FPFW disinvited from discussing Martina's comments on 5Live

@teawamutu

Whilst you're at it, you could point out the obvious logic, that does not need Nic's confirmation, that how could McKinnon publicly refuse to debate with someone who hadn't been invited?

@teawamutu

Yes I'm sure it would. She was happy for her comments to be on a public forum.

Note the conclusion of that study (of 25 TG people - not clear how they were recruited for the study?)

Transsexual women before the start of hormonal therapy appear to have lower muscle mass and strength and lower bone mass compared with control men. These baseline differences in bone mass might be related to a less active lifestyle.

Also note, Vitamin D levels were lower, that sounds likely to be causally related to the observed bone differences... I wonder whether the TG people were matched against males who spent similar amount of time outdoors with similar amounts of exposed skin (no sunblock or spf makeup)?

Sorry, last posts were meant to be in the LM thread as they came from the replies to LM. Fit here too though really.

BBC is utter shite. And lying/disingenuous twats too it seems.

Apologies for being off topic but a few years ago I listened to a podcast (I believe it was an interview with Phill Jupitus) and one thing discussed was the destruction of the BBC. He said people were being employed who were there specifically to run the BBC down so it could be sold off. The NHS was also discussed. I always think of that when I read the threads on the BBC here, that calculated decisions are made to discredit the BBC so it loses its worth.

Would love to know how apparently being weaker than average men, means having no advantage over women. I can well believe that longtime HRT removes some of the advantage, but the arguments this past week have been utterly insane. My fave I think was the 'but actually, transmen have a huge advantage over men'

Smartieshavetheanswer - I cant imagine you will get a bespoke reply whatever you put. There's loads of us, who have all written independently so presumably have all different letters/angles, that have received the same copy and paste answer. I've followed mine up so will probably get another standard response .

twitter.com/sagatiaej/status/1098213451271421953

So, how the fuck does that work?

This scientific study proved that trans women have less bone density, muscle mass and strength than cis men BEFORE hormone replacement therapy. Other studies show that after treatment they lose even more:

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S8756328213000562
Incase anyones blocked^

I got the same shitty non-reply. I'm going back for a follow-up and cc'ing Ofcom and Feedback. Patronising lying fuckers.

Datun, would it be ok to include Nic's comments in my follow-up? And as predicted, they totally ignored my point about having a discussion about women in sport with NO WOMEN present.

Educating the peasants. Patpatpat here's a biscuit. Fuck OFF.

I had the same copy and paste job as everyone else. I’ve just emailed them again, I know it makes no difference but lying annoys me!

Is anyone willing to help me out with writing a letter of complaint to the BBC in a way that doesn't allow for a cut and paste answer that they've given everyone else?

So angry about this but even angrier that they are trying to dodge the truth. I'm not great with words but want to protest.

The whole 'lets educate' aspect of the BBC.... yes. Call the Midwife is getting steadily more teeth grating by the episode with all the condescending social messaging it's trying to stuff in.

If they feel called to enlighten the plebs then the best of luck to them, but that's the end of their public funding. If they're a group with a specific political line sharing propaganda and educational materials to further that point then they can sell it to the people who are willing to pay them for it. Public funding has to be neutral and objective, and if they're charging everyone then they have to represent everyone.

Any of their content worth it (CTMW first in line) would be snapped up by Netflix or Channel 4 in a heartbeat anyway.

"taking its lead from its LGBT inclusion/equalities officer."

There are more than 400 transgender BBC employees.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5905129/BBC-chief-stunned-secret-staff-sex-survey-reveals-417-workers-transgender.html

recruitingtimes.org/news/23597/bbc-amazed-after-secret-survey-reveals-that-417-of-its-staff-are-transgender/

I suspect that it is not the BBC per se, but it, like every other organisation, is taking its lead from its LGBT inclusion/equalities officer.

I asked a question, fairly recently, in a local branch of Blackwell's books, about what was stocked and what was not - and I was guided to their LGBT officer. They are running the show.

Oh absolutely. It’s very much a let’s educate the bigots approach. handily presented as a debate.

A debate without any actual women who should, one guesses, stick to talking about the weather.

A debate where facts are inconvenient.

I think the BBC are using these issues as a way to educate it's audience, rather than a debate.

The are starting with the premise that it's possible to change sex/ the definition of women and female has changed. That's why they don't want GC women to speak, because that opens the 'what is a women debate'.

They don't want to discuss their new definition of women, they want to treat this as a lesson about prejudice.

That’s interesting Anna I hadn’t realised the approach changed after a legal ruling.

Still it’s inconceivable that - say David Attenborough - would be disinvited from a discussion about ocean pollution by the owner of a plastics factory.

Al1ce the Beeb only stopped putting climate change deniers on as 'balance' after a legal judgment on doing that went against them.

I’m late to this thread because of half-term and have been musing about why the BBC and other media are so keen to give a platform to biology deniers.

After all, the BBC recently revised their approach to debating climate change, deciding that in view of the overwhelming evidence there is no need to invite a climate change denier to provide a counter argument when CC is discussed.

Yet NW is prevented from presenting facts, because someone who thinks feelings count more than biological truth says so.

Even if she didn't record the calls, the fact that they happened, would be evidence that they cancelled her.

I'm going to cancel my bbc license and demand a refund. Public broadcaster my arse when 50% of the population are thrown under a bus like this.

Exactly.

I have no idea if she tapes her phone calls, but the current climate is certainly making one cynical enough to do so.

Thanks Datun for passing on Nic's comments. I'm still drafting my follow-up complaint and I'm focussing on the no-platforming issue, useful to know the exact details. They will either have to admit to it or accuse Nic of lying.

Well if you are AGP, transitioning and being accepted, or forcing people to accept you, must be a dream come true.

Being called stunning and brave for it is just the icing on the cake.

One of the reasons why it's best to actually see what these people say, look at them on Twitter, find out what they've said, is that it becomes fairly obvious what their motivation is.

Politicians sitting in the Houses of Parliament looking at a report, don't see any of this.

Who joins the group?

And although we are constantly told that being 'trans' is such a difficult and unpleasant state no one would do it for advantages - it's not true is it.

The stunning and brave are lionised, they get platformed and listened to, they're above reproach and get to wear fancy outfits - it is a fuck of a lot easier than training to become a priest - but with many of the same benefits.