Skip to content
Pasa un enlace a Turing

Analysis of the article

COPRED determina discriminación contra 111 rostros de la diversidad que participaron en especial LGBTQ+ de EL UNIVERSAL; emite opinión jurídica

El Universal · published on March 19, 2026

The most important

¿Qué pasó?

Bad news for the community

It reports violence against the community.

Ver dónde lo dice

Lo dice Turing al leer la nota.

¿Cómo lo contó el medio?

Very good

La nota usa un lenguaje respetuoso. Tiene perspectiva de género y de derechos: usa «mujer trans», «hombre trans» o «persona trans», habla de diversidad sexual, nombra a la población lgbtttiqanb+.

What is worth changing

  1. It says Orientation, SexualMejor: orientación sexual
  2. It says COPRED UNIVERSALCapitalized words in the headline seek to alarm.

El 95 es por cómo lo escribió, no porque sea buena noticia.

¿Qué puedo hacer?

Ver la nota marcada Read at eluniversal.com.mx PDF
Share

Share this analysis

X Facebook Threads WhatsApp

Guardamos una prueba de que existió tal como la leímos · Reference number CC-KR2Q-YNNA

On this page
  1. The most important
  2. La nota marcada
  3. Qué cambiar y qué hace bien 2
  4. ¿Es cierto lo que dice?
  5. See a mistake?
  6. Para saber más

La nota marcada

Los párrafos donde encontramos algo

The amber strip with es lo que va contra nuestros derechos. Lo demás subrayado es la forma de nombrar. Toca una marca para ver por qué. No copiamos la nota completa.

El Universal eluniversal.com.mx

COPRED determina discriminación contra 111 rostros de la diversidad que participaron en especial LGBTQ+ de EL UNIVERSAL; emite opinión jurídica

By Angélica Vázquez ·

abc Goes against our rights abc Imprecise term abc What it does well abc Inclusive language «…» Direct quote

En el marco del Día Internacional del Orgullo LGBTIQ + del 2025, el periódico EL UNIVERSAL lanzó el proyecto “Orgullo y resistencia: 111 voces LGBTIQ +” con el objetivo de visibilizar las experiencias de personas de la sexual diversity en México y conocer de qué se sienten, o no, orgullosas. La iniciativa surgió ante la preocupación por los ataques de hatred que enfrenta actualmente community development., pese a los avances legislativos y sociales registrados en las últimas décadas.

Como parte del proyecto, 111 personas pertenecientes a community development. LGBTIQ + acudieron a la redacción de El Gran Diario de México para compartir sus perspectivas, consignas y sentimientos. Entre ellas participaron campaigners, artistas, emprendedores, comunicadores, trabajadoras sexuales, personas juzgadoras e incluso integrantes de fuerzas policiacas.

Sin embargo, tras la difusión del proyecto en redes sociales y en el sitio web de EL UNIVERSAL, los comentarios de hatred dirigidos contra quienes participaron en la convocatoria comenzaron a aparecer. Las publicaciones recibieron mensajes con lenguaje despectivo, insultos, estereotipos y expresiones discriminatorias dirigidas a personas pansexuales, hombres cis homosexuales, trans women y otros integrantes de community development. LGBTIQ +.

En la resolución se establece que las opiniones vertidas por varios usuarios en Facebook y en El Universal Online constituyen actos de discriminación y discurso de hatred, al vulnerar el derecho a la libertad de expresión de the people participantes en el proyecto. La opinión consultiva señala que las expresiones analizadas reflejan intolerancia mediante insultos, bullying, rechazo, violencia simbólica y estereotipos dirigidos a la sexual diversity.

A partir del análisis, el organismo concluyó que las expresiones vertidas en redes sociales constituyen una conducta injustificada de exclusión y menoscabo del ejercicio del derecho a la libertad de expresión de las 111 personas LGBTIQ +, motivada por su orientación o Orientation, Sexual1.

Además, en el documento se resuelve que the people que resultaron responsables del acto discriminatorio ofrezcan una disculpa a las 111 personas LGBTTTI+ a quienes les vulneraron sus procedures a la igualdad, no discriminación y libertad de expresión.

También subrayó las consecuencias negativas que la discriminación y los discursos de hatred pueden tener en la salud mental y emocional de the people LGBTIQ +.

