BBC QT - had to complain before I could go to bed

What worries me is any woman (not sure where they stand on this, will interpret the strength of feeling coming from the panel and audience as "oh ok this is what I have to think." Because of female socialisation.

I would have a few years ago.

See other thread - can anyone go on AA to ask the question on air??

Omg!

Just watched and my bp is rising!

The questioner says 'females' over and over again. Trans gender women are not and never will be females.

Shami almost got there with "this is not a matriarchy" but clearly missed the point beyond that.

Eff off.

I think Paris has been quite open about refusing to 'debate' with anyone who is gender critical. I would imagine it's part of the criteria for agreeing to be on the programme that there would be no one with critical views appearing on the panel at the same time.

I know, it's ridiculous that they seem willing to cave, and on a program that's meant to be about debate... But PL is a symptom and really just an example...

Can you imagine hearing a GC voice being allowed to speak on the BBC without challenge at the moment? Yet those speaking for trans rights (and not even that: let's face it, they're speaking for anti-women's rights) often can. Clear bias.

Could we start a campaign do you think?

Terfy PL has form for that

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trans-activist-paris-lees-walks-out-bbc-newsnight-recording120814/#gs.3eU8aYoo*

My guess is that PL was enough of a draw for the yoof audience that they let PL dictate terms.

Thinking about this a little more I have so far seen 2 items where Paris Lees has been allowed to put her opinion across completely unchallenged - QT and the Victoria Derbyshire program - and I'm sure there's more. I laughed bitterly about the opposite being true a gender critical voice being able to make their point without being challenged because it was unthinkable, but you know what, fuck that. If PL is able to speak without challenge yet the reverse is never allowed then isn't that a clear case of bias?

Time we started demanding that our voices be heard WITHOUT being spoken over, having to deal with straw manning, derailing, misleading arguments and waffle, often in an aggressive manner. Even if it's just a five minute segment on a show that otherwise presents the alternative POV (like VD). How could we go about demanding that?

It would have been good if one of these 'awful people' could have had the opportunity to explain their view.

There would have been an awful lot of viewers who would have missed the point of this 'question' completely. And thought what PL was saying was fair enough. I might have been one of them a year or so ago.

Welcome Daisy

HomeTerf
I think at one point, SC did say she was a feminist, but according to PL, we are "awful people purporting to be feminists".

Oops muddled up Any Questions and Question Time. Ignore me. Or listen to AQ anyway.

That's an interesting point total. I'm sure SC would describe herself as a feminist in any other situation, but for the purposes of that discussion 'feminist' was used as a dirty word IIRC. (Might have to rewatch and check that out, if I can bear it.)

I complained on the basis of bias- that they was no counter-argument to the actual question. Instead there was a cunning switch to should AWS exist at all- that was NOT the question up for debate.

A lot of criticism of 'feminists' but no one representing feminists or explaining their view on this matter (SC might call herself a feminist but very aligned to Jeremy Corbyn in this case and thus biased and not able to offer counter-view)

I've just complained.

Somewhere? On this board of course! Not properly awake yet...

Somewhere is another thread suggesting to contact Any Answers, which I have done. If they get lots of tweets/texts/emails they assign airtime in proportion. They will prob gets lots from TAs so we need to balance.

What a shocking panel.

I've complained too, suggested if they don't like women speaking they could ask one of the many transsexuals who stand up for women and girls.

Thanks Speedy. IMO the program violated every single one of those points.

I've never commented on the trans threads before, but I've read enough of them that I was horrified listening to QT last night whilst I went to sleep.

I was waiting for somebody to pipe up and say - but is it right that any man can self ID as a woman on a whim with no medical input and go and work in a women's refuge?

Was shocked at the one-sidedness, and nobody saying why this wasn't an ok idea.

And I'm massively left wing, live and let live, and one of my best friends is a fully transitioned FTM. Who agrees with how wrong this is. And I'm 25 - so not all the young people think this is ok.

Peak transed.

I haven’t watched it yet but will try to make time to do so and then complain if appropriate (which I’m guessing it will be, but don’t want to judge until I’ve seen it).

For anyone wanting to complain you might want to consider referring to the BBC Impartiality guidance if you feel the views of feminists have been misrepresented, especially the following:

4.4.30
Additionally, when personal view programmes and websites (for example, blogs) cover 'controversial subjects', especially those concerning matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy, we should:
- retain a respect for factual accuracy
- fairly represent opposing viewpoints when included
- provide an opportunity to respond when appropriate, for example in a pre-arranged discussion programme
- ensure that a sufficiently broad range of views and perspectives is included in output of a similar type and weight and in an appropriate timeframe.

www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/personal-view-content

Oh my I have just watched QT....

What an appalling panel, what that the best they could do? Wasn't there supposed to be a youth focus?

Before you got to the Trans at the total expense of women issues it was obvious they were not competent.

Had not one of them done any research into the Cambridge Analytical story? Really the biggest story of the year and they couldn't articulate any meaningful insight regarding social media nor add to the conversation

It was so obvious they did not understand social media so straight off the bat I thought well if they really don't understand social media then they are not going to be able to have any critical discussion as to shortlists.

Look at the way they allowed a male audience member to do a "poor me" I can't run for Labour without challenge.

How was Paris Lee allowed to pedal her hard luck story about these awful feminists and not be challenged about the trans activists and abuse.

How did she manage to pedal the bullshit about trans and suicide? Again, unchallenged.

Appalling.

PMed @MrsFogi

MrsFogi I'll PM you mine. I wish I'd done it more in bullet point format. I think it was a bit unwieldy and difficult to understand, but you might be able to extract something more concise from it.