Woman's Hour now: BBC walking away from Stonewall

The BBC. Where there was a target to REDUCE LGBT representation in the work place at the same time as Stonewall goes nuts and seems to have far too much influence (which apparently doesn't influence despite paying to train staff to be influenced).

Fascinating.

The most oppressed seem to have a disportionate amount of power in the media compared to the country as a whole (and women are unrepresented).

ABitOfALark
Yes! I remember someone muttering darkly about ‘Never Upset Nations & Regions’ or there’d be hell to pay! Perhaps there has been a division, or a bloody internal clash of arms, eep.
And perhaps they weren’t in EP, but prowled elsewhere, terrifying from afar. I wasn’t in that office for long, so might be recalling it wrongly. But N&R had serious clout.

The BBC senior management are in the position of checking their luggage onto a flight knowing their suitcase was packed by this dodgy bloke their mate told them was OK.

I love that analogy! And there will be plenty more companies, organisations (and schools!) in exactly the same position as Stonewall's protection racket training and accreditation scheme continues to unravel.

EB: "Stonewall have said pulling out of the scheme means LGBTQ+ people suffer. What have you got to say to the 2% of the staff of the BBC who identify as trans."

www.stonewall.org.uk/truth-about-trans
The best estimate at the moment is that around 1% of the population might identify as trans, including people who identify as non-binary. That would mean about 600,000 trans and non-binary people in Britain, out of a population of over 60 million.

Why are trans people so over represented at the BBC?

And at whose expense?

We KNOW that the BBC is massively over represented by males, gay men and the privately educated.

So which groups are being massively under represented.

If identity is such a big thing, perhaps we should be having difficult conversations about working class lesbians for example...

(strangely enough, I think there are a few gender critical ones I can think of who have been actively deplatformed by various lobbists....)

If anyone is in the Facebook group 'Radio 4. It's not just for the Middle Aged v2.0' then there's an interesting discussion about this at the moment.

Interesting how he couldn't answer questions on the fly live on the airwaves on these difficult and contentious issues, but that's what the Beeb's journalists have been doing. He needs an editorial policy to be thrashed out before he can comment. So what framework have the journalists been using up til now?

It is a poor bluff when the implications of what he said are that there was a policy (which aligned with the Stonewall ideology) but now there isn't so he can't say anything.

Or did I misunderstand?

I'm actually looking forward to Anita Rani's show tomorrow. She's full-on TWAW - it could be interesting. I stopped listening on Fridays after she tweeted this.

After all, it's possible she's wised up too - EB was a bit TWAW at first. I do find myself wondering - was EB toeing the BBC line of the time, was she a secret terf, of was she TWAW until this gig has exposed her to what's going on?

No shame, no shame at all.
Anyone else think he was doing classic male on female dominance? At the beginning he kept referring to her name Emma.... It sounded so belittling and patronising to me. He stopped this about halfway through when she started hitting back at him. I also thought he became very nervous. Stuck too the same old mumbo jumbo there. I'd be surprised off the BBC changes much as the gulf is vast...Well done Emma

Yeow! Amazing. That pause…

OMG the 'pregnant people' exchange, the interviewee is so defensive and prattling about 'hypothetical' when it's clearly not

(Wasn't there a recent BBC segment where a female GP was pregnant people-ing?)

And this. Where is the data that Stonewall membership improves working conditions for staff?

It’s like QA systems. They don’t necessarily improve quality (garbage in / garbage out) but it makes it look like you’ve done something, you’ve generated a lot of paperwork and ticked a lot of boxes, and someone’s got a well paid job out of it.

If you think about other things we learn, like driving, say, you don't expect to be paying for and receiving ongoing training every year, do you? You put what you earned first time round into practice and get on with it!

If you mess up you get sent back for a refresher, but your whole organisation doesn't have to sit in and pay for it.

Unless what you're learning is such nonsense on stilts that the content keeps shifting and growing, of course, meaning what you learned last year at great expense is now completely wrong and highly offensive ...

I’m listening on catch-up now. I rolled my eyes at the BBC exec’s claim that Stonewall have expertise in creating a fully inclusive workplace. For biological makes with no religion maybe, but not for women or those with religious belief which means they cannot use “gender neutral” (mixed sex) spaces. Not for neurodiverse employees who struggle with imposed pronouns and compelled speech. Definitely not inclusive for everyone.

When I did jobs at the BBC, a while back, the post was ‘Nations and Regions’ and the bod in charge was one of several people who sat in the Editorial Policy office. What happened to Regions… !

I've listened this afternoon - an excellent interview by Emma. My flabber is truly gasted, however, by the BBC chap implying that stating that only biological women can get pregnant is part of a highly sensitive and complex debate rather than a fact.

EB: "Shall I give you examples from the Nolan podcast?