BBC WTF

Re: medical scandal

I think it's really important to remember this. Hundreds of CHILDREN have had their MENTAL ILLNESS treated with drugs and surgeries which cause or result in:

• genital atrophy
• uterine atrophy
• brain damage
• osteoporosis
• ostopenia
• mental health problems
• neurological damage
• infertility
• anorgasmia
• amenorrhea
• growth stunting
• amputation/mutilation of genitalia
• post surgical infection
• nerve, tissue and muscle damage
• ...and more

the above result in lifelong disabilities and chronic conditions

This is bigger than past medical scandals in the number of children it has affected. Bigger than lobotomies.

It was pushed on by political activists and sexual fetishists rather tan clinicians

We should ALL be angry

Cass is just the start. In 10 years' time there'll be people in jail, ministerial handwringing, books, TV docs, movies

My only hope is the victims get justice

Tbh I felt the same - at times he can be a little too direct and it jarred with my Allsoppian philosophy of ‘let’s all be civilised and discuss this as though we are friends sharing a bottle of chablis’. However, as I learned more, read more (Hannah Barnes et al) I soon realised he was right to be screaming it from the rooftops and sod the politeness.

I am biased, obviously having a child damaged by all this, though - thank fuck I stopped her taking anything over our 6-7 year journey.

I now believe that if these people weren’t screaming, the Cass Review might never have happened.

So Scream Away, all ye Glinners. And I’ll join in with you.

Thanks for this thread. The Scottish reporting is good, but so brief. My heart goes out to the families with children taking this poison. I hope they aren’t persuaded by the TRA bleating about bias , and actually read the Cass report for themselves. This is why I’m so concerned by the “toxicity of the debate” and “both sides “ arguments. Having the healthiest looking transpeople they can find on to explain what a lifesaver these drugs are, may keep more kids on it causing lifelong damage. We have been injecting untested toxins into children, with no oversight whatsoever, in order to assist them in a fantasy that they can change sex.. This is not a conspiracy theory. It’s not tinfoil hats . It’s true. The BBC need to step up.

I'm reminded of the Nigel Lawson debacle where the BBC felt it was obliged to give "both sides" on climate. That didn't go well for them.

When there is an actual story, be it climate change or an international scandal about medical experimentation on children, the "impartiality" obligation should never result in the obfuscation of the actual major story.

@AdamRyan and other posters (apologies for not remembering all names) do make good points that there has been some coverage on the whole topic (@ArabellaScott I appreciate it's the HoC debate you were referring to) and that's definitely valid.

However, it's a) the obfuscation and b) the bias of the angle on most occasions that is the net effect.

Whether it feels like bias or not will presumably come down to a combination of:

1. the person's core belief (do they believe that everyone has a gender identity or not)
2. their wider knowledge on the subject (have they listened to lots of viewpoints? On the medical stuff, LGB opinions, trans people's opinions and the women's rights stuff)
3. do they have any skin in the game of any kind? E.g. relative who identifes as trans, they've been previously vocally supportive of "trans rights" and/or children being free to "choose their gender", they adore/hate the BBC

I'm sure there will be more but those were the top ones that sprang to mind.

When looked at objectively, as far as anyone can (we all have a bias of some kind), does the BBC's coverage reflect what the main story is here?
I am firmly of the belief that it doesn't. The HoC debate was about a national and international medical scandal that has impacted tens of thousands of children and young people globally. Top names are saying that they recognise this. Why can't the BBC tell its audience as more and more emerges on this hideous episode in world history?

I don't know. Maybe it just wasn't covered because there is consensus. HoC is normally covered on the news when there is a barney, which fits into a news story they are covering that day. And Cass was covered quite extensively the day before.

The Cass report has come out. Everyone agrees it should be implemented.

Somewhere in the dark depths of the internet (on a MN thread) is a comment from me about Glinner when I first started learning about all of this stuff. I found MN about 15ish months ago.

At that time I thought he was hideous. I stayed away from all of his content because of the small amounts I'd seen. My friend would occasionally send me screenshots (I had no idea they were from his Substack - mostly written by JL, some by him too) that were interesting and well-written. Eventually there was a three part story written by the mum of an ROGD girl and she had no choice but to send me the links. The articles were too long for screenshots. She apologised because she knew I didn't like him.
Then I looked at what he was saying on the rest of his site. I would heartily recommend anyone who is sceptical or, like me, has a fixed opinion about his toxicity to do the same.

