BBC EHRC leaves stonewall scheme front page news

We had to do it when Penelope Leach was targeted by MRAs a few years ago. I didn’t realise there were organised cleanups these days.

wikipedia has long been, like more of the internet, a male domain.

That is why on occassions there are days dedicated to women trying to correct blatant falsehoods, usually about feminism, and distortions. And indeed try and match the number of entries about men, with entries about women.

However it is a bit of a free for all, where the dominant group (men) are able to quickly reverse any attempt made to create a more balanced entry. And being completely satisfied that if they dont know about something they will delete, or get deleted, more pro woman entries.

As far as I know anyone can sign up to make entries additions to wikipedia, but be prepared to have to be endlessly vigilent and face a very topsy turvy view of when something is valid.

In fact there are regular "editathon" held by women in various professions, historians, etc., to try and redress the balance.

Wikipedia claims unbiased neutrality and reliable sources (so definitely not Pink News!).

Just because a biased Trans Rights Activist has posted doesn’t mean we have to let it stand.
I’m glad to see someone has now rectified this.

Being discussed on Politics Live just now

The way this is worded is highly questionable and the framing of GC beliefs as anti-trans is a concern. The ‘anti trans’ is hyperlinked to the ‘transphobia’ wiki page. Does anyone do Wikipedia and know what they are doing to try and edit this?

It's actually rare for criticism of gender identity ideology to be framed as anything that isn't termed as "anti-trans" Undersnatch. As far as Wikipedia shenanigans are concerns, since the voluntary editor group is overrun with trans activists, you can fairly assume they'll seize any opportunity to paint their opponents as transphobes.

I remember a journalist friend of mine complaining that he'll submit an article in which things are "said" and the subs, in a desire to storify it, to build a narrative to draw in the reader, will often replace "said" with "replied", "responded" etc thus creating casual links that were not in the original article and didn't actually happen.

In April 2021 XXX happened
Following this XXX in March 2021

I think she's a bit of an idiot but yes I agree she has a difficult line to walk at the BBC.

Yes it’s horrible isn’t it about someone giving the time of day to the idea that self describing as lesbian and homosexual means using words constituting ‘microaggression’, and that this is problematic.
If people have that reaction then they need proper mental health support. The response shouldn’t be to imply it would better to be taking away people’s own language for themselves, the obliteration of commonly used language terms that are a key aspect of other peoples’ lives.

That much seems obvious when you’re outside the bubble, but clearly in trying to ‘please everyone’ this journalist has been set an impossible task by the BBC. I hope she gets good support in the role but you’d think they’d be robust about saying to their journalists that they can please everyone and this is absolutely OK and normal part of reporting that you won’t.
But also this might just be my reading of it, but what sounds like the assumption underlying this that if only other cultures were more ‘savvy’ then they might avoiding giving out these ‘microagressions’, (which would be pleasing western people and therefore would be a good thing?). That is just so wildly inappropriate.

All of this is what I mean about the BBC seemingly not having thought their own editorial position through carefully enough or coherently enough when it comes to the actual politics of how to report on women as a sex, gender as stereotypes, gender identity as a belief system, sexuality including same- sex attraction. It’s a self-contradictory mess and seems highly exposing to the individual journalists trying to report in that confused context.

The Press Gazette link has more details about the ‘gender’ (ie SEX) pay gap. If you look at the related stories tabs under the story I linked to there are a few examples of their coverage. The ending of the story I linked has a quote I didn’t paste in from BBC’s spokesperson saying gender pay gap is 7% which they said is better than other broadcasters - if you look on the press Gazette links to other stories channel 4’s is or was 28% (!) links to other stories also show that research shows gender pay gap increased at a third of news companies.. the Economist is the worst offender.

‘Makes me wonder - is the sex pay gap bigger or smaller than the gender pay gap at the BBC - would be very interesting to know.‘

That is SUCH a good question!

Seems a good thing to increase awareness. Has just left me down a rabbit hole of reading about the EHRC. The wiki page is an interesting read but note this paragraph at the end:

In April 2021, the EHRC weighed in on the legal appeal in the case of Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development, arguing that anti-trans "gender critical" beliefs and actions were protected under the 2010 Equality Act and that the CGD's decision not to renew Forstater's contract over such actions amounted to illegal discrimination.[72] This led to criticism of the EHRC from LGBT rights organisations such as Stonewall. Following this, the EHRC announced that it was leaving Stonewall's Diversity Champions scheme in March 2021.[73]

The way this is worded is highly questionable and the framing of GC beliefs as anti-trans is a concern. The ‘anti trans’ is hyperlinked to the ‘transphobia’ wiki page. Does anyone do Wikipedia and know what they are doing to try and edit this?

she uses the term homosexual or lesbian because it doesn’t matter to her as much as the woman sitting in London who is much more savvy to all these terms as a micro aggression

I doubt it would be perceived as a "microaggression" if the "lesbian" was male

Does that quote actually say that the term ‘lesbian’ is a microaggression?

I apologise for existing

"‘The BBC denied reports that the creation of the gender and identity reporter related in any way to its ongoing gender pay gap and equal pay issues."

