BBC WTF

Here's the Not a Phase founder. Yes a transwoman:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/gender-neutral-toilets-school-supportive-20850183

With her Catholic school offering a unisex uniform and gender neutral toilets, Dani was lucky enough to have a school experience free of bullying.
“I mean to have gender neutral toilet and a unisex uniform in a Catholic school in South Wales in 2002, what a privilege,” she explained.
“That probably prevented me from having a bullying experience. I didn't, I'd never felt threatened. I felt celebrated, if anything.
“I didn't live in fear. I heard of people that had gone to different secondary schools that lived in fear and got beaten up. And I remember being horrified at that because it was so unlike my own experience.”

This seems like a fair bit of retconning, given it's from pre-transition days. We're supposed to believe that gay teenagers will feel safer with unisex school uniforms and unisex toilets. Erm.

But yes, it would appear that there are Female people who are terrified and male people who aren’t.

I’m not having an “are we the baddies?” moment, as such, but it is incredibly uncomfortable to conscientiously believe Trump is doing the right things and the BBC is not remotely trustworthy. I know my parents would not be able to believe that version of events, however many facts were laid before them. My family is split down the middle over this stupid issue and I really, really want it to stop.

I fully empathise as I'm in a similar situation with my own wider family. I openly agree with them that Trump is hideous and that I wouldn't normally find myself agreeing with things that he says. That he is the person leading the charge in the US on removing gender identity belief from federal institutions does make the conversation difficult, especially so when the BBC is seen as our national, trusted broadcaster and holder of truth by so many. However, it is widely known that they have form on failing in the safeguarding of children. Jimmy Savile and others that were investigated under Operation Yew Tree were hiding in plain sight on the BBC's watch. Worse, we now know that the BBC was one of the institutions that facilitated them having access to vulnerable children in some cases.

Child safeguarding at its most basic level means protecting children from harm, so as a start point, I would invite any Trump sceptic on this subject to read the wording of the "Protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation" EO and point out which bits they disagree with (with thoughts of the BBC's previous failures in child safeguarding helping them to keep an open mind on the subject).

What a surprise. Female people who are terrified and male people who aren’t. It’s almost as if reality reasserts itself in every situation.

The government funded report by ZOAH that the BBC article is reporting on is also a hot mess of incoherence and repetition although I did take two points from it,

1. The ONS census data is useless

2. Trans masculine people seem to live in constant fear. There is a perceived threat everywhere, at work, in education, when accessing healthcare or even just using a loo.

I thought the same. There's always a grift, isn't there? But it's the American way, after all: there's no activity on God's green earth that can't be monetised for profit.

Interesting article. I’m assuming that the entrepreneur and chief exec of the Not A Phase charity is a transwoman, i.e. male. Which then means the article is about a woman giving a very concerning account of her mental vulnerability and a man who is cashing in on these vulnerabilities and giving it all a bit of a social justice sheen. Nice.

‘They said a lot of trans and non-binary people feel a constant "hypervigilance of 'am I safe here?'" whenever they "meet a new person, start a new job, degree course, or come out to family".’

I’ve said this many times before, but if you are a doctor (or therapist) promoting a treatment that actually leaves your patients more paranoid than they were before, then maybe the entire protocol needs to be explored from the bottom up, as it is so obviously failing.

I commented on the latest Trump EO teacher thread about being uneasy about the speed with which things are unfolding in the US and reading this thread about the BBC relates to that feeling.

I have people in my life, who still have full faith in the BBC and they are also 100% thinking if Trump as a baddie, and everything he is doing is straightforwardly wrong.

I’ve felt for a long time that there are two narratives here that cannot be reconciled. One has to lose so the other can win and they cannot exist side by side. I’m not having an “are we the baddies?” moment, as such, but it is incredibly uncomfortable to conscientiously believe Trump is doing the right things and the BBC is not remotely trustworthy. I know my parents would not be able to believe that version of events, however many facts were laid before them. My family is split down the middle over this stupid issue and I really, really want it to stop.

