justification that outweighs that expectation.
The bar is high, and editors should be able to state the specific public interest before publishing rather than after a complaint. That someone is a public figure does not automatically place their orientation in the public domain. Take particular care with people who are not public figures, with young people, and with anyone for whom disclosure could carry a risk to safety. See our guide on privacy and misuse of private information.
4. Accurate and Respectful Terminology
Accuracy under Clause 1 includes getting terms, names and self-descriptions right. Use current, precise terminology, and where an individual is identifiable use the terms they use for themselves. Avoid outdated or pejorative language and avoid treating a person being LGBTQ+ as inherently sensational or newsworthy in itself.
Terminology in this field evolves, and some terms are genuinely contested. The professional-standards approach is to describe that contest neutrally, attribute contested labels to their source, and follow the codes and reputable, regularly updated style guidance rather than adopting a partisan term in the outlet’s own voice. Related guidance sits in our diversity language guide.
5. Avoiding Gratuitous Detail
Even where a person’s orientation is relevant, the level of detail should be proportionate to the story. Gratuitous detail about a person’s private life, relationships or sexual history rarely adds legitimate public value and can engage both Clause 2 (Privacy) and, in broadcast, the Ofcom harm and offence provisions. The discipline is the same as for any private matter: include what the story genuinely needs, and no more, and be ready to justify each element by reference to the public interest rather than reader curiosity.
6. Standards in Practice
Crime and court reporting
A person's sexual orientation or gender identity is not relevant to a crime or court story unless it is material to the offence itself. As with any protected characteristic under Clause 12, do not state it where it does nothing to inform the reader's understanding of the case.
Reporting on a community
When covering LGBTQ+ people as a group, avoid generalising from one individual and avoid framing that treats the community primarily as a controversy. Clause 1 accuracy applies to community coverage, and seeking a range of voices from within the group improves it.
Contested public debates
Some questions touching LGBTQ+ life are the subject of genuine, ongoing public debate. Report competing positions accurately and with attribution, distinguish fact from opinion, and follow the codes rather than the outlet endorsing a side.
Images, headlines and captions
Take care that headlines, images and captions do not import a sensational or pejorative framing the text avoids, or disclose an orientation the body of the story treats as private. Clause 12 and Clause 2 apply to the whole package, not only the main text.
7. Broadcast Standards: Ofcom
For broadcast and on-demand content, the Ofcom Broadcasting Code applies. Section 3 restricts hate speech and abusive or derogatory treatment of individuals or groups on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, except where justified by context, and Section 2 addresses harm, offence and discriminatory language. Ofcom’s context test weighs editorial justification, audience expectation, scheduling and presentation, so factual reporting and legitimate debate can be justified where gratuitous abuse or the disclosure of private information without warrant would not be.
8. Reporting Contested Debate Neutrally
Parts of this area are genuinely contested in public debate, and professional standards do not ask journalists to suppress that. They ask for accuracy, fairness and clear attribution: report the competing positions in the terms their proponents use, distinguish fact from opinion, avoid presenting one contested view as settled fact, and keep pejorative or prejudicial language out of the outlet’s own voice. Where the codes and reputable guidance speak to a point, follow them; where they are silent, report the disagreement rather than resolving it editorially.
9. Red Flags
- ⚠Disclosing a person's sexual orientation or gender identity without consent or a clear public interest
- ⚠Mentioning orientation where it is not genuinely relevant to the story
- ⚠Using outdated or pejorative terminology, or terms the individual rejects
- ⚠Treating a person being LGBTQ+ as inherently sensational or newsworthy in itself
- ⚠Publishing gratuitous detail about a private life beyond what the story needs
- ⚠Presenting one side of a contested debate as settled fact
- ⚠Reporting on the community only through opponents or officials, with no voices from within it
10. LGBTQ+ Reporting Checklist
Ethics & Language Tools
Check a reference to sexual orientation or gender identity against the codes, and use the Ethics Flowchart to decide whether a detail is genuinely relevant and whether privacy is engaged before you publish.