14th October 'Nolan Investigates' podcast - Stonewall?

I've only listened to a bit of ep 4 and had to stop because the sheer idiocy of Owen was just depressing. Apparently 'man' and 'woman' and 'male' and 'female' no longer mean anything as you can't tell someone's chromosomes, and yet Owen is adamant that they definitely aren't a man or a woman.
This theme repeats again and again. TRAs desperately stripping language of any meaning so that words become simply an arrangement of letters, and yet they still feel so passionately about those words, which ones they disavow and which ones they claim.
Also the fucking gall of a male person saying sex isn't important. Sure, mate. You're part of the sex that commits 98% of sex crimes and 96% of worldwide murders. You'll never have a period, a smear test, or give birth to a child. But sex isn't important. Arrogant, ignorant little toerag.

I thought that it was extremely hyperbolic and spent time fannying around with "gotchas" (should LGBT people be represented by non-LGBT allies?)

I think the point of this, which it took them a while to spell out, was that Stonewall themselves no longer endorsed that position. However the BBC, having once been told about allies being better by Stonewall, didn't stop to question how offensive that was because it was treating Stonewall advice as gospel instead of thinking for themselves.

everythingcrossed I think this is an established podcast that covers lots of different topics and has an existing fanbase, so the in-jokes between the presenters is part of their dynamic and presumably one of the things their regular listeners enjoy. A podcast is very different in tone and format to a documentary, which is partly why they can expose so much, so effectively.

(I'm just starting Episode 4 with the delightful "I don't know my chromosomes" Owen, but feel they could have got as far as Benjamin Cohen saying 'I'm no expert" and dropped the mic on a useful piece of work.)

Ben Cohen is a terrible communicator. In episode 6 he's asked a simple question and responds by meandering through a couple of anecdotes without seeming to answer the question. Hard to understand what he's saying. Same with Horcum. So many words, so little sense.

I'll stick with it and see if it gets any better but, based on what I have listened to, I don't think it will change anyone's mind.

They launched their investigation and during it, while trying to avoid responding to FOI requests and trying to run away in other ways, the BBC appear to have decided to move away from Stonewall.

Nolan comes across as a bit of an arse and apparently unsophisticated and uncouth. This scandal won't be exposed by people who present and behave nicely.

I've listened to them all now. I do hope it gets a vast audience. I've also emailed them to thank them for making it.

What is Hurcum expecting to be protected though? Not being a man or a woman? Protected from what?

It's a non existent problem.

Sorry to be an agnostic about this podcast - I've listened to the first two episodes and, while I consider myself GC, I thought that it was extremely hyperbolic and spent time fannying around with "gotchas" (should LGBT people be represented by non-LGBT allies?) rather than spelling out the issues at hand. It also keeps bigging up the presenter, rather than just getting on with the meat of the situation. I'll stick with it and see if it gets any better but, based on what I have listened to, I don't think it will change anyone's mind.

It's time for people to realise that many of these stated facts are preferred and alternative versions as opposed to the actual truth. As with the suicide statistics: the answer has to be where. From what. When. Published where. What about this evidence.

Absolutely this. Their allies just keep on quoting this ad infinitum.

www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/bangor-mayor-offers-pay-mans-21350032

Hurcum doesn't seem to be able to see this from the point of view of the people who this man was approaching and asking for money.

In the hearing at Caernarfon Magistrates Court, prosecutor Nicola Williams said Marks & Spencer staff reported that a man would sit outside the shop drinking alcohol and that elderly customers were "fearful" of him when he asked them for change.

Hurcum is sympathetic to the man who is asking elderly women for money, but not to those women who might be terrified when a drunk man approaches them and asks for money.

And Hurcum thinks we can't tell what sex Hurcum is because of Hurcum's brightly coloured hair.

Bell is bliddy fantastic, isn't he?

So clear, honest and open; unfailingly courteous; very fair and balanced; admits where there are areas he may not know everything about; emphasises the need to wait-and-see because a) most children ultimately become content with their birth sex, and b) (important) pushing the trans agenda means that the underlying problems a child is experiencing (and in his profession view, based on his experience in the field, there is INVARIABLY an underlying problem) - these problems are not addressed. Ever. They are swept under the 'trans" carpet and will remain and continue to psychologically affect that child.

I'm a little bit in love.

Great description, @SchadenfreudePersonified . And me too.

Thank you for the reminder for Dysphoric @NecessaryScene, I think I meant to watch that after seeing the - I think Indian - film maker interviewed by one of the GC orgs, and talking about her cancellation.

I managed to get to the halfway point before I ran out of time last night so 6 is queued up ready. I can't wait to go back to listening.

I'm on episode 6. I am absolutely agog. This podcast is aflame!

Sonia is Onit:

twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1448400451397898242?s=21

I've listened all the way through to episode 4 at which point I had to stop at the sheer tediousness of Owen Hurcum who genuinely seems to think no-one can guess at the sex they was observed to be at birth...

Absolutely agree Artichokeleaves

Whatever else comes out of this, I hope that the BBC and other organisations in positions of authority and power start to ask proper, targeted questions and demand EVIDENCE.

They have been shown up as dupes and credulous fools. They need to acknowledge their failings and prove that they are capable and willing to raise their standards.

I couldn't make any sense out of what they were saying.

They just sounded horribly confused and utterly certain.

They couldn't actually define their own sexuality I thought. Desperate to make it sound so much more interesting than ot was whilst simultaneously ignoring the actual question

Listening to Hurcum explaining the way they feel about themself and the people to whom they were attracted, it seemed to me that what was being described was basically the state of being human. Did anyone else find that?

People who are adherents of this school of thought should not be able to get into positions of responsibility which require duty of care, impartiality and an ability to face and deal with all the objective facts, even the ones they dislike or which threaten their view points.

The problem is that when you're talking to someone already convinced that reality can be an alternative one based on preferred facts while mentally deleting the convenient, contradicting bits of evidence you don't like - why expect them to be able to show a full and balanced view of reality on any other point?

You cannot convince someone who believes this is an appropriate way to go on in society. What you can do is repeatedly demonstrate: this person is saying this in flat out mental denial of all this evidence because they want to believe x.

It's time for people to realise that many of these stated facts are preferred and alternative versions as opposed to the actual truth. As with the suicide statistics: the answer has to be where. From what. When. Published where. What about this evidence.

And demonstrate: you cannot base law or practice that involves compelling people to rearrange their personal reality and deny evidence to create the preferred illusion for someone else.

Is I am Leo covered?

www.transgendertrend.com/uk-cbbc-childrens-tv-i-am-leo/

I note the date it was first aired and then the date that referrals to Tavi of teen girls exploded.

Also given that Dr Marci Bowers has admitted that social media / media may well have an impact.

abigailshrier.substack.com/p/why-marci-matters

Hurcum only cares about Hurcum's special non-binary self.

Yep I am a bit disappointed that owen wasn't asked why internal subjective thoughts about ones own gender should be held in law as more important than objective facts (sex)

Oooof this is really going for the jugular!

The genderbread person 😆

Jfc this has been bonkers.

Do the people who say that really believe it (maybe because they want it to be true) or do they really just not care about the women and children who have been - and will continue to be - affected?

Hurcum has never shown any evidence that Hurcum cares about women and children being harmed by this. I first heard about Hurcum during the Senedd election earlier this year when Hurcum harassed Helen Mary Jones (then a Plaid Cymru MS) with accusations of transphobia. (One of her 'crimes' was speaking at a WPUK meeting.)

Hurcum only cares about Hurcum's special non-binary self.