FiLia/Womens Place/Fairplay for Women joins statement re Womens Hour 20/10/20

[TheClitterati]

"Today, 20th Oct, BBC Woman's Hour hosted an excellent discussion on the politicization of Mumsnet with feminist scholar Sarah Pederson (at approx 25mins). The discussion looked at the growth of the popular Mumsnet feminist discussion boards and their role in promoting a nascent women's movement advocating women's rights, in particular informing discussion on GRA reform.

Womans Place UK, Fair Play for Women and FiLiA were highlighted as groups popular with and representative of women's rights issues. At this point Jane Garvey, the BBC presenter felt it necessary to interject "we have to be clear, which are groups that some people have describe, in some circumstances, as transphobic".

FiLiA, FPFW and WPUK are not transphobic. It is not acceptable for a BBC journalist to repeat libellous comment about us as if it is fair comment or a balancing of the discussion. There is simply no basis in fact for this comment to be made. It is the repetition of misogynist slander to which too many women are subjected.

These comments are seriously prejudicial to the reputations of women involved with these organisations, some of whom have previously been invited on the programme. We urge BBC Woman's Hour to correct this inaccurate reporting and we would like to thank Sarah Pederson for her excellent and informative analysis of the feminist phenomenon that is Mumsnet."

FiLiA, WPUK and Fair Play For Women

filia.org.uk/resources/2020/10/20/statement-on-comments-made-by-bbc-womans-hour?fbclid=IwAR3MH9ri1CTdkOdW0CTMwyKmeloEnTeddd3k503vnyenIb1NeTy65O6MYgo

"we have to be clear, which are groups that some people have describe, in some circumstances, as transphobic".

This is not clear, who are 'some people', what are the circumstances and how do they define transphobia?

@zanahoria

"we have to be clear, which are groups that some people have describe, in some circumstances, as transphobic".

This is not clear, who are 'some people', what are the circumstances and how do they define transphobia?

This. What is the thought process behind that statement?

@Doyoumind

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Woman's Hour pointed out who, out of all the organisations they discuss, was misogynistic. Far more relevant to the programme.

It is probably the same 'people' who constantly snipe at Womans Hour's failure to centre men.

You would think there would be some awareness.

WH are just terrified of this subject aren't they? They didn't have to be, could have tackled it head-on eons ago, caused a stink within & without the corporation for being gagged on one of the most important women's rights issues of our times. Instead, they allowed Jenny Murray to be vilified for raising her head above the parapet and then silenced her, merrily went about their business while ignoring the elephant crushing the furniture and forced presenters to dissemble time and time again as women's sex based rights hung in the balance. Now because they can't call a spade a spade they've cobbled together some offensive statement in order to represent 'both sides', one of which makes rape threats against women on a daily basis. All because WH has been trying to appease men.

@zanahoria

"we have to be clear, which are groups that some people have describe, in some circumstances, as transphobic".

This is not clear, who are 'some people', what are the circumstances and how do they define transphobia?

Yes! I'm assuming she meant 'let me be clear' as in the politician-speak for 'let me be vague or twist the issue horribly'

I really do want the Beeb to get back to being at its best but I fear it will take legal action before they become 'sensibly' impartial. Woman's hour is about bloody women, or perhaps to could be renamed Those Who Identify as Women

I'm up for more digging if needed

My falling-out-love-with-Radio-4, which had slowed a little after a few decent programmes came on when I was decorating the other day, has gone back to its former speed of about Mach 2.

WH are just terrified of this subject aren't they?
The question is why. It's a massive issue relating to women's rights and you'd have thought the presenters would be spitting tacks and tackling it at regular intervals, in all its gruesome detail. As a PP said, maybe it's due to comprehensive institutional capture. Which is deeply worrying.

This was posted on the Rugby thread a while ago, but FPFW have retweeted it now to show the abuse they receive for their ''transphobia''.

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1318581702646747137

Everyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the last few years knows damn well that throwing around transphobia accusations leads to this kind of abuse of women.

I’d imagine some people would also describe Women’s Hour as transphobic for regarding pregnancy, child birth or menopause as women’s issues.

@HecatesCats

WH are just terrified of this subject aren't they? They didn't have to be, could have tackled it head-on eons ago, caused a stink within & without the corporation for being gagged on one of the most important women's rights issues of our times. Instead, they allowed Jenny Murray to be vilified for raising her head above the parapet and then silenced her, merrily went about their business while ignoring the elephant crushing the furniture and forced presenters to dissemble time and time again as women's sex based rights hung in the balance. Now because they can't call a spade a spade they've cobbled together some offensive statement in order to represent 'both sides', one of which makes rape threats against women on a daily basis. All because WH has been trying to appease men.

