Parents of teenagers. If you haven’t listened to all episodes of this yet then you are out of touch…

[Blessex]

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09yjmph

It's not just lobbying, it's how public funds are used.

@catzwhiskas

This stuff is absolutely important for everyone. It’s a shame that it had to be Male reporters who may be listened to rather than those of us here who rightly (ave been speaking up and researching for years. Why wouldn’t anyone be concerned about the loss of rights and words for women and the conflicts of interests in the major organisations ?

I think it's a very fair assumption that they mined MN for information.

However, I am glad that they are coming to this as 2 ordinary Joes with no particular investment in either side, GC or TRA. They are BBC employees who suddenly realised that the culture at the BBC was changing, and started looking into why, and down the rabbit hole they have fallen. And they are not particularly focussing on women's rights either. Their main focus has been (rightly in the context of this investigation) on how a political lobby group, with a hugely contentious agenda that is out of step with common sense, science, safeguarding and the majority's everyday reality, has got its tentacles far into the BBC and other supposedly neutral bodies of influence, e.g., OfCom, the Civil Service. The attacks on safeguarding, women's rights and indeed, the wellbeing of people who do identify with the opposite sex all stem from this insidious infiltration into our public bodies. It is a massive scandal and has nothing whatsoever to do with transphobia.

@BulletandtheBullseye

It’s not a women’s rights thread surely op.

It’s a freedom of speech and the necessity of transparency in a free democracy, unbiased information reporting. And a lgbt+ issue. With safeguarding being a footnote.

The podcast isn’t titled women’s rights. It’s about stonewall’s influence on supposedly neutral bbc and ofcom. About the harm of a publicly funded political lobby group having the power to gag the regulatory body that’s supposed to ensure BBC’s neutrality.

That’s not women’s rights that’s everyone’s rights and freedoms.

We’re being gagged while discussing being gagged.

Very well put. I've reported your post to MNHQ with the following message:

Hi MNHQ

This poster is absolutely right about the content of the podcast. It should be of concern to everyone, irrespective of which 'side' of the gender debate they are on.

I'm very disappointed that this thread has been moved from AIBU and ask you to please reconsider.

When he was Prime Minster David Cameron commented that lobbying would be the next big scandal in the UK. Since then we've seen a few exposed, at least one that has involved Cameron himself I recall.

On that basis this BBC podcast and this thread have much wider implications than just the sex and gender topic.

Stonewall is just one of many lobby groups that lack transparency, a particularly insidious example granted, but there is a bigger picture here.

It’s about stonewall’s influence on supposedly neutral bbc and ofcom. About the harm of a publicly funded political lobby group having the power to gag the regulatory body that’s supposed to ensure BBC’s neutrality.

Agreed. The other thread on this is eye-opening about the non-platforming of competitors to Stonewall and the implications for discussions in the public arena and consequences for democracy.

There are also some alarming discussions about the BBC's corporate charity (Children in Need) and how it can dictate the policies of those whom it funds on pain of not being eligible for funding.

How could I come on here sporadically and NOT be aware of your anti-trans campaign and viewpoints?

If you hate MN so much after becoming aware of what you see as the prevalent viewpoints, then why have you come back?

And why come back knowing what MN is like and then complain that it's still the way you knew it to be?

@CorrBlimeyGG

We will debate and critically evaluate.

No, you'll stay in your hateful echo chamber and ignore any differing views.

By refusing to even listen to the podcasts, it would seem that it is you who chooses to remain in an echo chamber.

But you knew that.

You are not being unreasonable. Everyone needs to listen to this podcast. Those who have not listened to it are making fools of themselves by claiming that it is punching down.

I’m really flattered Bore. You’ve made my teary day.

Don’t mean to me-rail the thread, but I don’t post normally, just lurk and tweet at times and mouth off to everyone in rl. But signed up because I have to address this with my kids school, again, after they assured me their pshe was 100% in line with d of e when the plan I have in front of me isn’t. (Cis gender, genderfluid, pansexual for 10 year olds with autism)

I know I’m going to get plenty of them rolling their eyes behind my back and bristles of irritation at my gaul at expecting them to spend their time correcting their own errors. Some will most definitely be aghast a parent cares about safeguarding or knows the d of e guidelines aren’t just for the schools who agree with them. And some will simply condescend to me because this is such a niche topic that really doesn’t matter to most of the population and I’m being so EMOtional about my children

So I’m really flattered you said that. You’ve bumped up my wobbling confidence and I’ll remember that when pointing out the problems with them.

Ty xx

@Stealhsquirrelnutkin

You are not being unreasonable. Everyone needs to listen to this podcast. Those who have not listened to it are making fools of themselves by claiming that it is punching down.

