James Kirkup - Jo Swinson has finally made the BBC do its job on trans rights

To put this in their manifesto when the results of the consultation haven't been published indicates that they don't have any intention of taking the consultation results into account, which means that they have decided what they intend to do regardless of public opinion.
Whoever forms the next government I really think they need to be pushed to publish the consultation results. It's pretty clear that exercise didn't go to plan. and I think that if the results were made public, it would make it much more difficult for anyone to override them.

I think that's the idea: not only do we have to put up with unwanted penises in female only spaces we are complicit in TRA/MRA phallus worship too, even by opposing it.

and start asking them when they are going to equally question Dawn Butler and Maria Miller

I agree that none of the parties have much to be proud of on this issue, but Dawn Butler and Maria Miller aren't party leaders.

And then you have the occasional TRA who tries to spin that as an interest in their penises (wink wink, etc), knowing full well that stating openly what it really is (definitely not interest, quite the opposite in fact) will get the woman censured and silenced if she's too direct about it. Because telling a male that you don't want anything to do with his penis ever under any circumstances is one of the things that misogynists absolutely cannot and will not tolerate.

And Eldeley Aunt phoned me to tune into Jo Swinson on the radio twice this week. She’s fully onboard and spreading the word 😂😂

Another one saying Penis far far too often. I said it at the dinner table after a special family Sunday lunch.
Enthusiastically explaining all to my Dad, Aunties and nephews. I didn’t actually register that l’d said it until the polite coughs of elderly Aunt interrupted me. They all got it though, so it was worth it. All fully onboard and Gender critical. My Dad was 😳 Sherry was needed !

And the SNP also, since although they're consulting they haven't officially removed their commitment to self ID yet. Basically the Tories are the only party not actively full steam ahead, and even in their case they were sufficiently so at one point that they still need to be questioned.

If any part of the media cared about the issue they would be equally questioning what either of the 2 parties (one of which will be the next government) are doing about self identification, etc.

They should definitely be questioning Labour about this. In their manifesto they say:

Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people

To put this in their manifesto when the results of the consultation haven't been published indicates that they don't have any intention of taking the consultation results into account, which means that they have decided what they intend to do regardless of public opinion.

The audience are all18-30 year olds

BBC QT Election Special is on now. Emma Barnett in the Chair. I wonder if self-ID will come up?

They are accepting Twitter questions for a 'quick fire round'.

Agree stumbled all the party leaders and local candidates should be asked these questions...but Swinson has really made her own bed.

Fabulous article, well done James!

My only quibble was that I think WH redeemed them selves last year with their full week (or more?) on all this.

It’s a debate about law and policy and politics and one that too many people have avoided because of the extraordinary levels of vitriol involved. Because some of the actors are very, very keen to avoid public scrutiny or discussion.

I wonder which 'actors' he is talking about. I would live to know who is behind it all. I suspect James has some idea.

Well I think Swinson is getting the treatment because she's the leader of the party that has enthusiastically embraced self ID. Even Labour have pulled their punches. But I don't disagree with your final paragraph.

The problem is that it isn't making the BBC or anyone else do their job properly.

All we are getting is the media bandwagon, which could be any issue, and this week is let's get Jo Swinson because we know the voters dont like her and give her a good kicking.

If any part of the media cared about the issue they would be equally questioning what either of the 2 parties (one of which will be the next government) are doing about self identification, etc..

This is just about the media doing a bit of click bait and not doing proper journalism.

This is no different than everyone going on about the Lib Dems and student fees as though that was the only bad thing that happened under Tory led coalition. ie deflect away from the real culprits and pick on the hanger on.

And am really concerned that so many of this forum are joining in.

Stop congratulating the media for picking on Swinson and start asking them when they are going to equally question Dawn Butler and Maria Miller (or whoever was still in post when the election was called).

If we dont when either the Labour or Tory Government start ploughing ahead next year on dismantling women's rights you can bet the media wont own up to not challenging them. They will just goback to pumping out PN/Stonewall press releases.

There is a very lovely paragraph in a Brian Cox article I read last night on the BBC site;

Science is a way of looking at the world - it is about seeing how the world is, not through the filter of ideology, but through measured observation.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50681661

Most voters are still largely in the dark on this issue, but with every interview, every broadcast, more of the public will come to see that there are questions about the trans rights agenda which must be asked and which remain unanswered.

Sunlight! Thanks James as ever :)

But I’ve noticed the last couple of times that we interviewed that there are more and more of the former around now

I wonder what departments like yours will look like in 20 years? If academia is colonized by people who don’t do critical thinking, it will become a factory for fanatics

Yes, it is worrying. I am lucky in that I work in a department which can spot lazy-thinking woke tribalism a mile off, and separate those people from serious scholars when we recruit. But I’ve noticed the last couple of times that we interviewed that there are more and more of the former around now.

I do think that there are some very dogmatic people coming into academia now at the junior level, who see their role not as contributing to rigorous research and knowledge but as being political activists within a tribe which sets the rules for their thinking

That is very worrying if that’s the trend for younger hires. But good to hear that there are still intelligent outspoken academics who are not afraid to reference external reality.., what utterly bizarre times we live in.....

Bovary - I’ve only discussed it with four senior people in my humanities department, and all of them are gender critical. These are, incidentally, very politically-aware, left-leaning people, two of them gay. And they are formidably intelligent, much cleverer than I am. I do think that there are some very dogmatic people coming into academia now at the junior level, who see their role not as contributing to rigorous research and knowledge but as being political activists within a tribe which sets the rules for their thinking. By and large these people are in the social sciences and humanities, but there are some in science departments too.

My senior male colleague recently went off on a huge rant in a departmental meeting about how lesbians don’t have a penis. It was glorious (though lots of people looked at the floor and the Chair moved things on swiftly)
GC, is your department quite critical of the lobby? I have the idea that humanities and social sciences are signed up to it but sciences not so much. Is that accurate?

I realise I said "penis" in casual conversation at work when discussing males in women only spaces.

My senior male colleague recently went off on a huge rant in a departmental meeting about how lesbians don’t have a penis. It was glorious (though lots of people looked at the floor and the Chair moved things on swiftly).

they were very much of the 'serves the feminists right" /"who cares" variety. There has recently been a sea change in their tone

Maybe the Maya and Harry cases have made men who haven’t really understood the implications of this now realize that there is an existential threat to freedom of speech?