Yes, it really does show the vulnerability of the individual who they've written about 😢

Its rah-rah championing of "gender" and how it supposedly relates to the physical body is indeed completely incoherent. Well, it's a believer's charter. It only makes sense if you believe that we all have a gender identity and that it's really important for everyone's physical body to match theirs for their well-being.

That BBC article is a hot mess of incoherence and repetitions. I'm not going to critique it as I suspect one of the individuals is very vulnerable but if this is the best the BBC can come out with ..... 🙄

Edited to add, not the article about Keira - the babbling one about binders, packers etc...

Adding a couple of bits to this useful thread of BBC bat-shittery from another thread:

1. It started out so well..... comment from me on Green Party thread today:

I wonder if it's a case of "when the US sneezes, the UK catches a cold".
The wording in both the "...Restoring biological truth to the federal government" and "Protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation" EOs is pretty sobering when it comes to public institutions thinking about how they handle belief. We have the Nolan Principles (and also Teaching Standards in schools) for this and I think it's dawning on the leaders in the Green Party and others that perhaps they haven't quite got this right.
It's possible that the BBC might be waking up too, although that still remains to be seen:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5265037-keira-bell-launches-bid-to-ban-cross-sex-hormones-for-under-18s?reply=141854036&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

2. and yet..... the championing of gender identity belief as factually true when it comes to healthcare was off in full swing again earlier today.... Response from Chersfrozenface:

It's possible that the BBC might be waking up too, although that still remains to be seen:
Hm.
Today on BBC News main page.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c704pngr33yo
"Wah, doctors won't lop my breasts off!"
"I can't access trans-friendly underwear!"
On that second point, there are loads. Modibodi has an entire range.
I suppose it's possible that this shows the BBC getting desperate to elicit sympathy for the most oppressed evah.

-------------

As per the thread title.... BBC, WTF?!

@ChristinaXYZ you're right. If people want the BBC to notice then that's how to do it

Why anyone still pays for their licence fee is beyond me - I know if you are elderly and technophobic, or if you have a live-sport addict in the house you might need it but the rest of us can cancel our licences and watch non BBC stuff on catch-up. It makes a useful saving each month.

If you are desperate to watch BBC drama it does come round on Netflix or you can subscribe to ITV+ (Britbox as - was) which has loads of BBC drama and other programmes and you can watch that without a TV licence. The cost of ITV+ is about half the TV licence.

You can watch all the non-BBC channels on catch up without a TV licence. You can't wacth Sky live or Amazon prime Live without a licence even though you are paying for them (which is a complete scam).

You can of course listen to the radio still live, even the BBC. And you can still read the BBC website written news which includes correspondents', like Chris Mason, TV words in full usually. You don't need to miss anything.

The BBC won't stop behaving as they do while we keep paying them to do it.

Adding this thread here:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5226742-puberty-blockers-can-a-drug-trial-solve-one-of-medicines-most-controversial-debates

The BBC has pulled a blinder and actually written a good article related to the Cass Report and the dilemma of whether running a trial to establish an evidence base is ethical or viable.

It's quite the contrast to its emotional puff pieces on the waiting lists for "gender affirming care" in the days and weeks that followed the release of the Cass Report. There's no hyperbole or obfuscation. It's.... actual, factual news without bias.

It seems a shame that there has to be a specific new brand within its news team (and a guest writer) to deliver this quality of journalism but it's still great to see it out there. Well done BBC.

Just saw this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0z0y2z3mjo

Thanks for the reminder - the article is on my list to get through when I've recovered from reading the For Women Scotland submission to the UK Supreme Court. Is it weird for me to recommend a legal submission to you as a good read? 😂

I absolutely get fed up with people, like for example Jesse Singal and Katie Hertzog, who seem determined to refuse to understand that there are different types of grooming and that Graham is referring to ideological grooming. Hertzog and Singal et al jump to the lazy conclusion that Linehan is using grooming in its purely sexual sense. I think this is their way of ignoring him, and feeling good about themselves for doing so, because I know neither of them is stupid.

