14th October 'Nolan Investigates' podcast - Stonewall?

Ok so I have got to episode 9. It gets explosive! Ofcom basically censored a presenter on a local radio station saying he felt uncomfortable with his 6 year old daughter changing in an environment where they were segregated based on sex.

And they used that example of censorship to show to Stonewall so that they……could climb up their league table!!!!!

So Ofcom are not using internal HR points to climb up the Stonewall league table. They are using ACTUAL RULINGS.

We are being censored by Ofcom. This is a national scandal.

One of Nolan's tweets states that the intention behind the series of podcasts is to stimulate national discussion.

Do we think this will happen? Discussion of the issues or will it be LOJ'd and the discussion will be about the things that it isn't? From the comments on Twitter it seems to be the latter. E.g., investigating LGBA etc. as a hate group; BBC as a transphobic organisation for authorising and funding this series etc.

I've just got to the bit where someone has said a non-binary or gender-fluid employee might be unhappy with traditional dress codes. Loads of women are unhappy with workplace dress codes but nobody ever cares about that.

One of Magdalen Berns' best:

I've just got to the bit where someone has said a non-binary or gender-fluid employee might be unhappy with traditional dress codes. Loads of women are unhappy with workplace dress codes but nobody ever cares about that. The answer is to abolish sexist dress codes, not to make individuals feel that they have to opt out of reality in order to escape them. I hate this idea that any woman who doesn't identify out of womanhood is somehow happy with the way things are.

Hurcum was wittering on about the necessity for puberty-blockers, and how awful it was to have to" go through the wrong puberty". I would be very interested to know what is the "right puberty" for "bi-gender, gender fluid, genderfuck, two-spirit, pansexual" etc etc etc" - especially when no-one can even DEFINE what these are

Recent publication that considers the ethical case for ongoing suppression of puberty:

Notini L, Earp BD, Gillam L, et alForever young? The ethics of ongoing puberty suppression for non-binary adultsJournal of Medical Ethics 2020;46:743-752.

jme.bmj.com/content/46/11/743.abstract

The commentaries in response are interesting.

Listened to the first few episodes of this and am hooked.
Totally embarassed for the people who like the mayor who is just a mass of contradictions and waffle; the David Bell interview was gripping; the epsode about erasure of the word 'mother' in Scotland maternity services was rage inducing.

I have just discovered that the company I work for is a Stonewall champion and am bitterly disappointed, but it makes sense now why their 'inclusivity survey' started off with asking about gender and identity.

Hurcum was wittering on about the necessity for puberty-blockers, and how awful it was to have to" go through the wrong puberty". I would be very interested to know what is the "right puberty" for "bi-gender, gender fluid, genderfuck, two-spirit, pansexual" etc etc etc" - especially when no-one can even DEFINE what these are.

He also said that the gender-reassignment act "wasn't clear" as it didn't specify that the reassignment had to be surgical/physical, so obviously Stonewall wasn't lying when they said transgender people were a protected group, because of course it could just be "social" gender that is reassigned .

He complained about this lack of clear definition * (as if anyone in their right and could have predicted this sort of bollox arising) and said that government should make it clear (by that he means make it clear that social "reassignment" was included, obviously) - and yet he can't even coherently describe, let alone define his own "gender".

*I have to admit, I do not know exactly how GRA is defined, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't mention surgery and hormones and he is fibbing/unaware. hear how flustered and uncomfortable he is - he speaks so quickly, waffles, blusters - he hasn't got a clue himself what he is talking about.

Yu can

I wonder if there could be a campaign to send this link to all MPs, even if they are not GC they can’t ignore the issue of BBC’s lack of impartiality and use of public money to push an ideological agenda. That is a national scandal.

How do we get this debated in the commons?

@Mrsjamin we all need to share it. I have shared it to people who have no idea about sex and gender. They hear it rumbling but don’t know what is going on. They are genuinely happy to have it explained to them. Then I shared it with my MP and his wife. Then the CEO of the large company I work for. My friends. My family. The parents of my friends. Some colleagues. It is up to US to get this out there and people listening carefully.

Ofcom has a huge case to answer and we need a broad investigation by the Charities Commission.

Only managed to get to episode 4 last night, I will binge the rest over the weekend.
That major guy was ridiculous, it was so cringey almost like a parody of all this nonsense.
It’s quite clear how this issue has so many self indulgent hangers on, who never seem to look outside themselves and believe that their thoughts and beliefs should be of supreme importance to everyone.

I really hope this whole story gets reported far and wide, the BBC and others have a lot serious questions to answer.

Not that I have a clue how this could be done.

People weren’t interested because it didn’t affect them directly, or the ‘couldn’t see the problem’, or ‘be kiiiiind, be kiiiiiiiind!’. They just can’t ignore it now - now that it’s been given three reign and is playing out to the natural conclusions (word women being taken out of literature around pregnancy, childbirth, cervical cancer, menopause...). Listening to the ‘activists’ promoting this really is like seeing that the emperor has no clothes (and is obviously either bonkers or gaslighting for the hell of it).

This is really going down with people I had no idea were even interested.

mulling over episode 2 over night

Nolan makes the point that he knows a few gay people at the BBC, none of whom are members of the LGBTQ+ network. If gay people working there don't bother with it, then who is it for? Gay people who don't agree with the Stonewall line feel unable to use it.

there seems to be this massive, homophobic assumption that all gay people think the same way that is implicit in well meaning people leaping to do Stonewall's bidding in the name of 'LGBTQ+ rights'

Sacreblue bloody hell! The tentacles reach everywhere

I've just finished episode 4 and had to pause at regular points to get through the mayor's monologue. What on earth do even they think they sound like?

This podcast needs a lot more people to listen to it. I did a search on Facebook and only GC Facebook pages are sharing it.

It's now been made available for listeners outside of the UK

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09yjmph/episodes/player

Mayor Owen Hurcum's world salad was so vast it could end world hunger.

BBC Children in Need

Have the BBC been pressurising charities to use Stonewall language as a pre-requisite for receiving funding?

Charities I might add that are trying to run single sex services to females.

Unnerving and good thought. CIN is the BBC's corporate charity so it is feasible.

More on funding:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3534389-LGBT-Foundation-one-of-many-charities-to-jump-on-the-publicly-funded-trans-gravy-chain

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3458395-Looks-like-the-National-Lottery-and-Stonewall-have-picked-a-side-in-the-cotton-ceiling-debate

Sorry that wasn’t clear. I mean that you may be on to something Sacreblue