BBC Breakfast

[Alicethroughtheblackmirror]

Talking about self ID now.

This really concerns me (and I know many others)

Discussing vulnerable young people such apparent constant reference to suicide ideation/ self-harm without what would in any other circumstances be accompanied with link to support.

Why are Samaritans' well-established principles about responsible reporting ignored by TRAs and the media channels which host / quote the interviews?

All people involved in that piece falsely believe it is possible to change sex.
All people in that piece either ARE male, or have gained a fictional legal recognition as male, or are seeking it.

Not one ACTUAL female who holds the factual position that sex cannot be changed.

So a piece about the impact of a proposed law that will allow many males to be legally recognised as females, included only actual biological males, legal (fictional) males, and those who would be legal (fictional) males.

Not one actual, biological female (you know a representative of the 33 million in the UK who are born that way and no there's no way of changing it)

Are we actually becoming invisible? I'm sure my license fee direct debit is still being drawn...

Could have done without the sad piano...but it was hardly hard hitting debate on either side

It is such a poor argument really on 'who has the right to say what gender I am
Correct but let's not conflate sex with gender. Born male, your sex remains male always! Unless you actually are prepared to jump through the legal hoops that gatekeep predatory males from accessing female spaces. If you don't have gender dysphoria, I am not going to pretend you are a female when I know the chances are highly likely you have a penis underneath your skirt and by going along with it I am being complicit / being exploited as part of your sexual fetish.

Am pretty sure barrack that Debbie does acknowledge that you can't change sex.

Am pretty sure barrack that Debbie does acknowledge that you can't change sex.

Yes definitely. Debbie is a biology teacher.

I cannot believe the BBC did not include a female voice on this. They mentioned women's groups and that it was controversial. Nic Williams would have been an obvious choice. Why on earth didn't they ask her?

Debbie was good though. Thanks Debbie.

Am pretty sure barrack that Debbie does acknowledge that you can't change sex.

Debbie Hayton articles:
quillette.com/2018/03/30/plea-trans-activists-can-protect-trans-rights-without-denying-biology/

www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/03/gender-identity-needs-to-be-based-on-objective-evidence-rather-than-feelings

Debbie was good in the stupidly small amount of time she had.
Considering they made her make her points to a young person who is clearly still traumatised by dysphoria, which is a bit of a shit set up, to be fair.

Hello everyone. Just to let you all know that I was booked to go onto BBC breakfast to discuss the film with Juno Dawson. Juno did not want to debate with me and to cut a long story short the discussion was cancelled and I was dropped. As women, we are stakeholders in this debate and should have been given a voice in this piece - it was incomplete without it. Please make your discontent with this known by complaining to the BBC and writing in to newspapers letters pages asking why women are being let down and excluded from a very important public debate during a public consultation period.

They’re running scared from you, Nic!

Juno has said on twitter that Juno will not appear in anything that covers both sides. Juno is very much still stuck in ‘no debate’ land.

¯\(ツ)/¯

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3296433-BBC-Bias-Collecting-Examples-here

Juno is sitting hiding from you right now DoctorW.

Don't confront her with your composure, facts and logic, she might have to flip the bird and swear on live tv. And that would never do.

That is insane DrNic. So they basically censored you because someone from the opposing side didn't like what you were saying?

And then had no one at all who was a woman on to discuss the negative impact on women of the proposals and our concerns?

Plus put Debbie in a difficult position with no time slot.

So in the week of the Karen White case the issue of a male sexual offender self-iding as a woman and harming vulnerable women was not even raised.

Unfuckingbelievable.

Debbie might acknowledge biological sex but when she’s given two minutes obviously edited to be a bit ambiguous, it may miss the mark with lots of people.

Not that I disagree with any points made here. I am disgusted with the bbc.

The BBC has completely the wrong stance on that. If one side in a 2 sided discussion refuses to discuss the situation and debate it then they should be the ones uninvited, not the people who are willing to debate.
Tantrums because people are allowed to express opinions different to yours and say they think you're wrong are for toddlers not adults.
Adults do debate and discuss issues. That's part of being a grown up.

Discussing vulnerable young people such apparent constant reference to suicide ideation/ self-harm without what would in any other circumstances be accompanied with link to support.

