BBC presenter corrects pregnant people to pregnant women

One of life’s mysteries is whether or not this is a deliberate : thought out strategy. I’m not convinced it is.

One of my hypotheses is that this is a feature of their narcissism - so whatever GC’s experience as injustice, wins or predictions, they claim these as their own …….because they are the centre of the universe.

Katy Montgomerie refers to himself as a biological woman. That's their new angle.

There was a link on a thread some months (possibly longer) ago to a strategy document that was about adopting TERF language to use it against women. So if TERFs talked about gender ideology TRAs should start using the phrase GC ideology, if TERFs use biological woman then TIMs should describe themselves as biological women a la Dr Upton ,essentially linguistic DARVO

I can't remember who produced the document but it wasn't Denton

There was a link on a thread some months (possibly longer) ago to a strategy document that was about adopting TERF language to use it against women. So if TERFs talked about gender ideology TRAs should start using the phrase GC ideology, if TERFs use biological woman then TIMs should describe themselves as biological women a la Dr Upton ,essentially linguistic DARVO

I can't remember who produced the document but it wasn't Denton

One of life’s mysteries is whether or not this is a deliberate : thought out strategy. I’m not convinced it is.

One of my hypotheses is that this is a feature of their narcissism - so whatever GC’s experience as injustice, wins or predictions, they claim these as their own …….because they are the centre of the universe.

Yes. The tras appear to take everything women say and reverse it wholesale. This appears to have been their main strategy for years and to an extent it works as to the uninformed bystander it becomes a ‘he said, she said’ scenario. Who is telling the truth?

It’s only when you ask a few questions it becomes blindingly obvious. They rely on people being lazy or too busy to pay attention.

Did she, though?

I couldn't tell if she did actually correct 'pregnant people' to pregnant women or if she was just reading out a list: the aged, 'pregnant people', women and those with medical conditions.

She may of course have been making the point in a deliberately deniable way, in case her bosses tried to pull her up on it.

Then again, the way she said "women" might have suggested that she was amending the script for common sense purposes.

Who knows?

‘Aged’* has traditionally meant very old, and very likely frail, too.

*two syllables, not like ‘aged’ as in wine or cheese. 🙂

What's wrong with it?

Did she, though?

I couldn't tell if she did actually correct 'pregnant people' to pregnant women or if she was just reading out a list: the aged, 'pregnant people', women and those with medical conditions.

She may of course have been making the point in a deliberately deniable way, in case her bosses tried to pull her up on it.

Then again, the way she said "women" might have suggested that she was amending the script for common sense purposes.

Who knows?

There's also the disparity between male and female health care. Prostate Cancer UK received a query as to why they don't use 'those with a prostate' and replied (entirely sensibly) that although they use such language on the various pages on their website, they use the word men on campaign materials in order to avoid confusion by using clear language.

Whereas, as per the Scottish Government's radio campaign I referred to up thread, the word woman wasn't used at all. Just 'those with a cervix'.

And when the NHS started updating the language on their Web pages to be 'more inclusive', it was the women's pages edited first.

The article coheres with the TRA narrative I have heard.

Your phrase ‘parallel universe’ captures pretty much every level of disagreement!

This morning I was reading a thread on X talking about the ‘GCs’ gasping their last dying breaths and not going down quietly.

It’s remarkable how evaluations on both sides can be so similar in terms of who is winning and the tactics being used by other opposition! This is what drives me to try and make sense of what underpins TRAs evaluations and what evidence they draw upon

Do you eye roll too?

I read a terrible article by Ian Dunt about the session, in which he alleged that KF's answer to one of the early Qs (what are you going to do to improve your rep?) was many minutes of non-responsive waffle.

My recollection was that she immediately said 'our public trust rating has gone up since (date) from (tiny percentage) to (huge percentage), but SO refused to accept the answer.

ID living in a parallel universe.

This is the link but I wouldn't read it if you have any hypertension issues:

https://iandunt.substack.com/p/judgement-day-for-the-ehrc-c99

I read a terrible article by Ian Dunt about the session, in which he alleged that KF's answer to one of the early Qs (what are you going to do to improve your rep?) was many minutes of non-responsive waffle.

My recollection was that she immediately said 'our public trust rating has gone up since (date) from (tiny percentage) to (huge percentage), but SO refused to accept the answer.

ID living in a parallel universe.

This is the link but I wouldn't read it if you have any hypertension issues:

https://iandunt.substack.com/p/judgement-day-for-the-ehrc-c99

Thanks CoolforCats.

I agree with your take on the WEC debacle. My understanding is that the ‘other side’ claim that Sarah Owens was beyond reasonable in her patience because Baroness Faulkner was filibustering. They claim that when she arrived, she gave a hard deadline by which she had to leave, and then, gave very long answers that didn’t address the questions posed and used up all the time available on irrelevant detail. This is the justification provided for the interruptions and irritation. If the shoe was on the other foot and the EHRC guidance played fast and loose with the ruling whereby they were leaving loopholes for allowing transwomen in female provision - I would have sympathy for a chair getting frustrated and interrupting if this wasn’t being addressed.

The bit I don’t get is what answers they sought that they didn’t get? There were questions that she redirected to the government and the courts, because they related to issues outside of the EHRC’s remit. Beyond that, I am baffled.

I tend to think it’s a case of failing to differentiate between determining an answer to be unsatisfactory because (a) it wasn’t answered and (b) they disagree with the answer. I expect they were expecting their views to be affirmed and failure to do this reflected a ‘non answer’.

If this isn’t the case, I would love to know what questions they feel haven’t been answered and do these could be provided. Getting to a place of ‘both sides’ properly understanding each others position and recognising where and why there is disagreement would reflect great progress!