El COPRED determinó la existencia de una conducta discriminatoria por parte de the people que participaron en las plataformas digitales emitiendo opiniones de carácter LGBTTTIfóbicas que vulneran el derecho a la libertad de expresión de quienes participaron en el proyecto periodístico.

Qué cambiar y qué hace bien

Lo que conviene cambiar y lo que hace bien

Cada señalamiento dice por qué lo marcamos y cómo decirlo mejor. Cómo se calculó el 95 está en Para saber más.

Very good

  • With a gender perspective
  • Inclusive language
  • Respectful

La nota usa un lenguaje respetuoso. Tiene perspectiva de género y de derechos: usa «mujer trans», «hombre trans» o «persona trans», habla de diversidad sexual, nombra a la población lgbtttiqanb+.

News articleReports facts. We check that it tells them with respect and without morbidity.

Text by 2026 Date of publication

Analyzed with Turing v2.8 · What changed

AI was not involved in this article: it was rated only by Turing’s rules.

What takes points off

The bar grows with the weight of each problem in the rating. Empty means no flags.

Derogatory terms No flags
Name and gender No flags
Blames the victim No flags
Sensationalism Mild · 1 pointing · subtraction 4
Hostile speech No flags
Imprecise terms Moderado · 1 señalamiento · resta 6

What adds points

What the article does well. It offsets part of what takes points off, never all of it.

Gender and rights perspective 9 strengths
Inclusive language 100%

How to read this rating

  • It has a yellowish detail, shown below. They take points off, but they are not enough to call it a “sensationalist article”: that happens when sensationalism sets the tone of the whole article. In the statistics it counts among articles “with some sensationalist detail”.
  • Why is the rating high? What the article does well, such as naming the person’s identity, giving context or echoing the demand for justice, offsets part of what takes points off. It never erases it: an article with flags does not reach 100.
How we arrived at 95 out of 100
  1. Every article starts with100
  2. Sensationalism−4
  3. Imprecise terms−6
  4. Gender and rights perspective+10
  5. Inclusive language+5
  6. What it does well offsets only part of what it loses−10
  7. Rating95

Turing related it to what the site already knows

  • El Universal · Observatorio de Medios · 80 notas · promedio 96 de 100

What is worth changing

  1. Imprecise terms …a la libertad de expresión de las 111 personas LGBTIQ+, motivada por su orientación o Orientation, Sexual. · Además, en el documento se resuelve que las personas que resultaron responsables del… See it in the text Why we flag it: Article 1 of the Constitution and Supreme Court criteria prior to 2015 say “sexual preferences”; today the Supreme Court, in its 2022 Protocol, and the Inter-American Court use “sexual orientation”. Use “sexual orientation”: it isn’t an option or a preference. It says Orientation, SexualBetter saysexual orientation
  2. Yellow journalism in the headline · counts double COPRED determina discriminación contra 111 rostros de la diversidad que participaron en especial LGBTQ+ de EL UNIVERSAL; emite opinión jurídica Capitalized words in the headline seek to alarm.

What it does well

  • Uses “trans woman”, “trans man” or “trans person”
  • Talks about sexual diversity
  • Names the LGBTTTIQANB+ population
  • Names discrimination
  • Human rights approach
  • Gives a voice to collectives and activists
  • Respects the presumption of innocence
  • Offers mental health support
  • Uses “sex work”

¿Es cierto lo que dice?

¿Es cierto lo que dice la nota?

Turing compara las cifras, leyes y casos que menciona con lo que tenemos documentado. No decimos «falso»: si algo no cuadra, te enseñamos la evidencia.

Turing is comparing what the note states with the Memorial, the Legislative Observatory and published verifications...

See a mistake?

Is this analysis correct?

Your answer trains Turing and improves the rating.

Yes, it's correct No, I want to correct it

To answer, you have to Sign-in: so your corrections remain in your follow-up.

Correct Turing's analysis

Un dato está mal

Una persona, una fecha, una cifra o una postura que no corresponde. Escríbenos y lo revisamos.

Avisar de un dato

Soy del medio

If you work at the outlet or wrote the article and think the analysis has an error, request a review: we give you a reference number and reply in writing within 10 business days.

Request a review

Para saber más

Cómo se calculó el 95Lo que resta y lo que suma, la versión de Turing y si ayudó una IA

Se ve en «Qué cambiar y qué hace bien».

The proofCopia guardada con folio CC-KR2Q-YNNA, su certificado y su valor legal

The proof

Certified copy

Proof that this article existed exactly as Turing read it, even if it is later changed or deleted.