Yes. BBC editorial guidelines:

Care is also required when portraying, in factual or fictional content, conditions such as anorexia or bulimia. We should be aware that the vulnerable, especially the young, may imitate or emulate behaviour and techniques depicted. Care should be taken to ensure that content is responsible and appropriate for the likely audience. Helplines or support material should be provided, or linked to, when necessary.

www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/harm-and-offence/suicide

NUJ Code of Conduct:
A journalist:
(extract)
"At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.

Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.

Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.

Differentiates between fact and opinion.

Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means." (continues)

www.nuj.org.uk/about/nuj-code/

Will make a complaint, Nic.

The BBC have applied this principle in other items. I've frequently listened to discussions on a policy / controversy on R4 when they announce at the end that x was invited but declined and refused to give a statement. Juno clearly realises the argument is weak and fears the least amount of sunlight will expose it: that position should not be indulged and granted tacit acceptance.

I'm still capable of being shocked, so that's something. But, yes, I'm taken aback at BBC cancelling DoctorW - what is the point of having fact checking organisations to ensure adequate civil debate and discourse if some facts and perspectives are not going to be put in front of the public?

The excellent Dave Allen Green wrote this tweet and thread (worth reading) about Brexit but it applies in many ways to this topic because so much of the public will never get the opportunity learn whether "popery [is] a man or a horse".

Defoe once said, supposedly, that there were a hundred thousand stout country-fellows in his time ready to fight to the death against popery, without knowing whether popery was a man or a horse.

twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1039182456719585281

I was booked to go onto BBC breakfast to discuss the film with Juno Dawson. Juno did not want to debate with me and to cut a long story short the discussion was cancelled and I was dropped. As women, we are stakeholders in this debate and should have been given a voice in this piece - it was incomplete without it

Article by Jane Clare Jones:
'GAY RIGHTS AND TRANS RIGHTS – A COMPARE AND CONTRAST
So, Momentum made a video huh?'

(extract)
To be honest, it’s kind of a classic of its genre. Once more with feeling everyone: Trans rights are just like gay rights. Anyone who thinks otherwise is some nasty backwards morally bankrupt fuddy-duddy asshole who is going to look back on their objections to the current trans rights agenda with an enormous eggy face-full of shame. Remember peoples, we’re just telling you this for your own good. YOU DON’T WANT TO GO GETTING CAUGHT ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY DO YOU NOW????

This parallel between gay and trans rights has been leveraged for all its worth by the trans rights movement. It’s one Owen Jones has trotted out endlessly to justify his point-blank refusal to listen to anything anyone – particularly female anyones – have to say on the matter. It’s embedded in the way trans rights is now the centre of activity for many LGBTQI+ organizations, and has come, most notably, to dominate Stonewall’s campaign agenda. And it’s present, perhaps most potently, in the way objections to trans rights are immediately dismissed as bigotry and ‘transphobia’ – a thought-terminating lifting of the notion of discrimination-as-phobia taken straight from gay-rights discourse.

This strategy has been incredibly effective" (continues)

janeclarejones.com/2018/09/09/gay-rights-and-trans-rights-a-compare-and-contrast/

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3360726-The-magnificent-Jane-Clare-Jones

Talking of little Owen Jones...

He's been suspiciously quiet on this topic recently. I just looked at his twitter and guardian page. Nary a word on trans for ages.

What gives, Owen? Realised you were flogging a dead horse?

The BBC have applied this principle in other items. I've frequently listened to discussions on a policy / controversy on R4 when they announce at the end that x was invited but declined and refused to give a statement. Juno clearly realises the argument is weak and fears the least amount of sunlight will expose it: that position should not be indulged and granted tacit acceptance.

^^this.

Juno Roche makes a video for Momentum. Asserting all manner of things. And asking people to not listen to any dissent.

They agree to uphold their position with Nic Williams on the BBC.

But after Nic speaks with Victoria Derbyshire, Juno pulls out.

And Nic gets uninvited as a result??

What the bloody hell are the BBC thinking?

If every single person in this anti women debate refuses to talk, does that mean that not a single woman will be listened to either?

The fucking BBC upholding every single aspect of #NoDebate.

If anyone, anyone uses silence as an argument, they should be allowed that argument.

Let's hear their bloody silence, BBC.

Cowards.