James Kirkup - Jo Swinson has finally made the BBC do its job on trans rights

[Melroses]

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/jo-swinson-has-finally-made-the-bbc-do-its-job-on-trans-rights/

Excellent job as always, James!

Transgenderism says that a person with a penis is a woman if they say they are a woman. ‘Trans women are women’ means people with penises have the same legal right to enter ‘women-only’ spaces (changing rooms, refuges, prisons) as any other woman – simply on the basis of their self-declared gender. That raises the question: do other women, women who don’t have penises, have the right to say ‘I do not wish to share intimate spaces with a person who has a penis’?

Yet for understandable reasons of decorum and good manners, a lot of people don’t want to address these basic facts of the debate. Really, I’m not wild about it myself. If you’d asked me a couple of years ago to set out my limited journalistic ambitions, using the word ‘penis’ repeatedly in The Spectator would not have topped the list.

Bravo, and .

If you’d asked me a couple of years ago to set out my limited journalistic ambitions, using the word ‘penis’ repeatedly in The Spectator would not have topped the list.

I can relate to this. When I’ve spoken to my MP I’ve found myself somewhat bemused by the fact that I’m repeatedly using the word “penis” in conversation with someone I don’t really know.

Really, I’m not wild about it myself. If you’d asked me a couple of years ago to set out my limited journalistic ambitions, using the word ‘penis’ repeatedly in The Spectator would not have topped the list.

Indeed!

Yup, I too have said 'penis' far more frequently than I would have liked to over the last couple of years

The very essence of the problem is penises popping up where you don't want them.

Another great article from James. I hope his name is on the special awards thread. He is one of a small number of courageous journalists who have exposed this growing scandal clearly and articulately and continues to put pressure on the many spineless MPs.

This morning saw another such horror when Swinson went on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme and was asked by Justin Webb if she accepted that ‘biological sex exists’ and that people are therefore either male or female.Her answer: ‘Not on a binary’

Brilliant piece by James Kirkup. The fact that a wannabe PM has the gall to trot out this nonsense merits ridicule.

Most voters are still largely in the dark on this issue, but with every interview, every broadcast, more of the public will come to see that there are questions about the trans rights agenda which must be asked and which remain unanswered

Absolutely true. And as he states, the reason most people know nothing about this is because of a supine media too scared of Twitter to report radical policies introduced by stealth with no democratic mandate. Great that has changed

I wish a journalist would simply ask Swinson what percentage of sex crimes are carried out by men. If she wants to remove women's rights to single-sex spaces then she should at least have done some basic risk assessments.

Next time she lies that lesbians pose the same physical risk as male-bodied transwomen I really hope a journalist points out that Swinson is spreading hate speech. She's always so focussed on how vulnerable transwomen are she seems to forget that lesbians are considerably more vulnerable.

Agree, excellent piece. Pleased James has persisted with this as he often gets stick from Spectator commentators but his pieces on this issue are usually in the "most read" list of articles. He's the reason I started subscribing, and Lionel Shriver.

as he often gets stick from Spectator commentators

Really? That surprises me. Douglas Murray is the associate editor of the Spectator and he is scathing about influence of this lobby. I would expect most Spectator readers are GC.

I knew James Kirkup would be on to this. I've been checking his Twitter feed ever since the Today programme ended.

I hope that one day he'll be able to tell the full story behind this:
I don’t fault individual BBC journalists. The corporation employs some very good journalists who have long been keen to do their jobs and scrutinise this issue as they would any other, but who have not always been able to do so in a corporate and editorial culture that has sometimes discouraged such acts of journalism.

in a corporate and editorial culture that has sometimes discouraged such acts of journalism

Floisme, parts of the media has been practicing self censorship when it comes to reporting news that challenges its partisan agenda or contradicts its political bias. It is really good to see this being called out. Most people have absolutely no idea about the influence of this lobby group. It’s an indictment of craven journalists but James Kirkup is superb

Thanks James.