The Irish establishment is treating Graham in the same way they treated non-conformists (like Sinead O'Connor) and how they treated victims of historical clerical and State abuse: excoriate them for decades for 'letting down Ireland's reputation internationally' and for 'misrepresenting events' and, eventually, when the evidence becomes unsurmountable, the Great and Good will scramble over each other to be seen to lionise those they previously castigated. I predict the same will happen with Graham.

@UtopiaPlanitia his voice (in both its blunt and long form) is important in all of this. Hopefully Ireland will start listening to him soon. His latest article on the substack is about Ireland. Have you seen it?

Unfortunately it'll still take time but I'm assuming that in about 10 years, we'll have gone past the tipping point of detransitioner numbers (😢) and he'll be fully vindicated. Sadly, it'll probably take that amount of time before his use of the word "groomers" is fully understood in its context.

I can’t think of any other medical scandals of this enormity, brought about by institutional capture by ideology.
Of course there are other scandals that have been ignored or even minimised. But this is of a different order.

Fully agree.

It's entirely possible that she finds Graham Linehan too crass when he tweets/speaks in short form - I avoided reading any of his stuff for ages for this reason when I first started looking in to all of this. I'm happy to accept that I had completely misjudged him. But it's the BBC news team's job and purpose to be curious, to investigate, to push through and find and then tell the real story. It's clear that Graham didn't want to be the story: the moment you listen to him in long form, or if you read his book, it's abundantly obvious that he's been trying to raise awareness about what Miriam Cates rightly describes as one of the biggest safeguarding and medical scandals of our generation (and would far rather been known for his comedy career). I'm so glad I pushed through and listened to what he has actually been saying, along with JL and the contributors on his substack.

In contrast to JL (the main substack writer), the BBC is failing the British public with its lazy journalism and the impact of the directive from the top down that "it's [more] important to be nice" than to investigate the story.

@BonfireLady Irish people are generally blunt (particularly so when we're angry). Graham himself has often pointed out that this forthrightness is something that does not tend to go down well with middle-class people in England AND he's VERY angry at what is happening to women, children and gay people in the cause of gender identity ideology so he doesn't mince words.

@hallouminatus

Are you aware of the Asserson report? Have you read it?

The BBC dismissed it out of hand & refused to engage with the findings, so totally unsurprising if you haven't. They want it buried.

https://asserson.co.uk/assersonreport/

Graham Lineham also speaks out about this on Twitter.

How much did you hear on the BBC about the Cochrane Review of masking that came out during covid? Or the one just recently?

I'm similarly uncertain..

Exactly my point.

Not a health scandal but a scandal nonetheless has been their coverage of the Israel/Gaza conflict.

Apologies for the derail, but why is BBC coverage of the Israel/Gaza conflict a scandal? I'm aware of course that the BBC faces many accusations of bias on this issue (and others) but apparently there are roughly equal numbers of complaints of pro-Israel and anti-Israel bias.

Which media provide unbiased, or at least less biased, coverage of the conflict? And can you be confident that your preferred media are less biased rather than simply being more aligned with your own biases?

I'm similarly uncertain about the nature of the purported scandal of the BBC coverage of the covid-19 pandemic.

You are naïve to assume they haven't.

I can’t think of any other medical scandals of this enormity, brought about by institutional capture by ideology.

Of course there are other scandals that have been ignored or even minimised. But this is of a different order.

I was particularly thinking of their coverage of Covid, although all media outlets were guilty of that.

Not a health scandal but a scandal nonetheless has been their coverage of the Israel/Gaza conflict.

To loosely quote Donald Rumsfeld there are known unknowns and there are unknown unknowns. You cannot know what you do not know, so unless you are a specialist in a subject (as I think many of us are in this particular one) you have to take the media's word regarding their reports of 'news'.

It's not an oversight or lack of knowledge. A good example is/was the continuous repetition of the false claim of large suicide numbers amongst trans identified children. We know there is nothing of the sort. I seem to remember many here lodging complaints with the BBC about that false claim and yet they continued this extremely dangerous lie without even the most basic factcheck.

It's a feature, not a bug.

The infected blood and vaginal mesh scandals were, to begin with.