Channel 4's Genderquake Debate is heavily criticised/ boycotted(?) by prominent transgender activists & allies .

[R0wantrees]

Transgender campaigners and organisations have released an open letter to Channel 4 criticising Genderquake, a season of programmes touted as an exploration of the gender debate, as "counterproductive".
Signees are particularly concerned about Genderquake: The Debate, a studio discussion hosted by Cathy Newman that promises to look at what gender means in 2018. It will discuss topics including: 'what defines our gender identity', 'how that affects our rights', 'should it be easier to change gender' and 'does gender matter'.

The letter, published by indy100 in full below, argues that the debate will give legitimacy to transphobia, prejudice and the notion that trans identities are up for discussion. This concern is presumably stoked by the presence of Australian-born academic and writer Germaine Greer on the panel, who has previously said transgender women "can't be women". continues...

"The letter is published in full below and has been signed by dozens of prominent transgender and non-binary activists and campaigners - and allies - alike, including Fox Fisher, Owl, Stephanie Hirst, Juno Roche, Travis Alabanza, Kate Llewellyn, Jack Monroe and India Willoughby."

www.indy100.com/article/genderquake-the-debate-transphobia-channel-4-open-letter-campaigners-germaine-greer-8341481

Great post Monsoon Mama.

It was absolutely shocking the way GG was set up and spoken to. I couldn't hear the words the hecklers were saying, and yes shouting penis probably wasn't helpful, but I can totally understand the position of utter frustration it came from. The really low point for me was the way they piled on Sarah when she dared to utter the words male violence in the same conversation as trans rights. They went bonkers and completely misrepresented what she said, and shut her down. It was also infuriating that every single time someone was starting to develop a cogent argument it was interrupted to go to a break. Almost like they weren't given a chance to speak until just before the ad break, whereas Jenner....

Well, the "debate" is over now. I can't see that it is unfair to ask GG about her comments in the past, because they have been so much quoted and repeated. On the other hand, to hold against her something she said in a jocular , deliberately humourous way to make a serious point is unfair, and happens a lot these days. Similarly CJ's joke of some while ago about her biggest problem being choice of clothes was, well, an off hand joke. Clearly she has bigger worries than wardrobe selections. Neither GG nor CJ, nor anyone else, should be castigated for robust humour, taken out of context.

I had a lovely time in the green room chatting to Germaine Greer..... the whole thing was a set up, seems like the only reason they had her on was to ask her about lopping your dick off and trying to make her apologies for it,.

I will be writing a full letter of complaint to Ofcom today. I was particularly angry at the ridiculing of an older woman on live TV.,.... talk about misogyny in action. And they lied, they blindsided and generally were deceitful bastards about the whole thing.

therealposieparker, I'm sorry that you and the other women were set up. People watching can see that though. I don't think anybody would have been convinced of the TIM claim to be women based on those performances.

At least you got to meet some great women.

Complaints can be made directly to Channel 4 vía their online contact form and more importantly to OfCom using their broadcast complaints form.

When making complaints to OfCom it is probably worth making them with reference to the OfCom Broadcasting Code giving specific instances where you feel the programme violated the code. Having read through the guidelines, I think there are cases to be made for violations of several sections:

Section 2 Harm and Offence
Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience. which Cathy Newman did with her assertions towards Germaine Greer;
...broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context...Such material may include...discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age...sex) Germaine Greer’s contributions were denigrated on grounds of her age, with views being described as outdated, and both Germaine Greer and Sarah Ditum were discriminated against on grounds of their sex with regard to their treatment by the chair and other panellists.
Complaints about heckling would come under this as well, but as they did not come from C4 but from audience members I don’t think they should be considered in the same way by OfCom, especially when it is documented that C4 actively encouraged the audience to make themselves heard, misled them as to their expected contributions to the debate, and plied them with alcohol.

Section 5 Due Impartiality and Accuracy
Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved
Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with due weight over appropriate timeframes.
In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme
Broadcasters should not give undue prominence to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy
See the link for more details on definitions of various terms here, but I think clear cases can be made for multiple violations of these points - the balance of the panel in the first place, as well as how panellists were treated by the chair, airtime given etc.

Section 7 Fairness
Broadcasters and programme makers should normally be fair in their dealings with potential contributors to programmes
Where a person is invited to make a contribution to a programme...they should normally...be made aware of any significant changes to the programme as it develops which might reasonably affect their original consent to participate, and which might cause material unfairness
It is not clear if or when the targeted invited audience were made aware that they would not in fact be asked the questions they were expecting to be asked. I doubt many would have consented to participate as a background prop.
If a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond.
Possible case with the treatment of Greer on this, as although she was ‘given opportunity to respond’ harangued for an inflammatory soundbite, given that she was blindsided by an inaccurate accusation I’m not sure that the ‘appropriate and timely’ requirements here were satisfied.

I think I may have to steel myself to re-watch some segments of the programme in order to frame my complaint. Gah. This is important stuff tho.

Cross-post with Posie..... just to clarify I am encouraging anyone who watched to submit complaints as a viewer, as well as 110% supporting Posie and all other ‘participants’ who were dicked around by C4 in making their own direct complaints.

Posie you are an amazing woman I heard you speak at the WNTT event at Westminster. Thankyou so much for standing up for all of us.

