14th October 'Nolan Investigates' podcast - Stonewall?

Comic Relief is BBC and mention women and girls but always gender

www.comicrelief.com/what-your-money-does/gender

Listening to ep10 now and just had a lightbulb moment.

At least 2 charities in NI told me they had to use ‘gender’ in their literature (including monitoring forms and registration forms) because it was a requirement of their funders

Who is a massive funder for charities?

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.

Females like me who may have chosen to self-exclude on the basis that it’s no longer clear if they are single sex services.

And if they have insisted on Stonewall language, have they also insisted on Stonewall’s version of the law, namely that they can’t exclude males identifying as women?

Effectively running down services for women (if women self exclude who will fill the places? Or even trust charities for women that can’t use the word women?)

O.M.F.G

So given the timing, does anyone else think that the investigation and FOIA requests that went into this series are at least partially responsible for the number of orgs that have pulled out of Stonewall?

Good man, Nolan.

I've binged ep 1-4, saving the rest for the (long) train journey to FiLiA, tomorrow!
I need to sleep, now

Surely by now Jolyon Maugham will have launched a crowd funder to pay him talk about to suing everyone at the BBC in the press?

I await the new committee being set up.

None of then know what any of the words they use means!

If they say 'it means different things to different people' one more time I'll scream.

I've never heard Ruth Hunt speak before. I have read her words but not heard her voice.

Is it just me or is she really quite U?!

Wow, absolutely loving the way you have to wear the right clothes and have the right hair to be seen correctly as how they are. (Queer-coding as mentioned above).

This is disgusting. To deny that you care about physicality while in the same breath saying how essential it is that you look a certain way.

This is doing my head in how people just slip from talking about male/female to masculine/feminine.
What has one got to do with the other? seriously?

In general, the absolute lack of substance behind any of the language. There's just nothing there. There's talking about male and female then the rest of it conveys zero information. None.

Stonewall achieved the end of section 28 and then gay marriage. Then they had to find a new funding stream.

How far would they have to go on trans rights before reaching the same point? And would they actually want to reach that point?

Perhaps their grand plan is to grind biological women (the ordinary kind, none of the fancy identities) so far into the ground that eventually, we become the most marginalised. Stonewall can then sweep in and "rescue" us via some expensive, Ponzi, workplace training schemes.

Ideally you'd need to see the NDAs. When they're properly written they have a defined scope and often from that you can discern something about what they're intended to achieve.

NDAs are used to protect intellectual capital.

I can understand the protection of training material/methodologies. however, the content is the key. These institutions were told by Stonewall to erase the word "mother", "woman" introduce pro noun use etc. I don't care what bullshit, blue sky thinking thought exercise they used to train staff to do this. I want to know the reasoning and evidence they used to persuade these institutes that this was the correct/legal/ethical thing to do, and I want to know who signed off on it.

It made cohens attempt to explain 2 spirit even more bizarre, which really was something

Surely, as two spirit is the uber explainer that makes the whole of gender identity a thing, the CEO of THE gender identity news platform would be able to educate like the CEO he is.

No, apparently he's just heard about it from someone else.

Stonewall achieved the end of section 28 and then gay marriage. Then they had to find a new funding stream.

How far would they have to go on trans rights before reaching the same point? And would they actually want to reach that point?

I think comments can be sent to the BBC complaints page (there is a comments tab) as well as directly to the producers [email protected]

I will be doing both, simply because I'm so bloody grateful someone who works at the BBC knows how to do journalism (Newsnight notwithstanding).

About bloody time.

Here's a twitter search showing what Stephen Nolan is getting in incoming tweets:

twitter.com/search?q=(to%3Astephennolan)%20until%3A2021-10-15&src=typed_query&f=live

Overwhelming in number showing HUGE interest in this work, overwhelming in support of the work, and where tweets express dislike, well, they look like they're coming from unhinged people.

Many journalists are going to be looking on in envy.

The BBC are now reporting on the investigation.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58917227.amp

It surreal that they admit in the article the BBC wouldn’t provide certain pieces of information for the investigation. I suppose they’re getting it all out there so they can say they’ve been upfront, whilst still not preociding the info

The journalist who wrote that article is Thompson from the podcast. I find it significant that they're giving him rein to hammer home how serious this is rather than handing it over to someone who will toe the usual BBC line.
Thank you nauticant, I missed that.

Finally the wheels re starting to come off the Stonewall juggernaut by virtue of good old fashioned journalism. Well done to Thompson and his colleagues for doing what journalists are meant to do - shining a light on abuses of power and corruption wherever it resides.
And well done for their skills in enabling so much self revelation by such skilful questioning.

Episode 4!

Episode 3 has clarified for me that I too can now be special: I'm agender.