Another reason why the BBC tread so lightly?

The BBC were captured in the sense that those defining how the BBC handled gender identity ideology made a show of being true believers. There were plenty of non-believers but either their voices were marginalised or they knew that they'd best keep silent if they wanted to not damage their careers.

But things do seem to be changing, and non-believers are speaking out a bit and do have some tiny platforms. Take the past week, on Thursday, Fags, Mags and Bags made a number of pointedly satircal pokes at identity politics and then late on there was a new 11pm comedy programme called Unsafe Space that is not on board with the ideology. There is also some skepticism coming from News although, ironically, that fact-based organisation that is supposed to support courage in uncovering that which is hidden, does still seem to be highly captured.

I believe that this is a well known issue - parents in a senior position with a "trans child" and then everyone self silencing and feeling intimidated about speaking up when the women's changing rooms / toilets are converted to mixed sex and the words women and mother are removed from maternity policies etc. And in the BBC, the determination of an internal self appointed lobby demanding influence over editorial policy and decisions and voila - women & countless other protected groups are deprioritised.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4715957-bbc-ongoing-impartiality-regarding-gender-identity-ideology

Don't lets forget exposure of the toxic influence Stonewall had on the BBC:

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p09yk3vq

The BBC do seem geared towards promoting the 'trans child' narrative, including the drama 'Just a Girl', made with Susie Green and Mermaids involvement that ran for several series in the Woman's Hour radio drama slot.

But I can't help thinking - this is a long-standing, well-loved journalist. Is this one of the reasons BBC editors have been quite so blind to the realities of trans ideology?

Sorry but this is just silly, and it actually makes me laugh to think anyone can editorially control every single news editor across one of the largest news organisations in the world?

No, news editors/reporters are not in any way influenced by the fact that one solitary journalist within an entire organisation has a trans child, it’s really quite an insane suggestion. Most probably also have no idea this is even the case.

So trans people and their families are lovely when you get to know them and it makes people not want to be mean to them? How dreadful. And I won't even bother with the hilarious idea that the BBC are ever kind about trans people.

I've been following a certain cute-adopted-dog-from-abroad story featuring a BBC journalist. It appears the journalist has a trans-identified son. The story is absolutely heart warming, and the family seem completely lovely.dopted-dog-from-abroad story featuring a BBC journalist. It appears the journalist has a trans-identified son. The story is absolutely heart warming, and the family seem completely lovely

Ahhhh. So I’m probably going to explain this badly but, I know about this bit, I didn’t know about the other bit you’re alluding to but there’s every chance there might be
parallels with regard to attitude.

I, and my DDs, are all involved heavily in animal rescue and volunteering and have been for years. My personal area of knowledge is dogs. I am experienced in training and specifically the behaviour of rescue dogs and their often complex needs. I’m a member and associate and fundraiser for more than one UK based dog rescue. Whilst I recognise that there are humanitarian reasons for wanting to rescue dogs from all over the globe, and I don’t disagree with those reasons, there are literally thousands of dogs in the UK that need homes. Thousands. They need the right home, not any home. The amount of people that claim that they tried soooo hard to get a dog but they just couldn’t so they had no choice but to import one, not their fault, the rescues fault, is large. They aren’t interested in the fact that the people gatekeeping are totally dedicated to the welfare of the dog and not the needs of the would be adopter. This guy you’re talking about said as much himself. Whiney, but we tried everywhere in the UK to get a rescue dog but they were toooooo strict. Boohoo. Nope. They were protecting the dog, you weren’t acceptable as per their policy so you went elsewhere where the standards were lower.

I see parallels. Does that make sense? Argh, I feel I’m explaining myself badly.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c845bae2-9377-11ed-beb4-99fcdfa7645c?shareToken=217d9586d687af757742096583505820

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5905129/BBC-chief-stunned-secret-staff-sex-survey-reveals-417-workers-transgender.html

'The BBC has more than 400 transgender staff, a confidential internal survey has revealed.

The figure represents more than one in 50 of the workforce – about four times higher than the proportion in the population at large.'

2018 figures. May well be different now, of course.

Do you mean #sophiefromromania? I hadn't spotted a trans person on there (but I haven't watched all of it).

I have to say, they don't treat lightly at all on women's issues, voices, needs, lived experience.... bloody size 13 beetle crushers and heavy jumping up and down.

And I'm sure they have lovely mums, aunties, daughters, sisters, grans, many of whom are going through highly emotive stuff you could make a very touching news report about. Doesn't seem to make much odds, does it?