Talk

Advanced search

Why are Women's Hour not all over the GRA and Equality Act issues??

(51 Posts)
YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer Thu 08-Feb-18 20:22:45

I know it's hard as it's controversial but surely they can't keep ignoring the biggest issue currently being debated between and across women and feminists.

I don't always catch it so I may have missed things but I've heard nothing substantial.

Have they discussed the women shortlists debate?
The women's officer debate?
The lack of clarity from the Equality act or it's lack of application.
Did they discuss the ladies swimming pond?
Have they discussed the differing positions being taken by lib dems and radfems and the age divide within this?
Have they discussed the grassroots activism that is occurring around this issue that hasnt been seen in feminism for decades.
Have they discussed how this could and is affecting women in sport?
Have they discussed women's prisons impact?

Have they discussed the basic principle under debate: What is a Women?

Beacuse without knowing that anymore how do they even bloody well know who the broadcast is aimed at??

They are not reflecting on and debating the biggest crisis for women and women's rights for decades.
It's pathetic.

CertainHalfDesertedStreets Thu 08-Feb-18 20:29:01

In your experience of WH are they usually at the cutting edge of feminist thought?

rowdywoman1 Thu 08-Feb-18 20:31:07

I presume after Jenni Murray was so comprehensively trashed and threatened they are wary of repeating it. After all, she WAS shockingly given a warning.

YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer Thu 08-Feb-18 20:33:10

Well maybe we should start giving them more of a trashing for not discussing it.

It's now getting into the mainstream media but not WH.
It really shows them up.

Melamin Thu 08-Feb-18 20:34:18

Because Jenny Murray got into trouble after writing that article following an interview with India Willoughby who said that it was dirty not to shave your legs.

The beeb were only doing one-sided positive PR stuff at the time.

You would have thought they would have moved on by now, especially after the CBB of IW. There must have been a hell of a back lash behind the scenes, and it obviously penetrated a little too far.

AskBasil Thu 08-Feb-18 20:34:42

Because the BBC are on the side of transactivists but they know the public are not.

If they give too much publicity to the issues, the public will peak trans very quickly.

They don't want that. They only deal with trans issues in a "ra ra ra, celebration" or "oh noooo transwomen get bullied" way.

They will not give any dissenting voices any serious coverage.

So much for balance.

millyminty Thu 08-Feb-18 20:35:48

Women's Hour unlikely to discuss this topic after Jenny Murray wrote article for The Times 'Transwomen shouldn't call themselves real women' and got roundly trashed for it and her job threatened -

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/05/jenni-murray-transgender-not-real-women-sunday-times-magazine

That was my first step to peaktrans.

AngryAttackKittens Thu 08-Feb-18 20:36:42

What Basil said. Too much coverage on this issue would shatter the illusion of almost universal agreement.

Melamin Thu 08-Feb-18 20:38:29

I had already been peak transed by the relentless positive unchallenged messages on Today, especially the one with the 4 year old (this was just a few weeks before the court case involving residence of a young 'transgender' child)

Melamin Thu 08-Feb-18 20:40:49

On the positive side, some of the stuff they have been doing lately has been very much to do with women.

YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer Thu 08-Feb-18 20:43:11

You'd have thought, hoped, that a area with so much potential for debate and such strong feelings, and such fundemental questions to be answered, would be gold for journalism.

Instead of rehashing another women's health story again.

WildWindsBlowing Thu 08-Feb-18 20:54:40

After writing that Sunday Times (?) article saying trans women are not the same as biological women, who have lived their lives as women, Jenny Murray practically got sacked.

Lots of people wrote to the BBC to defend her for simply stating something factual. I was one. The BBC would not back down. I have never thought the same about the BBC since,

borntobequiet Thu 08-Feb-18 20:59:03

Because it's the BBC. And what others have said about Jenni Murray.

YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer Thu 08-Feb-18 21:02:21

OK. So what will shift them.
Can we exert some direct pressure on WH.

Let them know what we think of this glaring omission on womens issues.

Trailedanderror Thu 08-Feb-18 21:09:14

@YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer
Are you 'out' as transcritical to all your friends and family? At work? In local politics? I'm not because I'd lose many friends and jeopardise my job. Politically I have 1:1 conversations but I'm certainly not going to speak out in public. Write to Woman's Hour, to your MP, to organisations who are likely to be Making policy decisions in advance of the GRA and those likely to be called to give evidence. Don't criticise those who could lose their jobs and reputations for fighting this battle.

YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer Thu 08-Feb-18 21:15:29

Yes I am actually.
And i've done all those things.

Who shouldn't I be criticising here? WH??? Why the hell not? It's poor journalism.

I don't get your point.

CertainHalfDesertedStreets Thu 08-Feb-18 21:20:53

Yeah I'm with you on that yippeekiyay. It is their job. They should be holding power to account.

I guess writing to them? Pointing out the NAHT and swimming pool guidance is at odds with safeguarding for WAG?

YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer Thu 08-Feb-18 21:21:04

Well I haven't written to WH actually. But I have tweeted at them several times.

CecilyNeville Thu 08-Feb-18 21:21:31

Is there a policy at the Beeb that if you have given your opinion on something topical and divisive, you can't then cover that issue on your own show? It happened again a few weeks ago when Jane Garvey and Winifred Robinson were told they could not report on Beeb equal pay issues on WH and Y&Ys respectively, as they had both spoken of their support for Carrie Gracie.

YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer Thu 08-Feb-18 21:24:42

That would only disqualify JM wouldn't it?
Have the other presenters voiced an opinion on this issue?

Trailedanderror Thu 08-Feb-18 21:25:29

I didn't mean to be combative, we're allies. I'm just reiterating the point that speaking out about this is dangerous. Being openly transcritical can lead to loss of reputation and livelihood, threats of violence. And that's why those in the public eye, including journalists are very wary of speaking out.

HumphreyCobblers Thu 08-Feb-18 21:25:58

I complained to the BBC after Jenni Murray got a warning. They sent a mealy mouthed excuse saying their presenters had to remain 'impartial'. I replied saying that, in that case they should issue a warning to Libby Purves who had also written about this issue, from the other perspective, and their failure to do so indicated that the BBC did believe there was a right and a wrong side of the debate. So not very impartial then, eh?

Didn't hear any more from them.

YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer Thu 08-Feb-18 21:31:32

The could present thisbissues impartially.
Getting knowledgeable women on to discuss the issues they chair. Like they do on other issues.

Ignoring it is not neutral. It's colluding through silence.

I find thier silence deeply troubling. I used to be a real supporter of the BBC. This undermines any belief in them being impartial.

CecilyNeville Thu 08-Feb-18 21:36:37

Traditional media has been godawful on so much of this. Thank god for social media. Although social media is doubtless a significant contributor to the popular adoption of transgenderism.

YippeeKiYayMelonFarmer Thu 08-Feb-18 21:43:01

Mainstream mefia6is beginning to raise it. Even the BBC; Andrew marr.
But not women's hour.
The programme specifically for women's issues.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now