It's nice that the blokes at the corporation let us have our little programme though isn't it?

So glad they’ve made this statement, and hope they pursue it. I’ve had it to the back teeth with the BBC and would happily dig for a crowdfunder. This lazy smearing is exactly the same sort of journalism that keeps the “JK Rowling said problematic things” train running.

Just seen this.. what?! OMG. What a massive and untrue shit-stir by Jane Garvey.
If she thinks women having rights is ‘transphobic’ she’s totally in the wrong job. She should be honourable and resign.

I think Jane was just repeating what she had been told to say by the penis wielding overlords at the BBC.

Although it's worth remembering Jane that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it make misleading slanderous statements about women's rights groups if the horse flat out refuses.

Some of me wonders if they'll only "allow" discussion if those qualifiers are mentioned? Which is still coercive.

Sarah's come back was brilliant. That mn users do their research.

But the slur is there. And as said on the other thread, we don't hear it about Stonewall and any other number of organisations who've let women down.

I hope it's challenged.

On top of the shite trailers that other link voice overs and prefaces asking if Mn was too politicised, there's someone behind the scenes stifling women.

It's nice that the blokes at the corporation let us have our little programme though isn't it?

Only if we are nice and ladylike. Can't rock the boat.

Wondering how this is going to pan out.

To be fair I haven’t listened and maybe she was signalling otherwise with her eyes or something.. but she is an professional journalist on the only BBC woman’s programme and she will know about the stakes in this area,‘transphobia’ is not a flippant charge to make.

If jane Garvey was asked to slate those women’s groups and she didn’t agree with it she should have said so. And obviously not dropped the t-bomb. She would have got a world of shit on Twitter for going public about refusing to do that, but she would also have made her name beyond the BBC and got a lot of support.

As none of that happened and completely irrelevantly she called ‘transphobia’ in a dogwhistle way on women’s groups then I can only assume she agrees with the overlords.

Not having a go at you Even I‘m just past the benefit of the doubt stage when someone like JG who knows what the issues are here for women speaking out, stirs the pot like that against GC women.

I so wished she'd say: "yeah but everything's transphobic though."

And then stated one of the things defined as transphobic which I don't want to say as I don't know if Mumsnet allows it to be said, but it's about a biological fact.

The nation's Radio 4 women would have dropped their toast in surprise..

I listened to radio 4 regularly for over 30 years. I never listen to it now.
I must try Times radio. It looks interesting.

@zanahoria

"we have to be clear, which are groups that some people have describe, in some circumstances, as transphobic".

This is not clear, who are 'some people', what are the circumstances and how do they define transphobia?

The only people that think that are trans people that have heard of them.

I don’t think BBC editorial guidance on impartiality and their duty of care to their contributors requires unfounded perjorative language from anyone’s political opponents to be used when they are being interviewed.

If the BBC can point out where in writing this is required, and how it is routinely applied beyond women’s groups, that would be helpful.

www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines

@Winterterrace

I think it’s off when UKIP had so much BBC coverage and they never included the caveat that some people have described them in some situations as racist little-englanders.

Yes, pay attention BBC.

Porridgecake - I was also a very long time and dedicated R4 listener who has now almost completely abandoned it. Times Radio is a good substitute a lot of the time but the feeling of betrayal by the BBC is very strong.

I'm no longer sad I stopped listening to R4 now. I'll try Times Radio.

@ChattyLion

To be fair I haven’t listened and maybe she was signalling otherwise with her eyes or something.. but she is an professional journalist on the only BBC woman’s programme and she will know about the stakes in this area,‘transphobia’ is not a flippant charge to make.

If jane Garvey was asked to slate those women’s groups and she didn’t agree with it she should have said so. And obviously not dropped the t-bomb. She would have got a world of shit on Twitter for going public about refusing to do that, but she would also have made her name beyond the BBC and got a lot of support.

As none of that happened and completely irrelevantly she called ‘transphobia’ in a dogwhistle way on women’s groups then I can only assume she agrees with the overlords.

Not having a go at you Even I‘m just past the benefit of the doubt stage when someone like JG who knows what the issues are here for women speaking out, stirs the pot like that against GC women.

Oh no. I'm not giving her the benefit of the doubt. But that might be how she's justifying it to herself.