Makes me wonder - is the sex pay gap bigger or smaller than the gender pay gap at the BBC - would be very interesting to know.

‘...when you speak to a woman in Burundi and she uses the term homosexual or lesbian because it doesn’t matter to her as much as the woman sitting in London who is much more savvy to all these terms as a micro aggression

What?! Speaking as a woman sitting in London, what terms am I supposed to use?

BBC still as far as we know has a gender and identity correspondent since 2018

Sample quote from the G&I Correspondent describing standard descriptive sex based terms for sexuality as ‘micro aggressions’ (!)

‘...when you speak to a woman in Burundi and she uses the term homosexual or lesbian because it doesn’t matter to her as much as the woman sitting in London who is much more savvy to all these terms as a micro aggression, you have to reflect that in the reporting by using her language. Language that someone in the West who discusses gender and identity in a very academic way may find problematic. That is really hard because you want to please everyone when you’re doing stories about the underrepresented.’

society.ipsos-mori.com/reporting-identity-an-interview-with-megha-mohan/

Her day in the life interview
www.journoresources.org.uk/megha-mohan-the-bbcs-gender-and-identity-correspondent/

I have no criticism of Megha Mohan personally, jobs a job in journalism and I can imagine it’s really horrible, frankly, working as a woman and as a woman from an ethnic minority at the BBC world service. In this specific Gender and Identity role the cognitive dissonance when you travel around the world meeting women in difficult circumstances for sex-based reasons and as a woman with personal experience of sexism and (I’d imagine from other journalists’ anecdotal experiences but don’t want to presume individually) racism- it must be very hard to handle.

I think like Hunte’s role they've been given a brief which shows the BBC’s complete confusion around this whole area- or maybe like the rest of society, the BBC is made up of gender believers and gender critical people and people who’ve never thought about this and the BBC haven’t taken the time to make a clear policy. Which is not good enough.

Just look how the Press Gazette reporting describes the creation of the new role which shows the BBC’s absolute confusion around sex and gender. According to the Ipsos Mori article, the Gender and Identity role was was ‘designed to allow in-depth, specialist reporting around areas such as faith, ethnicity, sexuality, and LGBT+ experiences across the globe.’ So nothing to do with women as a sex but everything to do with gender identity. And to do this in a global context shows a massive imposition of a highly privileged individualist specific political lens on to the objective reporting required of the role.

If you look at the Press Gazette reporting of it : www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-world-service-appoints-first-specialist-gender-and-identity-reporter/

‘The BBC has appointed its first gender and identity reporter as part of its recent expansion of the World Service. Mohan, who is currently a senior journalist with BBC Stories, will join a specialist unit within BBC World Service in September and look in-depth at issues including LGBT+ experiences, faith and ethnicity. A BBC spokesperson said: “The specialist role will cover stories about gender and identity which could be around people’s faith, ethnicity, sexuality and LGBT+ experiences across the globe.’

‘“We know that gender and identity issues are of great interest, particularly to our younger audiences around the world, and this role will be dedicated to reporting on them. “The role will be part of a specialist unit within the BBC World Service making leading investigative, exploratory journalism that contextualises the themes and issues behind news stories and presents them in exciting ways for our global audience to interact with.”’

‘Announcing her appointment on Twitter, Mohan said she was “thrilled” to take on the role and thanked the “brilliant women” journalists who provided her with support during the application process.
She has previously written stories which may come under the gender and identity brief, including about her personal experience of being unable to mourn her grandmother in a Hindu temple with the rest of her family because she was forbidden to do so while she was on her period.
Mohan is also a co-founder of The Second Source, a scheme set up by female journalists to match young women with more experienced mentors and help them in the early years of their media careers.’

‘The BBC denied reports that the creation of the gender and identity reporter related in any way to its ongoing gender pay gap and equal pay issues. The corporation’s 12 highest stars are all men, according to the BBC’s annual report released earlier this month.
It came soon after former BBC China editor Carrie Gracie secured an apology from the corporation in which it admitted she had been underpaid compared to other male international editors.’

Disclaimer: Personally I love and value the BBC as a vital cultural institution and news source, obviously it’s not perfect. It has some serious flaws but long may it continue to be funded by the licence payer because the commercial alternatives for quality and balance of programming are MUCH, MUCH worse. I know we would be out of the frying pan into the fire.

BUT that whole set of messages as quoted above underlines to me how beleaguered, confused, and regressive disguised as progressive the current BBC top brass are. So I have every sympathy for the journalists trying to tread an impossible and shifting line in their beat. Also I really can’t imagine how a global audience for BBC reporting will feel that their experiences are being reflected back to them when the whole emphasis is always on ‘gender’ and not ‘sex’.

There isn’t a BBC women’s correspondent, is there?

This is how the Telegraph has reported it (not front page!)
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/23/equalities-watchdog-pulls-stonewall-diversity-scheme-amid-row/

Ben got promotion or moved sideways .. I think he was becoming problematic for the BBC in that role. The chap who wrote this article is a good egg, he's been following this stuff quietly and sensibly on twitter for ages.

I notice this hasn't been written by their lgbtqiaaaa correspondent Ben

Liz Truss recommended Baroness Falkner and then the other MPs on the committee put questions to her, I think.