Piers Morgan with Lisa Nandy on Good Morning Britain

I actually felt quite sorry for Lisa Nandy (yes I am a numpty) because I watched as the other two men and two women left her to PM's relentless questioning.

It felt like bullying almost because she was incapable of answering him, and he knew it. If she said yes, put the toughest ever male boxer in the ring with a woman she would look like a cruel, callous, ridiculous person, but if she said actually don't do that because he's male she would be letting down some 'side' which she was supporting.

In another venue Nandy said she was supporting a young girl going through the gender recognition act. Nandy said that young person would not hear anything from her that would give her any idea that she has anything other than her complete and utter compassion and support.

So I think her care for one person and her fear of being labelled 'transphobic' has left her in a very cold place where she has to pretend there isn't a really logical and simple reply for why males should not be competing against females.

I admire her for caring for one person but as a potential leader of a party she needs to see the bigger picture, and she simply does not, IMHO.

My only uncertainty here is whether she really does know why males should not be competing against females.

They didn’t only see the edited twitter version did they?

Possibly, I dunno to be honest.

I don’t think it’s confirmation bias, or not from a trans ally perspective anyway, as this friend hasn’t said a great deal on that topic either way. I think it could just be a result of a general piersphobia, and her being a labour voter of decades standing, actually. She’s Predisposed to think he’s a twat (and I get that, he might be right on this, but he is a twat), and labour are great (she loves LOJ and Corbyn).

People today though also have access to viewpoints/evidence from other countries/perspectives & are better able to witness the bias of constructed narratives in a way previous generations would not.

It seems like that should be true, but in my experience it isn't. Or - maybe it is that they conclude all the narratives are false and that leaves them open to believing all kinds of bonkers stuff?

Is it really possible to watch that clip and believe that? And conclude that Piers is at fault and not that a person standing for high political office ought to be able to handle a bully? I’m quite boggled.

Confirmation bias is very powerful.

If you believe in 100 genders, you are out of touch with reality. So yeah, someone like that could watch the interview and think Nandy killed it.

They didn’t only see the edited twitter version did they?

A friend posted on Facebook that Lisa rocked this, and Piers is a frightful bully.

Is it really possible to watch that clip and believe that? And conclude that Piers is at fault and not that a person standing for high political office ought to be able to handle a bully? I’m quite boggled.

You forgot "My starting point is transwomen are women"...

gosh can you imagine Lisa Nandy playing taboo... describe trans rights without saying...

Problematic
Less heat more light
Strawman
There’s a child in my constituency
I’ve worked in women’s refuges
Set up a commission
Assigned at birth

It doesn't help when we have expensively educated private school and Oxford PMs who say the USA is "Our Oldest Ally," the absolute exact reverse is the case, and that the USA "saved us in 1940" as Cameron with his First in PPE thinks.

I wish Susanna Reid would do it. More powerful if it came from her.
Too many reasons to mix PM's arguments with his weird Meghan Markle obsession and other odd things he says.

I saw some of that. Much as I dislike Piers Morgan, he was right to ask questions. I'd never heard of Lisa Nandy before but she did squirm and I agree she couldn't give a straight answer.

It was unbelievable to watch

andy Absolutely
The ongoing failure to recognise the power & nature of propaganda is dangerous. Same as always.

The vast majority of people in the UK/US etc still have little knowledge of Russia's Great Patriotic War (also known as WWII) regardless whether they've read books or watched films.

R0wantrees

When I was at secondary school in the early seventies, we were forced to listen to a very different version of history about the slaughter of the indigenous people of North America. We were told that they were violent savages who didn't believe in God. We didn't learn anything about slavery, the long, murderous trips by ship across the Atlantic from Africa, the cotton plantations etc.
I fear that today's children are being fed another dose of extreme propaganda.

There are many significant impacts from the way education has been delivered differently. I would argue that the amount that people (of all generations) read & the nature of the texts they rely on is particularly relevent.
People today though also have access to viewpoints/evidence from other countries/perspectives & are better able to witness the bias of constructed narratives in a way previous generations would not.

History told to children has always had a 'strong narrative bias'.

Yes, however we are talking about young adults, and films are not typically as transparent as texts, if for no other reason than they are processed differently in the brain.

You can speak to university graduates now who have no concept of how historians actually work, or basic outlines of history, and they especially are unaware that people could think about things from an entirely different perspective.

History told to children has always had a 'strong narrative bias'.
History textbooks & syllabi are a fascinating insight into the times they were published.

Obviously they should be prepared to question everyone. But they, more or less, have lost their critical faculties when it comes to this subject.

My point really is that PM is what he is. He knows what makes good television. He has identified that here is a subject where their is a large gap between politicians and voters, and is having fun exposing the humbug.

No point saying what PM should do. He does what he does.

The focus should be on politicians like Nandy who have no arguments. And then on why none of the more specialist broadcast interviewers are not addressing the subject with proper, balanced and researched interviews.

There have been films and children's tv shows for years on the theme of "everyone should be accepted for who they are and live how they want". I'd go so far as to say it is the dominant theme on children's television.

Most young people now are also extremely ignorant about history, their perspectives are often informed mostly by film versions of events which usually have a strong narrative bias.

The BBC ought to be able to offer good, researched and questioning interviews, that properly probe any hypocrisy. That is their remit. It does Nandy et al no favours to fawn over them or allow them soft questions or to divert.

The BBC should also be asking the same questions of representatives of the Conservative government given that so many 'sex self id' policies have been implemented whilst they have been in power.

Morgan also seems oblivious to the background to these sporting 'self-id' policies & would do well to understand the history of UK transactivism:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

It should not just be PM carrying the baton. The BBC ought to be able to offer good, researched and questioning interviews, that properly probe any hypocrisy. That is their remit. It does Nandy et al no favours to fawn over them or allow them soft questions or to divert. Not least because when they do come across someone who is doing his/her job they end up looking like wallies.

Agreed, R0.

Yes, while Piers Morgan is a straightforward sexist in some ways, and an arrogant egotist, he's very, very good at his job, and the reason is because he has an instinct for the winds of public opinion and knows how to leverage it. His design in this will undoubtedly have himself and his career at the centre, but why should that matter?

It would be good if Morgan were encouraged to interview & platform women who know more about this than he does & have been campaigning against unfair policies which impact women's sport
Maybe interview Dr Emma Hilton?