Pilgrim Tucker, who spoke at the meeting last Tuesday, being stitched up on TV tomorrow?

[Datun]

She has tweeted that she was invited to talk about self ID on the Victoria Derbyshire Show being aired tomorrow at 9am.

But she had no idea that the interviewer was a transactivist. They only told her afterwards.

How much longer is this bias going to be pushed by the BBC? Will a gender critical woman be invited to interview a transactivist.? You know, in the interests of ‘fairness’.

How are women supposed to counter the #nodebate when it is being rigorously upheld by the BBC?

I sincerely hope the programme is fair and balanced, despite my misgivings...

mobile.twitter.com/PilgrimTucker/status/969544468750880774

Was anyone else a bit what the fuck when Victoria said I still haven't heard a convincing argument why men should not be in rape refuges?

Was that a ploy to get people to be explicit for the sake of saying exactly why? Or does she really not get it?

That poor woman on the monitor, who said I don't want see anyone with a penis.

I can't remember the order now, but was the reply to that how do you know what they've got in their pants?

Women who have suffered sexual trauma will be on a knife edge of awareness. Almost all women have been programmed from childhood to recognise male pattern behaviour and male mannerisms.

But especially rape and sexual assault survivors. Their life could have depended upon it.

The wilful ignoring of male violence is so tedious.

I too, I'm glad that Sarah kept mentioning it.

Nosetothesun

thank you for sharing your story. Of course, every single thing that has happened to you is an explicitly female experience.

The difference between the film (edited, controlled narrative) and the live discussion was so very striking. No wonder they want #NoDebate!

SpartacusAutisticus

Nic and Sarah were nice, and reasonable, yes.

And I, I'm sure like many others, were doing our own interview from the comfort of our chairs.

But, in this instance, I think it worked in our favour.

Transactivists are very fond of saying how hateful we are, inciting genocide, etc.

Victoria Derbyshire, I'm sure, I was expecting a bunfight.

She didn't get it. She got reasoned argument. The problem with a piece like this, is it can only skim the issues.

To me, it really showed up if you do have a decent debate, they have no real argument. Other than, be nice.

A characteristic of transactivism is the stupendously never ending own goals.

Insistence on violating women's boundaries, has no justification.

And all their spurious objections showed that up.

If, and it's such a big if, women get to talk in this way, in public, there can be no real come back. Because their arguments are incorrect and don't address the issue.

That bbc write up!!! Once again, confusing sex and gender.

This is the pendulum moving and introducing the public to the wider impact of their pro trans propaganda.

I think sex and gender are the same. There is only really sex. Separating sex from gender is nonsense. Some people might be unhappy in their sex but they can't change their sex and they can't change their gender. They can try and look like the other sex with dress, manersims, voice training etc but it's just dressing up games.

It's hard to judge now I see the matrix for what it is, but I must say I felt that points raised in the pre recorded piece were tackled well in the interview. I don't feel the TW were able to push their views without a decent well argued reply.

VD kept saying things like "we've taken the heat out of the argument by asking a TW to do our reporting". It does feel like the bbc are so under the pressure from being seen as transphobic that this was the only way it could make air ?? at the same time they included the air time of women who all sang from the same songsheet regarding male violence and dv shelters in a way that is difficult for anyone to argue against. Including Emma was hard and brave for her but extremely important for the argument.

I'd have liked to hear sport being mentioned (esp given all the Bradly W stuff; ironic they're kicking up a fuss about asthma meds but not TiMs in sport with their vastly superior body structure and lung capacity) but it was about safe spaces.

I thought Sara and Nicola handled it really well. Nicola was obviously nervous at the beginning but she soon picked back up again and both women made very well reasoned, calm points. I think we need people to be calm, polite, reasonable, and persistent in this kind of forum - it was a rare opportunity and Sara and Nicola were actually allowed to give their viewpoint, which they did very well. It seemed that most of the public comments were in their favour. The woman speaking about personal experiences of a refuge was very brave despite some pretty harsh questioning. Going all rad fem is not going to get us anywhere - maybe in future, but not yet.

The editing of Pilgrim's piece at the beginning was dreadful - it was obvious there was a whole conversation that had been cherry picked to make her look bad and avoid the key points.

I've just been watching the relevant sections of this programme on the iPlayer.

It was just so refreshing and encouraging to see this subject discussed on mainstream television! Good grief, doesn't that tell us something?!

I think Pilgrim handled it really well under the circumstances. Rebecca was trying to make it all about bathrooms and being 'scared' of transgender people. She did not let it wander off into that dead end.

The transgender 'view' of what women are trying to get over, as described in that film was No one has been listening.

I agree it was badly edited.

Hopefully, I will get time to watch the discussion tomorrow.

Yes, Silvery, very refreshing

Sara's comment about the risks to transmen in men's toilets was interesting. Clara's reaction seemed almost disbelieving, did anyone else think that?