I can understand the frustration - and it does have the hallmarks of a setup - but I'm not impressed about the heckling. I'm not against it in principle but you have to pick your moments - think Christabel Pankhurst at the Free Trade Hall or the 1970 Miss World contest. If the people you're heckling are setting themselves up as the victims then you're just going to look a knob.

They're fighting dirty and we need to be smarter than that.

KayM2: I agree, it is reasonable for anyone and everyone to be asked about things they have said.

GG (and Julies Burchill and Bindel) were early on questioning what it means for women when people brought up as men and boys enter the tent. Ask her the question, hear her views. Disagree or not as appropriate. The issue was that the whole basis of interviewing GG was different from the way questions were asked of the trans women.

As it happens I have never felt anything other than wholly comfortable including trans women in my working and social life. I totally accept that people ‘feel’ as if they are a particular gender and respect that.

It’s the politics of TRAs and their attacks and telling everyone how to think, and assaults on free speech that get to me.

Cwenthryth
Thanks very much for that information. That's really useful. I do worry that flooding C4 with complaints may entrench the general media reluctance to host any debate on this subject.

On the other hand, they are going to hear a lot from the TRAs and their perspective, so, on balance I think we need to ensure that the issue with how gender critical participants were treated are also strongly criticised.

It's such a shame that the opportunity to air the issues to a wider audience was ballsed-up. I think we also need to make that point.

I'm not against it in principle but you have to pick your moments

Yes - also remember that the fundamental aim of TV is to create entertainment. They want a cast of characters to create a narrative.

All these companies have this massive diversity drive which makes everything unchallengeable (you challenge, you're bad, you lose your job) and the trans ideology is placed under the same umbrella as racism, sexism, homophobia, lesbophobia so people just Do Not challenge it, they won’t speak out about it, they’re silenced.

How is a culture of fear at a media company healthy if you do not feel able to speak the truth to power? The media exists to do exactly this: speak the truth to power. That's why freedom of speech is so essential.

And whilst there are massive flaws in the recruitment at media companies, diversity training to the point of creating fear and unthinking clones is deeply unhelpful, precisely because it makes the organisation less diverse!

The criticism that Trump went on and on about was the liberal media. Ditto the referendum here. And if they are teaching diversity to the point that people working there are all brainwashed even if they are diverse in make up, they are not in terms of political belief. And that makes it somewhat problematic and all this diversity training utterly self defeating!

I've not noticed any media companies taking sexism seriously tbh. They generally seem to enforce it - unequal pay of staff, unequal representation of voices, pushing stereotypes, etc.

What a shit show that was. From the heckling yo MB demanding someone be removed from the audience. No doubt this was a set up. Thought it was a bit rich to pull GG up on alleged comments she made when MB has made some horrific comments in the past.

It's the way transwomen are painted as if they are perfect people who can do no wrong. Catelynn Jenner ran someone over and killed them ffs.

Catelynn showed her true colours with the anecdote about using a women's toilet and then walking past trump (I think it was) whilst making a snide comment about how no one was molested. That just shows complete unawareness of women's very genuine concerns.

I found it very telling that the only transman there wasn't really given the opportunity to speak much. It was basically the Catelynn and Monroe show.

It all about what men want. They have always hated any pro-womans movmemt.

Reactions after the show from Kenny Jones & Monroe Bergdorf which also talk about their motivations.

I've not noticed any media companies taking sexism seriously tbh. They generally seem to enforce it - unequal pay of staff, unequal representation of voices, pushing stereotypes, etc.

Woman are conditioned to comply. Men are not in the same way. Therefore does diversity training have unintended consequences... is it universally effective or do some people not feel the pressure to comply in the same way?

Brian Paddick is asking for views on the show on twitter.

It's ok tho . People will be shown the difference. Woman shouts 'penis' - opprobrium. Man shouts 'cunt' 'die in a fire' - tumbleweed .

Today's article in The Guardian by Gaby Hinscliff is definitely worth a read, www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/10/the-gender-recognition-act-is-controversial-can-a-path-to-common-ground-be-found

It discusses Genderquake in the wider context with a great deal of balance. Includes discussion about WPUK.

current thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3244904-Finally-a-balanced-overview-article-in-the-Guardian

Thank you for sharing R0wantrees

Kenny Jones's Twitter comment is very nice, I thought, friendly, not taking the opportunity to get at anyone. The glad to be invited & take part idea sounds a bit ... I dunno, female? He hardly got any time he got to state his views, compared with MB & CJ.

From Steven Whittle:
Reflections @genderquake debate: @channel4 floor manager"this is a 'listening polite & respectful' event", 5 mins later "clap & cheer if you like something, sigh & hiss if you don't", then Producer speaks "don't forget, make yourself heard - both for & against what you hear"

twitter.com/stephenwhittle/status/994313490272784385

The audience was encouraged to speak up.

The female socialisation shines through in that tweet. Not a slate on Kenny, just an observation.

Just so everyone knows the entire ITN team had diversity training from either Gendered Intelligence or GIRES the week or two before.

These trans indoctrinating women loathing lobbies are in our councils, our schools, our workplaces.... they are training the police, the judiciary, the NHS.

The "penis" cries were maybe once or twice, the other heckles were about misogyny and the patriarchy. Oh and I said "shame on you" to Manroe and that women are women sans uterus and if they don't have kids, but no one born with a penis can carry a baby.