Why should the BBC apologise? They don't need to like him or even sanction his vulgar, crass approach (which sometimes I like, sometimes I don't.. but either way, I listen with interest to what he says). Instead, they should take a look at their Newsnight footage when Sarah Smith interviewed him, recognise that she was anything but impartial, work out if they disagree with anything he says and then apologise directly to him for how they injected bias in to their presentation of it. Whether they still think he's "toxic" or not is irrelevant.

Screenshot to go with the above. I hit send too soon and couldn't add the image on the edit.

Well, well, well!
The Scottish government has realised that Scottish children are not a different species from English children and the BBC has decided to report it. Progress.

However, this sentence from the BBC's article needs unpicking as it's incredibly misleading:

In the NHS in England, fewer than 100 children - who had already started a prescription - are now taking puberty blockers.

The Hannah Barnes article in the New Statesman has a figure of 210 children who are on blockers or cross sex hormones currently (of which some were on blockers previously - I assume the only reason to stop the blockers would be if puberty were already successfully blocked and the child's personal window for further pubertal development was now closed).

https://archive.is/O728E

Ooh I forgot to copy Mr Davie into my emails, I know his inbox is so empty.

BBC have just reported on this though…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68844119

The Sandyford has paused PB prescribing!!!

@mnhq a thought:

Would you consider inviting Tim Davie on for a Q&A to discuss media coverage of gender identity belief? Obviously questions submitted in advance etc like normal.
I think he'd discover pretty quickly, just from the questions, that passion and anger do not directly equate to "toxic".

There's something weird going on psychologically here, isn't there? This story should be catnip to journalists, because it's got so many angles, all of them emotionally engaging. The HoC debate added even more, because MPs clearly felt emboldened by Cass to start talking about all sorts of trans issues, some of them outside the scope of Cass.

I can't believe it's all about bosses with 'trans kids' either. If I had a trans kid I'd be praying for the banning of medical transition in under-25 year olds. Sure, the kid would be unhappy, but they'd have a long-term objective and light at the end of the tunnel, instead of prolonged uncertainty. And I'd be thinking about that 80% desistence rate...

I think you are on the wrong thread.

This is about the COMMONS DEBATE.

You said it had been covered before it happened.

So can you post links to the coverage of a debate before it happened.

Cheers.

Anyway I'm out. Got no desire to get into a fight about this.

Explainer article 10th April:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53154286.amp

Cass on 10th April - R4 and website
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68770641

Hannah Barnes on Women's Hour, 10th April
twitter.com/BBCWomansHour/status/1777986940278636677

Streeting/Atkins 11th April
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68786030.amp

Trans perspective with expert quotes 12th April:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv20l497xvjo.amp

This is just the BBC but obviously they will be aware of all the wider media coverage and public interest in this vs other stories

You can see it everywhere

People peddling very hard not to admit the harm

They won't because they are part of the scandal.

That's the point of them turning a blind eye to this.

I'm not talking purely about the HoC debate (and there were 3 debates about MMR refusal in late 90s/early to mid 00s which were covered; I know because I was involved), but about the usual days long spread of wide coverage and angles which a medical scandal of this magnitude would normally occasion.

You already know this I think.

Once the enquiries and criminal investigations start, the Beeb will have plenty of opportunities to lend this emerging scandal more airtime.

You said that the BBC covered it before it happened.

I asked for the link to this coverage if you think it happened.

It's quite simple, just post the link. Thanks in advance.

What on earth are you talking about?

The Cass review came out, various politicians gave statements/wrote articles/Tweeted etc. There was lots of coverage.

Then there was a debate where the politicians basically said all the same viewpoints reported in the press. On the same day as Iran launched 300 drones at Israel, causing global instability and a pressing need for a UK response.

In my opinion, the HoC debate was not particularly newsworthy in that context. But if you want to think that it's some kind of elitist conspiracy theory cover up, you go ahead.

Rude.
The media does not routinely cover debates. It's not disingenuous to point that out.

On the other hand far right political movements thrive when there is distrust in "facts" and people are relying on emotion. Therefore an incentive to undermine the media, ascribe hostile intent and encourage people to switch off. I can see that pattern happening about the BBC so just pointing out there is an alternative explanation to "the BBC are coveting it up".

Different opinion =/= disingenuous 🙄

Adults are complicit in gender ideology they would prefer not to see it highlighted

The BBC are mindreaders now, and reported news before it happened?

That's fantastic. Have you got a link to the news coverage of the discussion in The Commons and how did they know what each politician would say?