GB News doing 'Gender' Now

[Jaysmith71]

...Alex Phillips, intelligent but rather pleased with herself, asking all the right questions.

And my final point.

This has been a very eye opening and uncomfortable experience for me, and many others.

Women lifelong left. Full stop.

Being despised by the left. Facists, bigots, homophobes, USA Christian right types, love enforcing gender roles etc.

Never imagined this could happen at all. But it did.

The best thing for me has been to stop only consuming media etc that I agreed with. To go wider. And why not? It's important to know what the other sides are saying. Consume, consider. Not discard automatically. Why do they think that? Do they have a point? Usually no. But always?

This is NOTHING TO DO WITH PARTY POLITICS.

Generally left leaning media etc won't touch this.

And the supposedly unbiased BBC has been pushing one side for ages.

And finally.

The suggestion that life long lefty women. Will just say oh yeah I'll get on board with the Tories, go on a date with farage and start picketing abortion clinics.

Implies that women are easily swayed, can't have deep political/ ethical feelings, are flighty, easily manipulated and a bit dim.

That's not a great thing to imply really is it.

The golden age of the Internet is over. Nothing varying from the mainstream can be discussed without being called alt right and extremist. Ironic since moderate people are forced onto platforms where really hateful views are allowed. Mumsnet is tiny now and I reckon the gc boards days are numbered.

Women's rights and protections don't belong to feminists / feminism nor does it belong to left-wing types.

I know that "GB News is all vile bigots" is a popular view in the extreme left twittersphere, but I've watched a fair bit of it and come to the conclusion that most of those people are being riled by each other and certainly haven't watched more than out of context clips on social media. Indeed, it strikes me as the exact same argument as "all GC people are vile transphobes".

I agree. It's basically Daily Mail TV. The pearl clutching about it is juvenile. Why is Farage constantly mentioned when it's not Farage who people here are watching? It's Andrew Doyle, Mark Dolan, Alex Phillips etc.

Exactly. Just like Fox News in US. It too has vile bigots but also has excellent news reporters.

If I read Sean Ingle’s excellent coverage of the impact of trans athletes in women’s sport in the Guardian, does that mean I’m aligning myself with truth-denying, propagandist, women-hating, indecent exposure-denying pathetic excuses for journalists as well?

Someone who works at the Guardian actually complained in a tweet about “anti-paedophile protestors” while denying an incident of indecent exposure. Has anyone at GB News done anything that low?

I guess it can just give a certain impression, depending on how the thread goes. The 'Nigel Garage is thoughtful' comment above, for example.

Okay but... hear me out... Nigel Farage is thoughtful.

He might not be the reincarnation of Aristotle and I may agree with him on very little, but just because he says things I disagree with doesn't mean he's not thoughtful.

More to the point - there are plenty of people in the country and in the electorate who believe he's thoughtful and agree with him. He was able to exert enough pressure on the tories to push a Brexit vote, even though Cameron would probably have preferred to cut off his own toe than have one.

I think the left's current fetish for "deplatforming" (possibly the most fatuous idea to come out of lefty online spaces) is going to come back to bite them in the arse. It's creating a situation where all the right-wing loons are relegated to their personal, cordoned-off little asylums, while the left-wing loons have the full run of all the major social media sites. To people who are not die-hard partisans—that is, the people who generally decide elections—it's not a good look.

Just caught up on this episode but I've been recording Alex Phillips' show since 'We Need to Talk about Surrogacy'. I'm impressed with how balanced the debates are. Alex unflinchingly tackles misogyny, prostitution, surrogacy, pornography, women's rights, single sex services and gender identity ideology. I don't see why on Earth she shouldn't be pleased with herself.

I like to watch Alex Phillips, Mercy Muroki, Nana Akua Amotemaa-Appiah, Inaya Folarin Iman, Andrew Doyle, Colin Brazier and Neil Oliver. Free Speech Nation is a breath of fresh air every week. Marilyn Hawes from the child safeguarding charity Freedom from Abuse is my favourite frequent guest that I didn't know of before watching GB News. Don't write it all off because you don't like certain presenters. It wouldn't be balanced if everybody was to my specific taste. I like being introduced to new topics and viewpoints and making my mind up by hearing from both sides.

@thedancingbear

Doesn't it raise a red flag for anyone when you find yourself aligning with a news outlet noted for its thinly-veiled racism and more general far-right leanings?

Not intended as a criticism of the GC position (which for the most part I agree with) but, fucking hell, the idea of sitting and nodding along to NewsGB and Farage - a pound shop Oswald Moseley - makes me queasy.

Seriously? Racism/far right gets chucked at GB news in the same way that transphobic gets chucked at gender critical types. Unwarranted in both cases. Yes, GB news is slightly right of centre but legitimately so, that might not be your politics but why do you have to call it racist/far right? Lack of respect for other's views is how we've got into this mess. And the whole Tories are 'scum' thing, which I know you didn't say but you are calling a slightly right of centre news channel racist which is similar, is why we don't have an opposition party in this country any more. I despair, I really do.