Record of existence on the internet

Reference number CC-KR2Q-YNNA

Valid and verifiable Sealed on November 11, 2026, 13:23:36 (Central Mexico time)

Código QR del certificado CC-KR2Q-YNNA Scan to verify
  1. 1. Copy and digital fingerprint We saved what Turing read and took its SHA-256 fingerprint.
  2. 2. RFC 3161 timestamp An independent third party (FreeTSA) signed the fingerprint on November 11, 2026, 13:23:36 (Central Mexico time).
  3. 3. Anchored in Bitcoin The fingerprint is in the OpenTimestamps calendars; it will be in a Bitcoin block within a few hours.
  4. 4. Copy at Internet Archive Saved on November 11, 2026 on servers that are not ours. See the copy
  5. 5. Monitoring It was still online on November 11, 2026. We check it from time to time.

INTERNET ARCHIVE · Wayback Machine

Backed up on archive.org

Internet Archive, an independent digital library, saved its own copy on its servers on November 11, 2026, 19:32 (UTC). We check its index to confirm it exists before showing it here.

Why does this make it authentic?
  • It is an independent witness. Internet Archive is a non-profit digital library that has preserved the web since 1996. It has no ties to Memoria y Resistencia or to whoever published the content.
  • The copy is theirs, not ours. Their own system captures it, stores it on their servers and stamps it with their own date and time. Neither we nor the publisher can edit it or change its date.
  • Anyone can verify it. It is at a public web.archive.org address that contains the date. Anyone can open it without asking us and compare it with our copy and its fingerprint.
  • It is a recognized reference. Journalists, researchers and lawyers often cite it to show what a page looked like on a given date.
  • Two witnesses that match. Our timestamp and the Internet Archive copy are made separately. If anyone claimed we altered the copy, the archive.org one would disprove it.

Internet Archive and its logo are trademarks of Internet Archive. We use them only to show where the copy is; this is not an endorsement by them.

SHA-256 fingerprint of the copy e58f624667b3ee544fb06c2812c00e8ed90813864e5f19ebc76a82bba499513a

Turing read it directly from the public link, with no human involvement.

See the certificate Download as PDF Check another folio
What is it worth as evidence?

It is a technical proof of integrity and date: it shows that this exact content existed at that moment and was not modified afterwards. In Mexico, information in electronic media is recognized as evidence, and its weight depends on the reliability of the method used to create and keep it, on its remaining intact and on its being available for later consultation (Commercial Code, art. 1298-A; Federal Code of Civil Procedure, art. 210-A; National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, art. 348).

That is why each copy uses open standards that anyone can verify without trusting us: SHA-256 fingerprint, third-party RFC 3161 timestamp, OpenTimestamps on Bitcoin and the independent Internet Archive copy.

It is not a notarial certification of facts or a NOM-151 preservation certificate. If you need it for a lawsuit, the same fingerprint can be backed by them. Write to us with the folio.

En el Observatorio LegislativoLa iniciativa y las personas legisladoras que Turing relacionó con la nota

Legislative observatory

The article is about the work of a congress, but we did not find in it any person from the directory or a bill from the Observatory. If you know which bill it is about, choose it below.

Topic: Non-discrimination based on orientation or identity

What each person said is published on their record only if it passes a verification: the quote is in the article, it is that person, and a second AI review agrees. Whatever does not pass is decided by a third AI review, without waiting for the team, which can correct any position. Report an error

Note detailsMedio, fechas y versiones guardadas

Data

Byline
Angélica Vázquez
Published
March 19, 2026
Last analyzed
November 11, 2026
Turing
2.8 (the current one)
State
Online
Place of the events
Mexico

Saved versions

  • 95Version 1 · November 11, 2026 · 691 words

Every time someone analyzes the article, we read it again. If the outlet changed it, we save a new version and compare.

Keep exploring

Preparing your PDF… We are putting together the analysis with the underlined text and the QR code.

Made by and for the community

This tool is free because someone donated before you

We receive no government funding. Your donation helps us keep reviewing how the press names LGBTTTIQANB+ people and keep the memory of each case alive.

Donate $100 once

Secure payment with Stripe through Nodo Cívico, the organization behind Memoria y Resistencia.

See all options

The analysis is automatic: it can be wrong with irony, with quotes the article criticizes or with very short texts. To protect the people in the cases, their legal name does not appear on this page. How we rate.