I realise I said "penis" in casual conversation at work when discussing males in women only spaces.

I don't want to prioritise the penis and give it even more attention - there are so many men doing that!

It's true about the below the line comments.. until a month or so ago, they were very much of the 'serves the feminists right" /"who cares" variety. There has recently been a sea change in their tone.

Well done for persevering, James. People are waking up thanks to journalists like you.

they were very much of the 'serves the feminists right" /"who cares" variety. There has recently been a sea change in their tone

Maybe the Maya and Harry cases have made men who haven’t really understood the implications of this now realize that there is an existential threat to freedom of speech?

I realise I said "penis" in casual conversation at work when discussing males in women only spaces.

My senior male colleague recently went off on a huge rant in a departmental meeting about how lesbians don’t have a penis. It was glorious (though lots of people looked at the floor and the Chair moved things on swiftly).

My senior male colleague recently went off on a huge rant in a departmental meeting about how lesbians don’t have a penis. It was glorious (though lots of people looked at the floor and the Chair moved things on swiftly)
GC, is your department quite critical of the lobby? I have the idea that humanities and social sciences are signed up to it but sciences not so much. Is that accurate?

Bovary - I’ve only discussed it with four senior people in my humanities department, and all of them are gender critical. These are, incidentally, very politically-aware, left-leaning people, two of them gay. And they are formidably intelligent, much cleverer than I am. I do think that there are some very dogmatic people coming into academia now at the junior level, who see their role not as contributing to rigorous research and knowledge but as being political activists within a tribe which sets the rules for their thinking. By and large these people are in the social sciences and humanities, but there are some in science departments too.

I do think that there are some very dogmatic people coming into academia now at the junior level, who see their role not as contributing to rigorous research and knowledge but as being political activists within a tribe which sets the rules for their thinking

That is very worrying if that’s the trend for younger hires. But good to hear that there are still intelligent outspoken academics who are not afraid to reference external reality.., what utterly bizarre times we live in.....

Yes, it is worrying. I am lucky in that I work in a department which can spot lazy-thinking woke tribalism a mile off, and separate those people from serious scholars when we recruit. But I’ve noticed the last couple of times that we interviewed that there are more and more of the former around now.

But I’ve noticed the last couple of times that we interviewed that there are more and more of the former around now

I wonder what departments like yours will look like in 20 years? If academia is colonized by people who don’t do critical thinking, it will become a factory for fanatics

Most voters are still largely in the dark on this issue, but with every interview, every broadcast, more of the public will come to see that there are questions about the trans rights agenda which must be asked and which remain unanswered.

Sunlight! Thanks James as ever :)

There is a very lovely paragraph in a Brian Cox article I read last night on the BBC site;

Science is a way of looking at the world - it is about seeing how the world is, not through the filter of ideology, but through measured observation.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50681661

The problem is that it isn't making the BBC or anyone else do their job properly.

All we are getting is the media bandwagon, which could be any issue, and this week is let's get Jo Swinson because we know the voters dont like her and give her a good kicking.

If any part of the media cared about the issue they would be equally questioning what either of the 2 parties (one of which will be the next government) are doing about self identification, etc..

This is just about the media doing a bit of click bait and not doing proper journalism.

This is no different than everyone going on about the Lib Dems and student fees as though that was the only bad thing that happened under Tory led coalition. ie deflect away from the real culprits and pick on the hanger on.

And am really concerned that so many of this forum are joining in.

Stop congratulating the media for picking on Swinson and start asking them when they are going to equally question Dawn Butler and Maria Miller (or whoever was still in post when the election was called).

If we dont when either the Labour or Tory Government start ploughing ahead next year on dismantling women's rights you can bet the media wont own up to not challenging them. They will just goback to pumping out PN/Stonewall press releases.

Well I think Swinson is getting the treatment because she's the leader of the party that has enthusiastically embraced self ID. Even Labour have pulled their punches. But I don't disagree with your final paragraph.