Has 'thoughtful' been redefined 'boorish' when I want looking?

Thoughtful?! Come off it!

I think think of some things people who like him might say but I don't think even they would put thoughtful any near the top of the list

I don't respect the views of those whose outlook I find unpalatable. But I think it's worth seeing what they are saying.

The inability to see that listening is not the same as agreeing is very odd.

@NiceGerbil

I don't respect the views of those whose outlook I find unpalatable. But I think it's worth seeing what they are saying.

The inability to see that listening is not the same as agreeing is very odd.

Yes, I agree. If you're unable or unwilling to expose yourself to views on the basis that you might not agree with them then you're proving yourself to be a bit of a twit. Argue against them, make your case, analyse and critique them. Intellectual cowardice is nothing to be proud of.

I don't think "thoughtful" and "boorish" are mutually exclusive characteristics.

I disagree with a lot of what Farage says, but I don't doubt that there is thought behind it. That he communicates in a way that appeals to his target audience doesn't really detract from that, IMO. It might even be an indicator of it, given that he (successfully) ran an almost thirty-year campaign to leave the EU.

Much like Boris, he strikes me as shrewd, thoughtful and calculated, with a very deliberate persona and appearance. Whenever I hear people crow on about Boris' unkempt appearance as though it isn't top-to-bottom deliberate, I want to smack my head. And I think both of them are underestimated by their opponents who relish in opportunities to ridicule them without realising that the ridicule in itself is red meat for the base that they're playing to.

But! This thread isn't really about that and I'm sure I'm not going to convince anyone that Nigel Farage, about whom opinions have probably been set in stone for years, is [adjective]. In the main, I agree that it's important for everyone to avoid only exposing themselves to a bubble of information with which they already jive.

(Sorry if that comes across like pompous twaddle but I'm an author and working on a regency romance book and... hard to get out of mode after a day of work!)

Yes, I agree. If you're unable or unwilling to expose yourself to views on the basis that you might not agree with them then you're proving yourself to be a bit of a twit. Argue against them, make your case, analyse and critique them. Intellectual cowardice is nothing to be proud of.

Yeah. And... shockingly... if you engage with ideas you disagree with, you might even end up learning something that brings you to a deeper understanding of a given issue.

If I ever find myself thinking "Harumph those people who disagree with me are all awful!" — it's usually a sign that I need to read more broadly and seek out better proponents of the opposing idea.

I think it's worth trying to understand why people feel the way they do rather than dismiss them.

Eg
Immigration.
Knee jerk shock at what I saw as racism full stop.
Yes some people are racist.

But I read some stuff and thought. If I were living in an area with high unemployment, high rates of poverty. An area ignored by London centric politicians. An area that featured loads of boarded up shops and houses falling apart. If I couldn't get a job and I had kids I needed to provide for. An area with large numbers of immigrants.

Would I definitely be racist if I wanted to reduce immigration? Or just possibly could it be other reasons.

It's about at least trying to understand especially with views that you find deplorable yet are widespread. Can they all just be bad nasty people? Or might there be other things involved.

And it doesn't mean changing your own stance. It's about accepting that most people aren't horrible so what's going on.

Obv some views are just awful that's not the sort of ones I'm talking about.

KJ on YT

@thedancingbear

Doesn't it raise a red flag for anyone when you find yourself aligning with a news outlet noted for its thinly-veiled racism and more general far-right leanings?

Not intended as a criticism of the GC position (which for the most part I agree with) but, fucking hell, the idea of sitting and nodding along to NewsGB and Farage - a pound shop Oswald Moseley - makes me queasy.

No. I'm one of those weird people who can have a coffee with the local vicar or attend a Sikh wedding, take what suits me from it and remain an atheist. I think we're called critical thinkers. Some of us, despite having read the Guardian for donkey's years, don't agree with everything we read in the Guardian. Do you think Conservatism's catching, like Covid?

Do you only ever read or listen to things/ people you know you'll agree with? What happens when those people and news sources are corrupted by infiltrators or spread lies? Would you say you have an enquiring mind? If so, why would you only ever walk a pre-approved path, guaranteed to tell you what you want to hear?

Miranda Yardly is on now.

As a lifelong leftie I still find it hard to believe that GB News is my TV channel of choice and that I regularly find myself nodding along with the likes of Nigel Farage and Ann Widdecombe.

Have to mentally tune out whenever they mention anything Covid related though!

Just on Tom Harwood's The Briefing, the Conservative politician Emma Best www.london.gov.ukpeople/assembly/emma-best.

She said:
"The treatment of Kathleen Stock and the persecution that she has faced by some individuals is not right."
"I'm a great defender of free speech and even though it hurts sometimes what people may say, we can't limit that. But actually there's a very specific kind of difference here in Kathleen Stock's case where she has said things which are quite alarming. I have taken the time to read some blogs, I didn't like to just jump in when cancel culture comes about, and she has said quite specific things about trans rights and to be honest the elimination of trans rights in general. So I can see as an academic institution why the university need to investigate that and I think it is right for the Labour Shadow Equalities minister to respond as well to calls from her constituents."

