Incredibly upsetting piece about the BBC and Savile

Only just seen this - to be clear - I took the lead on helping ITV - their reporter had already seen our material because as an ex-Surrey police officer he was going to comment on it in the planned Savile Newsnight. I didn't know at the time that Liz had also talked to a newspaper journalist about this in late 2011 early 2012

All those trans extremists calling for horrific things to happen to us for daring to say women are female, who relish in threatening violence, rape and death, are they representative of you CatherinaJTV?

Yes they are…fairs fair

And just finally, we seem to have gone from bad apples to rotten barrel here.

If it's a member of the trans community doing or saying something vile, it's a bad apple. And woe anyone who suggests otherwise. If it's a woman who doesn't believe in the doctrine of gender identity who does or says something vile, the whole barrel is rotten. And woe anyone who dares point out the hypocrisy.

Almost no one in the UK had heard of Lily Cade before that article. Radical feminists are highly critical of the porn industry as exploitative and harmful to female performers and hugely damaging to all women and girls in society (and, as it turns out, to many men and boys watching it, too). Lesbian porn may be popular with men who may have heard of Lily Cade before (certainly a lot of male members of the trans community seem to know about her), but most of us don't. So to claim she is representative of the grassroots women's rights movement opposing self-id is laughable. Complete BS.

Not that this needs said, but nothing in her public profile, writing or any other output seems to suggest she's considering herself a feminist, let alone a feminist activist. Of course, the suggestion that the disturbing rants of a former porn actress discredit the whole grassroots women's rights movement opposing self-id is hyperbole just as the claim that anyone who thinks sex is real, immutable and matters is hateful and transphobic is hyperbole.

I'd just like to know if Lily Cade is representative, does this work for us, too? All those trans extremists calling for horrific things to happen to us for daring to say women are female, who relish in threatening violence, rape and death, are they representative of you CatherinaJTV?

you can go to her website and read for yourself - it is a rant about executing trans woman, with the specific names of who she would kill. Don't take my word for it. Please go and read who you are aligning with.

That's such a moronic take. The BBC article on lesbians feeling pressured into having sex with male members of the trans community featured many more victims of sexual abuse than just Lily Cade, who you are referring to here.

The blog you mentioned hadn't been posted on for over two years before that BBC article went live. Since then, Lily Cade has been harassed and targeted for daring to speak about her experience after saying no to sex with a male member of the trans community for one of the porn movies she was in. Yes, she was accused of sexual assault herself a few years ago. As a consequence, she sought to make amends, she got clean and she got out of the porn industry.

She clearly wasn't prepared for the onslaught of abuse she experienced after the BBC article was published. As was clear from the articles she wrote before those unacceptable posts you mention which included a piece saying she wasn't well and struggling with mental health issues.

So is it your considered opinion that the BBC should not have reported on the experiences of dozens of lesbians with coercion and sexual violence from male members of the trans community because one of those women seems to be a person of "ill repute" who is currently exhibiting all the signs of a mental breakdown?

You already objected to that BBC article on various other, spurious grounds, so isn't this a rather desperate attempt to make a story go away you'd rather wasn't talked about? And all that because you think reporting on this abuse brings the whole LGBT community into disrespect for allowing that abuse to happen, just as the BBC opposed that piece on Seville because it too brought a behemoth of supposed integrity and respect - itself - into disrepute.

Neither we nor the BBC are responsible for the fact that a victim of sexual coercion turns out not to be a paragon of virtue, or posts unhinged rants calling for males to be killed after speaking about her experience with males. Even people who aren't nice have a right not to be coerced into sex. Or not to face hostility for setting boundaries around her own body.

And what is this aligning nonsense anyway? This is childish. It won't make the story go away. Although I have seen those in your camp fully engaged in trying to drag all the other victims through the mud, too.

So, for the record: It doesn't matter if victims are not nice people. They still have the same right not to be abused as everyone else. The moral standing of a victim does not turn an assault into a consensual act. That kind of thinking is indeed a throwback to the 1950s and it is no longer acceptable.

If Lily Cade is committing a crime with those blog posts under US laws, she will face the consequences. And that will still not invalidate the BBC article about some male members of the trans community pressuring lesbians for sex and assaulting them when they say no.

Thanks for the link OP, that really was an upsetting piece to read. I hope Liz MacKean will finally receive the credit she deserves for persevering with her investigation to uncover the truth about Saville.

And whoever posted that Jackie Long article, thank you. That just rounds out the picture, the story of Liz as a person and brilliant journalist beautifully.

female exclusionary raging misogynists - FERM's

the whole moral purity thing is exclusively standards to be applied only to female humans

seems pretty exclusionary

The red sign that incites murder of Joanne Rowling was held up at a protest by Sarah Jane Baker, who was released from prison in 2019 after serving 30 years in prison for the kidnap and torture of a family member (stepmother’s brother), followed by the attempted murder of another prisoner.