I went and had a look for incidents of violence against transmen and found this article written by a transman..

splinternews.com/as-a-transgender-man-choosing-which-bathroom-to-use-ca-1793857907

'' But my experiences in men’s rooms have been far worse. Every time I enter a male locker room, I brace for what may be around the corner. Frequently, if men in the locker room see my body as I change or as walk into the showers, they follow me. In a few horrific cases, men have pulled back my shower curtain to “better see” me, or worse, pushed their genitals at me. ''

The writer, Jack, wishes to see all bathrooms made gender neutral. Presumably to allow Jack to blend in better and not give Jackself away by the rustle of a tampon wrapper. The fact that women would then be subject to the harassment and violence that Jack has experienced seems to have passed Jack by.

• the article was written by a Jake not a Jack.

@Datun and everyone else concerned about bias in the recorded piece. Having read through the BBC guidelines and complaints process I believe these have been breached. I strongly recommend sending in a complaint if you are concerned - feel free to use any of the below wording if you agree with it. To complain go to: ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

The item presented by Rebecca Root breaches the BBC guidelines, which commit the BBC to impartiality and fairness and accuracy.

The central decision to air an item presented by an advocate of self-identification of legal gender is at odds with the requirement for impartiality. Rebecca Root clearly states in the item that she supports the policy change being discussed. She does so with the authority of a presenter. For many viewers, this is likely to be their first introduction to a complex and contested issue. Yet the BBC has introduced them to this debate with an item presented by someone who favours one side of that debate over the other.

This also contradicts the duty of fairness: advocates of self-ID were given more airtime and authority than opponents. Will a feminist opponent of self-ID be given the same chance to present an item of equal length?

Elements of the item show partiality. This is most obvious in the interviews with respondents. The two critics of self-ID, Pilgrim Tucker and Ella Whelan, were challenged on their views and positions by Rebecca Root. The two advocates of self-ID, Paris Lees and Heather Peto, spoke entirely unchallenged.

The item’s characterisation of the Crowdfunder relating to Labour’s all-women shortlists was not fair or accurate. The item described the appeal as seeking to ban self-declared transwomen from all-women shortlists. In fact, the appeal seeks funds for a legal challenge to establish whether it is lawful for Labour to allow people who self-define as women but who do not hold a Gender Recognition Certificate and are thus, in law, male to qualify for AWS places that are reserved for women. This significant question of law was entirely absent from the item, which thus unfairly and inaccurately represented the Crowdfunder, its supporters, and the issues relating to it.

I think Paris Lees was on a different subject all together with all the gay adoption and stuff . Didn't seem to be connecting the the GRA self ID stuff at all.

Yes that was totally random, irrelevant and would have been challenged by an unbiased reporter.

I completely agree boxes and buttons, but it's so rare to have a BBC piece letting opponents of the gender identity bill or any women the trans lobby view as transphobic air their views that I don't want to put them off doing further pieces.
I do think they should have had VD interviewing everyone though and just had RR as one of the interviewees.

2rebecca I think you can say thank you for the open debate part and covering the issues but also complain.

I don't think it will put them off though - people always complain to the BBC especially on contentious issues. And it is the BBC's job to report fairly, this was clearly not fairly reported imo, they should be called out on it.

If you complain and get fobbed off, take your complaint to the next stage of the process ( www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/ )

I made a complaint to the BBC (many years ago about a different issue) and got a fobbing off reply despite the fact that they had clearly breached their own rules. I pursued it to the next stage and they found in my favour.

Outing myself here. I’m Emma from today’s Victoria Derbyshire programme. Just wanted to say thank you for your kind comments.

It was tougher than I’d expected and I don’t think I came across too well but I wanted to make the point that at the time women enter refuge they are at their most vulnerable and I know in my own circumstances I could not have coped with being around ‘someone with a penis’. I needed to feel safe after all I’d been thru with my ex and whilst I realise not all men are perps and want to hurt me at that time I struggled hugely being around any males as saw them all as a potential threat and I know I’m not alone in how I was feeling then. Even when we had to have repairs done at refuge it would frequently be males carrying out repairs but they were not aware it was a refuge and we were told in advance so could choose to stay out the way.

I suffer with PTSD and am only just starting to move forward with the help of counselling but I know I will never be as trusting as I used to be. There’s literally 3 men I trust not to hurt me and that’s all. I can’t see myself ever being in a relationship again and the thought of sex makes me want to throw up.

My big worry is those who self identity as a female to gain access to refuges. There would be nothing to stop a perp doing this in a bid to track their former partner down. This puts women at huge risk.

twitter.com/victorialive/status/970609534124240896

Thank you so much for speaking out.

I know there were many issues left unaddressed. And I know that the initial segment with Root was a softening up process (unsuccessful).

Also, Paris Lees refuses to debate this with gender critical women. It never happens. Which is why, presumably, they were in a stand alone segment. Getting in the bit about gay rights, is entirely strategic. It's a tedious argument, but one which has made people feel as though they should get on board. The fact that transgenderism is profoundly homophobic makes it risable. Lees knows this.

Apart from the issues that were raised, the most useful part of this was debunking the myth that women who have questions are rabid haters.

That, and the public nailing down of the fact that asking questions is not transphobic. That was crucial.

It has opened the door a crack and shoved a wedge under it.

There are people in media who are concerned. And this was a green(ish) light that tells them they can raise issues. It was, after all, decided on the programme - by everyone - that raising the issue is okay.

And yes, the more complaints the BBC get, the better.