"We need to monitor where is that line of freedom of speech where perhaps it incites hatred and, within an academic institution, is that right? I think of it as a gay woman often and there are people who say that same sex marriage doesn't count as real marriage. If I had someone teaching my children that in a school or university I'm going to be quite unhappy with how that makes them feel. But in general, yes there is freedom of speech and I think that letter should have emphasised the personal persecution of Kathleen Stock and I think that has been quite unfair."

"Just to make the point clear, the things that Kathleen Stock has said in some of her blogs are unacceptable and I do think they go far too far and she is on that radical side of that conversation. But yeah, that's the whole point Tom, this conversation has been grasped by radicals on both the right and left. And I think there's this common ground where we're not actually talking about the issues and we're not actually talking about how to make the lives of trans people better. There's this dogmatic kind of ideological debate and is any of that helping trans people have better lives in the UK? Unfortunately it's not. There is a massive problem there about the spectrum of debate here. At the end of the day there needs to be that more reasonable debate so we can move on and establish better rights for trans people in the UK."

"I stand quite firmly with the LGBT Conservatives and we are pushing government on that [reforming GRA to Self ID]. We are opposed on [scapping the GRA reform]. I do think the government needs to go further. We need to go back to where we were under Theresa May. Radically, we were looking like a party of inclusivity. Charity groups that had never respected us before were looking at the Conservatives and thinking wow we have really got this down. Since then, the debate has just been completely hijacked and at the end of the day it is just vulnerable groups of trans people who are the fall people for this. Actually, it's a shame to come on this programme and speak to you about what an academic has said at a university and the reaction to it when actually we should be talking about policy and how we make people's lives better. None of this debate is making people's lives better."

Tom Harwood said GB News will hear from both sides of the debate throughout the day. Alex Phillips' Afternoon Agenda will be covering it soon.

But I read some stuff and thought. If I were living in an area with high unemployment, high rates of poverty. An area ignored by London centric politicians. An area that featured loads of boarded up shops and houses falling apart. If I couldn't get a job and I had kids I needed to provide for. An area with large numbers of immigrants

During the Brexit debates I watched some working class tradesmen trying to explain the situation they found themselves in on a news programme. It basically came down to this:

• it used to be possible to work as a labourer/builder etc and earn a decent salary which could support a family of 4
• it used to be possible for them to buy or rent an adequate family home on their wages
• following mass immigration from the EU, competition for jobs increased hugely. They were in competition with young single men from Eastern Europe who didn't need to support a family.
• soon wages were being depressed and the original labourers weren't able to earn more than the minimum wage
• furthermore, the family homes were being rented out to immigrants who could afford to rent a room each, so four adult men would live in a four-bedroom home
• wages and homes were negatively impacted by high immigration in those areas

I watched a Labour MP being challenged on this. All they could say was 'we must make sure that people are not exploited and are paid the minimum wage. The issue is unscrupulous employers paying people below the minimum wage'.

It was so tin-eared!

And then when Farage said 'in too many areas, the minimum wage has become a maximum wage' - of course people voted for UKIP. Of course people want to watch him on GB News. I don't like the man at all, but he's not a fool.

Bev Jackson, co-founder of the LGB Alliance (lifelong lesbian and gay rights campaigner, an organiser of the first Gay Liberation Front demonstration in 1970), has just been on:

"It is completely outrageous that Professor Stock has been attacked in this way. It is not actually new, she has been attacked for several years. She is the most moderate and thoughtful professor of philosophy you can imagine. She has never said a hateful word in any of her writings or her lectures."

"She is one of our very valued trustees. LGB Alliance represents LGB people. We found it necessary as we noticed that LGBTQ groups were increasingly only representing TQ and focusing on gender instead of sex. We tried to institute discussion with them. We said hang on, LGB people are being ignored and in fact there are some clashes of rights, we need to discuss them. We spent years trying to get these discussions going. Stonewall and other LGBTQ groups refused to engage with us and that's why we found it necessary to found LGB Alliance. There are other groups that represent trans people, that's absolutely fine. There's no reason at all why trans people shouldn't found groups representing their specific concerns and interests. Our interests are to do with LGB. That is about sexual orientation, that is the kind of relationships you form, whether you are attracted to people of the same sex, the opposite sex or both sexes. That is based in the idea that there are two sexes. As soon as that idea crumbles and you start talking about subjective gender that people can have, the whole idea of homosexuality, of being a lesbian or gay man, disappears and crumbles. So those rights crumble."

Bev then refutes all the false claims made about the LGB Alliance by the Shadow Minister individually. This is written in their statement here lgballiance.org.uk/2021/10/14/response-to-the-letter-by-taiwo-owatemi-shadow-secretary-of-state-for-women-and-equalities-in-the-uk/.