I feel I've really had enough of this tedious whataboutery. Absolutely enough.

This is what people who are pro-trans activists are aligning with and there is a hell of a lot of it!

Whatever LC has written, you are not on the moral high ground here.

The most disgusting thing about Savile and the Beeb is that everybody knew what Savile was like. Private Eye used to write about it. Viz used to have comic strips about it. When the internet came along it was all over the internet too.

The Beeb protected him because he was a cash cow.

If there is a parallel with trans extremism to be drawn, it's not with the cotton ceiling piece at all, which was a timely and important piece of journalism. It's with the child abuse that is going on NOW with teenagers being given mastectomies and children being sterilised and having their brain and bone development halted. Everyone knows it's wrong but most people keep quiet because of the huge amounts of money it's making for surgeons, trans 'friendly' therapists and so-called activists.

Impure! Impure not unpure! Bloody hell, menopause is making me illiterate.

Anyway, women down the ages have always been subject to the purity test in one way or other. Anyone less pure than the Virgin Mary is not to be trusted, believed or given their full humanity.

I asked that yesterday. I haven't had an answer yet.

But no, I suspect the whole moral purity thing is exclusively standards to be applied only to female humans who have not identified out of being known as such.

Someone mentioned the Magdalen Laundries above where the impure sinners could be locked up, beaten, starved and known only by numbers for decades for having had sex or a baby out of wedlock. Forever damned and excluded from human rights by the Catholic church. What with the burn the witch and transubstantiation and sins that can never be forgiven and .... these politics are all a bit grimly familiar really.

So, while we have a poster moralizing on whether a victim of rape or sexual assault is ‘pure’ enough to believe, to be allowed to speak about it even if it harms the person or persons who attacked her, did that same poster denounce all abuse from transitioned males towards females one by one? Singling out the attackers? Or even those who nailed a dead rat to a rape centre door?

Or is it just women speaking out against it that they have an issue with?

I wish someone would photoshop a picture of Saville wearing a T-shirt with the Amnesty International slogan “I am who I say I am”, to highlight how sinister it is.

Brilliant. I couldn’t believe Amnesty was gaslighting women at the Filia conference with that abusers’ motto.

Because they did not check the background of their "informants" for this piece, despite the long prep time for it...

I presume the elipsis indicates your own embarrassment as you read back what you were typing and realised you were posting victim-blaming nonsense on the Feminism section of a forum. Why not retain some dignity and simply refrain from it?

Let me be very clear. If someone was raped, I do not care what they were wearing, I do not care about their political affiliation, I do not care about their sexual history, I do not care what they write in their diary.

And I certainly do not care what they blogged before or after. Although I will note that if I saw anyone trying to discredit a victim of sexual abuse as somehow deserving of abuse retrospectively, based on their blogging after being abused, I would find that especially heinous.

The Rotherham victims were dismissed as not credible - working class "tarts" who drank and took drugs. Unpure.

The Magdalen laundry victims were dismissed as not credible - fallen, unholy women having babies out of wedlock. Unpure.

What about the trans women sex workers murdered in Brazil. Do you dismiss their victimhood because they are prostitutes. Unpure?

What the hell does that mean? This is disgusting. Do we need to check the background of rape victims to see whether or not they are pure enough not to be raped???

From this and other threads, it does seem that we are well and truly back to 'purity' of victims before they are worth listening to.

@CatherinaJTV... I find it very bizarre that you are talking about 'background checks on "informants" quoted in an article' when this thread is all about the absolute horror that hundreds of women who were raped and abused over a period of decades were not heard or given a chance to be heard because they did not reach the bar set by men as to whether their story was credible.

As a result of institutional failure within the BBC, care homes and numerous NHS hospitals, this sexual abuse was allowed to continue because the 'witnesses' or informants were not 'credible'.

The facts have been investigated and there is NO DOUBT that JS was the perpetrator of hundreds of serious crimes that significantly affected the lives of hundreds of people. We will never know the full extent of this but we do know that many people were unwilling to put the lives of those women, girls and boys before the depraved sexual needs of a powerful man.

Because they did not check the background of their "informants" for this piece, despite the long prep time for it...

What the hell does that mean? This is disgusting. Do we need to check the background of rape victims to see whether or not they are pure enough not to be raped???

Ugh. Still, I have to say, after all the other things that have been reported, talked about, discussed, this one, single, BBC article, has brought everyone out of the woodwork.

Good for them. It's absolutely kryptonite.

And about all those prominent transitioned males saying absolutely deplorable things about females...and those trying to discredit lesbians who have spoken bravely despite such outrageous adversity, are you so very comfortable with who YOU are aligning your beliefs with?

Really?

If you and others applied that logic to the women who spoke out about Saville, what do you think would have happened when it was finally proved that he was guilty.