Anti-trans media undermine human rights.

Is the writer not some bloke in a dress? Not biased at all!

Try to feel interested in this but can't be bothered!

So the answer is to not let anyone do 'negative messaging' such as represent women's rights, court cases, rapes, assaults? The things men with gender identities and their activist supporters do that impact women's human rights and gay people's human rights?

Yeah, that was tried a decade back. No. It's all of a piece with the attempt in the conversion act - 'no one must be allowed to say anything that causes a trans person an uncomfy feeling, regardless of the impact on them and everyone else'. Creating two tiers of society: the served and the servants. Those with rights and those without. It's anti equality, it's anti human rights which are universal you absolute muppets.

Do they mention what rights they are talking about?

I started reading the executive summary, but quite frankly whoever wrote it should be ashamed of this absolute mess of contradictory nonsense. It tries to talk about everything in the world being related to trans rights, trans rights being eroded by the horrible press, particularly in this country, who have been responsible for poor and biased reporting.

Some of its statements are factual, but they don't trouble to pursue any logical line of reasoning or thinking in the article and so it doesn't make any sense. For instance, it uses the word 'conflating' when discussing the monolithic press barons writing about immigrants but then compares that output to anti-trans rhetoric. I can't make any sense of it.

Another uni to cross off the list. Not because it is pro/anti trans, but because such a lax approach to academic rigour makes them unfit to teach

It was posted by Jane Fae who is a trans woman

Never used to be like that😂

I dont think that this report has been peer reviewed, or even proofread? There are two authors so one would expect some degree of critical reading. It reads as a very cursory research project to bolster their RAE score which is needed to keep their job / position and compete with colleagues (Research Assessment Exercise). It doesn't need to be good research. The RAE review is completed every 5 year and if I could be bothered Id check when this Uni was last assessed.

Interesting to note the funding and the grant reference. I wonder what the objectives were of this study.

“ This research was conducted by Dr Charlotte Galpin and supported by the Leverhulme Trust
(grant reference RF-2022-258). The report was co-authored by Dr Galpin and Dr Ash Stokoe and
supported by an Arts and Humanities Research Council Impact Development Fund award (BIR
25-26 P091), the University of Birmingham’s School of Government Research Fund and the
College of Social Sciences Enterprise, Engagement and Impact Fund. We are grateful to our
project partner Trans Media Watch, Melanie Field, and workshop participants who helped shape
the focus of this report, including Trans+ Solidarity Alliance, Keyne Walker (TransActual UK), jane
fae (Trans Media Watch), Dr Christyn Parkes (Feminist Gender Equality Network), Dr Kat Gupta,
and Marty Davies.”

Edit PS The RAE exercise is a MASSIVE DEAL for the university and its research teams. Its a measure of if they can be trusted to conduct decent research and affects future research funding opportunities. This i directly affects the university ranking fir teaching etc.

It's called the REF (Research Excellence Framework) these days rather than the RAE. Speaking as someone who's been involved in preparations for both previous and forthcoming REFs at my host institution, I doubt very much whether they'd bother submitting this item. The panels in the REF are instructed to reward 'originality, significance and rigour' Re-hashing a handful of winges off Trans Reddit is unlikely to help them. Surprising that the Leverhulme and AHRC coughed up for it. Mind you, they give a lot of money to Russell Group outfits like Birmingham, whereas we in the post '92s have to struggle for it!

Of course, I'd agree with @NotInMyyName that these exercises are a big deal. It affects the prestige of the institution and how much money we get 'til the next one.

Quite a familiar one.

Yes says its Jane Fae. Definitely a bloke in a dress. quelle surprise

John Ozimek, the man who defends violent pornography & said that a lot of murders are accidental because of women’s ’eggshell skulls’. Lovely chap.

Ah yes. The chap who said, if I remember right, it was 'domestic violence done wrong'.

He should have stuck to his knitting.

Isn’t it weird how easily the left falls into compelled speech and censorship.

Many on the left in the Labour Party eg, do not believe men can be or become women ( or vice versa). Witness the Communist Party too ( surely left?) who definitely don't.

Thanks! I did suspect I was out of date.
Maybe its just one of the many funding applications that got through and had to be delivered despite … its value.
What did you think of the report?

Notably not most however.

And it’s a general point for the left not just gender ideology, shut down discussion, attack free speech, compel other speech, no debate, purity spirals and the rest.

(Yes yes, it’s both sides, just 50x bigger on one side than the other)

I had the same experience, but I'm stuck in a waiting room and have time to kill so I got stuck in to a proper analysis.

The actual academic thesis is that specific Eurosceptic newspapers leverage hostile coverage of landmark LGBTQIA+ legal cases to mock the ECtHR courts as "alien" or "mad", then exploit public confusion between the ECtHR and the EU to systematically erode support for the EU.

So, a very specific mechanism where "anti-LGBTQIA+" media could be said to be directly undermining a specific human rights protection, the ECtHR.

So far so fair enough. Knowing the papers in question I wouldn't argue with that.

The report’s title, "How anti-trans media undermines human rights and equality for everyone," is therefore technically true in that the report outlines a specific mechanism where anti-LGBTQIA+ reporting, which is by definition "anti-trans" but is not specifically anti-trans, is likely being utilised to undermine a specific human rights and equality provision.

But the title also and more naturally reads as if there is a direct, causal link where any media content critical of trans policies inherently degrades universal civil liberties, a monolithic attack on the public good. That frames any media analysis regarding competing rights and fairness of policy concessions as something which is inherently and avoidably, just by happening, going to result in an undermining of human rights and equality.

A very different conclusion and not what the report supports, or even (on the face of it)set out to show.

Tl,dr; the thesis on the media is reasonable, the title is pure propaganda thst goes way beyond the actual findings.

Disclaimer: I haven't done the deep dive on the claims about LGBA and press oversight yet, so don't take my comments on the actual research being reasonable to cover anything beyond the analysis of actual media content.

I think he used the adjective “pedestrian” as if it was too boring to think about

Sorry, I’ve no fucks left to give to them. 🤷🏻‍♀️