I'm Jenni Murray

*count

I know, right, bev?? I expect that Jenni has many years of experience of being a woman. Of course, that doesn't cont.

It's odd isn't it that a defence to libel is that it was "true" whereas this defence does not seem open to women if they dare to express any views on the difference between a woman and a transwoman?

I'm Jenni Murray

They also said today that if Jenni Murray had invoked experts it wouldn't have been so bad. So the expert viewpoint of an actual trans-woman (Miranda Yardley) was not enough? Ffs.

I'm Jenni Murray.

I too thought the word "impartial" in the BBC response to me was a ridiculous euphemism for "shut up."

Relating a simple fact is certainly not failure to be impartial. Rather the contrary.

If someone came on Newsnight, say, and stated that the theory of evolution was just a theory, or that the holocaust was an exaggeration, the presenter (say, J P!) would point out the evidence/ facts that showed that person that they were wrong and I am sure the BBC would not reprimand them. In fact I have just been watching J P on You Tube with David Irving in 2014 and J P was hardly passive and impartial. He always flourished in the BBC as far as I know.

I went back to the complaints page:
I complained yesterday to comment to how shocked I was that the BCC had, effectively, censured Jenni Murray for voicing, very respectfully, opinions about transwomen which many women find uncontentious. Today I received this reply:

'Thanks for contacting us regarding Jenni Murray’s comments about transgender women.

'Jenni Murray is a freelance journalist and these were her own views; however she has been reminded that presenters should remain impartial on controversial topics covered by their BBC programmes.

'Please be assured that your concerns have been noted for the attention of BBC management.'

Effectively, I complained that the BBC had censured her and the reply I got was that the BBC had censured her. That was a circular, and not remotely helpful.

Libby Purves has in the last few days argued in the press that Jenni Murray was wrong. Will she now get an impartiality warning, or is she alright because she's toeing the currently acceptable line whereas Jenni spoke for thousands?

Could ask exactly WHY the BBC took such exception to what Jenni Murray had to say? What is remotely controversial about saying that a man who transitions in his 20s, or 30s, or 40s, has no idea what it is like to grow up female? Or saying that gender and sex are not the same thing? Is the OED wrong to define them differently?

Over the past couple of years my faith in the British media has been seriously undermined, when I have read articles about topics upon which I am very well informed and found these articles seriously lacking. Yet a free, balanced and accurate press is a necessary underpinning of democracy.

Perhaps you don't share that view. Perhaps you think that we should all think alike and if we don't we should just shut up. But shutting up doesn't change people's views.

Your reprimand to Jenny Murray has incensed many, many women, and diminished the respect in which we hold the BBC. I sincerely hope that this concern of mine concerns you, too.

They made the point that Gary Lineker expressing his disgust on twitter at the Leicester manager being sacked does not get a warning because it's just football, and not public policy.

This "impartiality" line is ridiculous as I assume anyone who said simply "transwomen are women" and called anyone who deviated from that view a "bigot" or "transphobe" wouldn't be warned by the BBC?

I meant "personal opinion". Clearly biology doesn't count as evidence!!

Today's Media Show (it was on at 4.30) today discussed this. I only caught part of it, really about the "impartiality" warning, and how this relates to the BBC, which has a duty to be impartial, unlike newspapers. 2 main points: 1) Is Jenni Murray now barred from presenting anything to do with Transgender issues on the BBC henceforth (probably) 2)What is the difference between "professional judgement based on proven evidence" and "personal evidence". Also had the editor who commissioned the piece, defended her very robustly.

That is a really good response Workingit.

I think I will try to do both tonight - my email is not working today, so frustrating.

I did manage to email Jenni in support of her position. Do you fancy writing to the Times too? - I would only I am not articulate enough at the moment

Errol that is such a helpful medical article.

It is extremely worrying that while we vilify FGM, people are encouraging very young, confused people to mutilate themselves chemically and physically.

Thank you Humphrey. For good measure I have filed a separate complaint about Libby Purves' piece (feel bad attacking one of the sisterhood but needs must to make the point). I will be very interested to see the response to that complaint...

That is excellent WorkingItOutAsIGo.

My latest complaint.

You answered my complaint that you had unreasonably given Jenni Murray a warning for stating with the truth with the answer that, yes, you had given her a warning.

That wasn't an answer, that was a restatement of the problem about which I was writing.

So please this time answer my complaint as follows:

1. Please confirm you are giving Libby Purves a warning for her equally non-impartial piece on the same topic in today's Times (8th March)
2. Please explain to me what is controversial about saying that a true woman is one who is born with XX chromosomes. You may answer with reference to the science or the linguistics, I don't mind which, but I do ask you to explain your reasoning for describing this as controversial. I am sure your HR department will have investigated this fully and have a logical and legal stand before having censured so senior and experienced a journalist as Jenni Murray.

Many thanks and I look forward to hearing from you,

I too had a BBC non-reply about the need to remain "impartial".

Willoughby has come out really badly here. There has been little support on her Twitter feed, especially from her celebrity mates. In fact some TW are criticising Willoughby on how bad she's making the community look. Almost feel sorry for her.

I caught most of that but missed the end. The piece came about because the Sunday Times journo was in the WH studio at the same time as IW - she said that while talking after IW said the 'women who don't shave are dirty' thing.

Also received the same non-reply from the Beeb. Going back in to say a) I hope they are going to give Libby Purves a warning too and b) to ask them to explain what's controversial about defining women as people with XX chromosomes.

Did anyone else notice how incredibly cumbersome the complaints process was...almost as if they wanted to put you off complaining.

"Also India denied having said any such thing after the article came out.."

Yes she did, she said it was "fake news".