Evan Davis

What time was it on at? I'm struggling to find it

Asshat. And now it feels like he is trolling us (anyone who knows biology is real). He sounds so gleeful doing it too.

Wasn't it just?

I don't know how she puts up with it.

That was absolutely outrageous. Bloody hell.

Dreadful stuff being said about JKR without any comeback.

I’ve complained.

On Radio 4 tonight with other men - vilifying JK Rowling. BBC are so biased.

Another one who used to constantly listen to radio 4 and now hasn’t been near it in years. I listen to podcasts and audiobooks now

they made it very clear they didn’t want me and in the end I just gave up

ILikeDungs

Thanks for saving me from turgid prose!

The 'TW rapes in wrong-sex prisons' must have been purely anecdotal for the Prof, who was writing about what might have been called transexuals, or what were gender non-conforming possibly gay men, in the 1920s or 30s.

I did try to make sense of the writing (read forced teaming) and l concluded that Forbes himself was probably born male with poorly developed genitalia. Very confused writing. It was badly researched, Sinner, or worse-- intending to mislead.

Yes, BBC used to be my touchstone, my reference point, my go to for quality, well researched journalism ......
And no, it's not because Im older.
The Quality has left the building and the pay list is very revealing as to where they place value these days.

ILikeDungs · 28/01/2023 13:00

^...an example Prof Playdon gave was of historical unfair treatment received by some transwomen convicted of trivial crimes like non-payment of parking fines being sent to "wrong sex prisons" where transwomen were raped.6

Is there actually any evidence of it? I've only ever come across anecdotes of tranw being raped in prison, no actual case to refer to. Even so, it's a problem for the male estate to deal with.

I heard a bit of that Evan Davis interview last night. Made me laugh because he clearly wasn't expecting the answer about self-ID. Of course, as a PP pointed out, he quickly moved the conversation on to something else. He's very transparent.

If anyone hasn’t yet signed this Sex Matters Equality Act petition about making clear the word ‘sex ‘ is biological but would like to
⬇️
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

ED asked the woman if the Tories have almost given up on the next election. She said not, because of the absolute chaos in the Labour party. ED asked what she meant. She said, "the discussion over self-ID. That matters to a large portion of society". And Ed said, dismissively ..... "and is that it?"
He really, really doesn't care and isn't interested.

She said, "...because women have rights"

He said "...that matters why?"

Paraphrasing, natch

Oh, it's just clicked! I reckon he bat signal has gone out to all the usual TRA rentagobs not to go on the BBC to try to defend the indefensible. The BBC won't cover it unless there's "balance" with an LGBT presence on the panel (even though they have never cared about talking about women's rights without a woman present). So the item doesn't get covered on the flagship shows, and the TRAs hope it all goes away and people forget.

Oh senua I quoted that very thing in many of my complaints and yet their response was always "this interview was conducted in a fair and duly impartial manner". They don't care, so now neither do I (in that l don't pay the licence fee.)

Hit them where it hurts and don’t pay the licence fee. They try to make it difficult but it’s very simple to do this.

Old Tinsel Tits* has been a misogynist forever. He's one of those gay men who barely regards women as people. Unlike The Big Gay From Tay, my beloved Eddie Mair. Eddie's my dream husband, if not for the fact he's married and gay and we've never met. He's marvellous in every regard.

ED was a good economics correspondent. On PM, not so much.

*ED has piercings he got out at parties before now, hence his nickname

The only mention was some word like ‘complicated’. No proper explanation the public would understand was given.

As for a Channel 4 News item last year covering the leaving out of T from the Ban Conversion Therapy bill! It was pure alarmist propaganda featuring an elderly transwoman (male) who was abused by some sort of therapy in the early ‘60s that even the reporter murmured doesn’t happen now, followed by people declaring transpeople were going to be tortured.

The reasons for leaving out T especially the protection of counselling for children and young people, or the irony of a ban leading to the transing the gay through no counselling, were virtually not mentioned.

MorvenOfMalvern My experiences are very similar, although we do still put BBC radio on in the house, just very much less often. Have also moved to Times Radio.

I started to feel uncomfortable about the BBC news slant from about 2014?, but when the GRA consultation was simply not reported, and Woman's Hour of all places would really not discuss it at all, much less the ways in which self ID might impact on women (iirc after many complaints the GRA consultation was mentioned two days before the end of the consultation) I was livid.

Then Kiera Bell, Harry the Owl, Forstater, Allison Bailey, prison judicial review, Mermaids v Charity Commission/LGB Alliance, and others, were not covered in the news or with commentary, or were covered but with bias and misinformation-- well, l started to wonder what else they were lying to us about. And you would think that would be an uncomfortable place for a broadcaster to put themselves in. But no, it seems the BBC is good with that. It does not matter that they cover up the truth or obfuscate, in fact it is required that they do so because "they have the cultural reins of power in their hands", and a moral duty to control discussion. I am sure they see themselves as activists first, broadcasters second.