Like many posters on FWR, I would welcome informed critique of the podcasts.

I acknowledge that the time investment would be substantial: it's more than 6 and a half hours all in (excluding the trailer). However, it's entirely reasonable to consider it essential that somebody should have actually studied them before dismissing them on the grounds that some people are giving.

The podcast is a series of investigative reports, but it culminates in episodes 5 and 6 with the purpose of the investigation which was to examine the extent to which BBC and Ofcom were compromised in their remit of impartial reporting and monitoring by their relationship with Stonewall. Listening to the final 2 episodes is enough, if one doesn't have the time committment for the whole thing. Though I would recommend the whole thing.

sorry I meant episodes 9 and 10, not sure where 5 and 6 came from!!

@BulletandtheBullseye

Oh gawd.

This isn’t which side of the gender debate people are on.

This is which side of the freedom to unbiased information and free speech debate are you. Which should only have one side.

Rule one to permanently remove every persons legal rights protections.

Get them to give them up freely.

It’s grooming 101.

Influence the victim to believe they initiate the abuse, then they’ll always be so ashamed and discombobulated they’ll remain compliant and silent forever. Bonus points if you can groom by proxy and extend the victim pool.

I sound like a conspiracy theorist. But it’s a lot like have had used psych 101 to get us to self identify onto the space ship, so to speak.

Now that’s even more scary than no one giving a fuck about women and children. That’s people who don’t give a fuck about anything but power using the fact no one gives a fuck about women and children to take all freedom and liberty away from all people. It’s enslavement. Only we’re doing all the labour ourselves while the future slave owners sit back and watch us lemming our way to the bottom. And we’ll be so ashamed at our own goal we’ll wipe our memories for them because remembering we gave up our autonomy will cause way more pain than living without it.

And we’ll be so ashamed at our own goal we’ll wipe our memories for them because remembering we gave up our autonomy will cause way more pain than living without it.

Your perspective is in line with a very useful recent article that provides an interesting take on why people need golden bridges (Sun Tzu but that's my addition) from having held a particular perspective and leveraging what is known about perpetrating cons/fraud:

Goffman observed that all “marks” eventually come to understand that they have been defrauded. But strangely, they almost never complain or report the crime to the authorities. Why? Because, Goffman argues, admitting that you have been conned is so deeply shameful that “marks” experience it as a kind of social death – the painful end of one of the many social roles we all play.
…
Within those groups, we can pinpoint influential members who may be turning their backs on Covid denialism, and encourage them in their journey. We can message them offering support, particularly if our reference groups overlap – whether that means sharing the same home town, or practising the same faith. The more shared social space, the better. We might offer to back them up if they get trolled for expressing misgivings about Covid denialism. Or we could let them know that we would admire them for telling the truth.

Those people may not have a television audience of millions, but they nonetheless have the potential to act as “coolers” for those in their reference groups – both online and off. The higher their status within the groups, the more influence they will have in reconciling their fellow travellers to the reality of the pandemic, perhaps enabling them to rejoin society, or at least preventing them from endangering the rest of us.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/09/convince-anti-vaxxers

This curation so that people are not exposed to this information that would either inform them of the harms of recent events or challenge their thinking will, by itself, contribute to preference falsification and make it almost impossible to identify coolers or to support them.

Thank you MNHQ for listening and for moving the thread to a higher traffic area

Brilliant! Thanks, MNHQ.

We've moved this over to Chat now. We take the point that it's not strictly a women's rights issue - but it's not an AIBU either! Technically, it should be in Teenagers but for now it can stay in Chat. Please bear in mind our guidelines for discussions around gender identity and sex.

Thanks all.

Thank you.

Ah, brill had only just reported this. Thanks for listening @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

I’m new to this but it seems Stonewall et al have changed the rules of engagement. Attraction must now be based solely on gender and not on sex. I’m all for trans rights, but not at the expense of lesbian, gay or bog standard women’s rights. We must not have any one group calling the shots to all others. Isn’t Pride about equality?

It's bigger than Pride. It's a massive protection racket - do listen to the podcasts if you haven't already done so.

There's no point in discussing this, mumsnet always preaches their guidelines but will inevitably let transphobes chatter away about their beliefs and will delete people who actually follow the guidelines and respect trans people.

MNHQ quite rightly delete any transphobicposts, @HowardNoir.
Have you listened to the podcast?

@HowardNoir

There's no point in discussing this, mumsnet always preaches their guidelines but will inevitably let transphobes chatter away about their beliefs and will delete people who actually follow the guidelines and respect trans people.

If you are following the guidelines you wont get deleted