BBC EHRC leaves stonewall scheme front page news

[NiceGerbil]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57219989

BBC front page on website.

'Human rights body leaves Stonewall diversity scheme'

Crikey things are changing.

"‘The BBC denied reports that the creation of the gender and identity reporter related in any way to its ongoing gender pay gap and equal pay issues."

Makes me wonder - is the sex pay gap bigger or smaller than the gender pay gap at the BBC - would be very interesting to know.

Does that quote actually say that the term ‘lesbian’ is a microaggression?

I apologise for existing

she uses the term homosexual or lesbian because it doesn’t matter to her as much as the woman sitting in London who is much more savvy to all these terms as a micro aggression

I doubt it would be perceived as a "microaggression" if the "lesbian" was male

Seems a good thing to increase awareness. Has just left me down a rabbit hole of reading about the EHRC. The wiki page is an interesting read but note this paragraph at the end:

In April 2021, the EHRC weighed in on the legal appeal in the case of Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development, arguing that anti-trans "gender critical" beliefs and actions were protected under the 2010 Equality Act and that the CGD's decision not to renew Forstater's contract over such actions amounted to illegal discrimination.[72] This led to criticism of the EHRC from LGBT rights organisations such as Stonewall. Following this, the EHRC announced that it was leaving Stonewall's Diversity Champions scheme in March 2021.[73]

The way this is worded is highly questionable and the framing of GC beliefs as anti-trans is a concern. The ‘anti trans’ is hyperlinked to the ‘transphobia’ wiki page. Does anyone do Wikipedia and know what they are doing to try and edit this?

‘Makes me wonder - is the sex pay gap bigger or smaller than the gender pay gap at the BBC - would be very interesting to know.‘

That is SUCH a good question!

Yes it’s horrible isn’t it about someone giving the time of day to the idea that self describing as lesbian and homosexual means using words constituting ‘microaggression’, and that this is problematic.
If people have that reaction then they need proper mental health support. The response shouldn’t be to imply it would better to be taking away people’s own language for themselves, the obliteration of commonly used language terms that are a key aspect of other peoples’ lives.

That much seems obvious when you’re outside the bubble, but clearly in trying to ‘please everyone’ this journalist has been set an impossible task by the BBC. I hope she gets good support in the role but you’d think they’d be robust about saying to their journalists that they can please everyone and this is absolutely OK and normal part of reporting that you won’t.
But also this might just be my reading of it, but what sounds like the assumption underlying this that if only other cultures were more ‘savvy’ then they might avoiding giving out these ‘microagressions’, (which would be pleasing western people and therefore would be a good thing?). That is just so wildly inappropriate.

All of this is what I mean about the BBC seemingly not having thought their own editorial position through carefully enough or coherently enough when it comes to the actual politics of how to report on women as a sex, gender as stereotypes, gender identity as a belief system, sexuality including same- sex attraction. It’s a self-contradictory mess and seems highly exposing to the individual journalists trying to report in that confused context.

The Press Gazette link has more details about the ‘gender’ (ie SEX) pay gap. If you look at the related stories tabs under the story I linked to there are a few examples of their coverage. The ending of the story I linked has a quote I didn’t paste in from BBC’s spokesperson saying gender pay gap is 7% which they said is better than other broadcasters - if you look on the press Gazette links to other stories channel 4’s is or was 28% (!) links to other stories also show that research shows gender pay gap increased at a third of news companies.. the Economist is the worst offender.

I think she's a bit of an idiot but yes I agree she has a difficult line to walk at the BBC.

In April 2021 XXX happened
Following this XXX in March 2021

I remember a journalist friend of mine complaining that he'll submit an article in which things are "said" and the subs, in a desire to storify it, to build a narrative to draw in the reader, will often replace "said" with "replied", "responded" etc thus creating casual links that were not in the original article and didn't actually happen.

The way this is worded is highly questionable and the framing of GC beliefs as anti-trans is a concern. The ‘anti trans’ is hyperlinked to the ‘transphobia’ wiki page. Does anyone do Wikipedia and know what they are doing to try and edit this?

It's actually rare for criticism of gender identity ideology to be framed as anything that isn't termed as "anti-trans" Undersnatch. As far as Wikipedia shenanigans are concerns, since the voluntary editor group is overrun with trans activists, you can fairly assume they'll seize any opportunity to paint their opponents as transphobes.

Being discussed on Politics Live just now

Wikipedia claims unbiased neutrality and reliable sources (so definitely not Pink News!).

Just because a biased Trans Rights Activist has posted doesn’t mean we have to let it stand.
I’m glad to see someone has now rectified this.

wikipedia has long been, like more of the internet, a male domain.

That is why on occassions there are days dedicated to women trying to correct blatant falsehoods, usually about feminism, and distortions. And indeed try and match the number of entries about men, with entries about women.

However it is a bit of a free for all, where the dominant group (men) are able to quickly reverse any attempt made to create a more balanced entry. And being completely satisfied that if they dont know about something they will delete, or get deleted, more pro woman entries.

As far as I know anyone can sign up to make entries additions to wikipedia, but be prepared to have to be endlessly vigilent and face a very topsy turvy view of when something is valid.

In fact there are regular "editathon" held by women in various professions, historians, etc., to try and redress the balance.

We had to do it when Penelope Leach was targeted by MRAs a few years ago. I didn’t realise there were organised cleanups these days.

I don't understand what the issue is with lesbian, homosexual.

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.