14th October 'Nolan Investigates' podcast - Stonewall?

[Helleofabore]

This sounds interesting.

A special ‘Nolan Investigates’ podcast drops tomorrow afternoon on @BBCSounds. An 18 month investigation into the influence of a lobby group on public bodies throughout the UK. More details in the morning

It seems to be about Stonewall.

Anyone know more about it?

There is some chatter about it on Twitter.

twitter.com/stephennolan/status/1448052827088109568?s=21

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1448205588253618176?s=21

(Tweet from JCJ says:

Okay, at last, here it is.

The BBC Ulster documentary on the influence of Stonewall on public life in the UK.

Many GC women have been interviewed for this.

Let's take the lid off this thing shall we?

'be themselves at work'

I don't want people to bring their full selves to work, in fact, I'd be grateful if more people restricted their full selves at work. I have in mind the workplaces where colleagues have unintentionally been in view while masturbating during (say) a Zoom meeting; it would be fabulous if some workplace lotharios, shirkers, bullies, or gossip mongers kept those bits of themselves out of the office.

I would like a whole lot less of some people's full selves in the workplace, please and thank you.

The Indy's Equalities Reporter is not happy:

inews.co.uk/news/media/nolan-investigates-stonewall-bbc-coverage-lgbt-charity-podcast-series-trans-support-1250780

"The podcast branded the charity a “lobby group” and accused it of exploiting its position to push for LGBT+ rights."

There is a recording with HUNT saying that they are a lobby group for goodness sake

It is interesting and terrifying @CreepingDeath because from that POV instead of words being in service to reality and a tool to enable exploration and communication, they become rigid enforcers of a particular reality. By controlling what we can/can't say, ultimately what we can/can't think is controlled. Then there can be a reintroduction of new meanings to words because the old meanings are lost. Incredibly sinister, whether intentional or not. But you are right, it matters a lot.

@JurassicCoastJay

The Indy's Equalities Reporter is not happy:

inews.co.uk/news/media/nolan-investigates-stonewall-bbc-coverage-lgbt-charity-podcast-series-trans-support-1250780

"The podcast branded the charity a “lobby group” and accused it of exploiting its position to push for LGBT+ rights."

There is a lobbying register in Scotland that has to be filled in when someone is lobbying politicians on behalf of a group.

Stonewall is listed officially as a lobby group in that register many many times. "Lobby group" is an accurate description. It's not a dirty word in and of itself either. Without lobby groups a lot of good things would not have happened. Yes, there is a danger when lobby groups gain too much power (because they are not limited by the rules politicians are bound by) and when their work is hidden in the shadows (because transparency is necessary to ensure they don't act unethically or advise others to act unlawfully).

I think that this is faux outrage designed to manipulate us. Journalists know fine well Stonewall is a lobby group. So do we.

The i accusation that 'the podcast branded the charity a “lobby group”' - which they led with to justify the 'shameful' in the headline - was particularly bizarre given that the article later reports that Stonewall itself told them that "charities are expected to lobby as part of their role".

All the quotes are from outside of the podcast, and it's pretty clear that neither the reporter (Jasminne Anderson) nor her primary source (Peter Tatchell) had actually listened to the podcast they're bad-mouthing. Anderson also writes that the podcats "accused {Stonewall} of exploiting its position to push for LGBT+ rights". It of course didn't make this odd accusation.

I don't think this is going to be the dam breaking that sweeps it all away but Nolan's podcast is attracting global attention:

twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1449116809249140740

All the quotes are from outside of the podcast, and it's pretty clear that neither the reporter (Jasminne Anderson) nor her primary source (Peter Tatchell) had actually listened to the podcast they're bad-mouthing. Anderson also writes that the podcats "accused {Stonewall} of exploiting its position to push for LGBT+ rights". It of course didn't make this odd accusation.

Just what will it take for people to consider whether figures such as Anderson and Tatchell are sufficiently reliable narrators that they are willing to trust their version and interpretation of events in preference to their own exploration and consideration? What checks and balances are in place for those who are ready to outsource their thinking on such matters to these people?

I found an article about it in an online blog about the BBC.

For anyone who hasn't heard the podcast (including me), it is particularly interesting for the transcript of an exchange between Nolan and Thompson about the BBC's style guide - jaw dropping stuff actually.

isthebbcbiased.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-bbc-at-war.html

I'm part way through episode 6, and have been listening to Ben Cohen making no sense about why 2 lesbians couldn't both be called mother (or variations of).

But anyway.

When Nolan said that a lot of women were very upset about the Scottish Gov removing all references to women from their maternity policies, BC challenged him and said he'd like to see evidence of that claim, because he reckons it's only a really small minority of women who are upset by it.

Which is obviously bollocks. But leaving that aside, I was struck by the casual dismissal of women's concerns, on the grounds it was only a small minority - but surely the number of pregnant transmen potentially upset at the thought of being called a mother must be an absolute minuscule number. So why should their feelings trump ours?

No reports so far of any pregnant transmen in Scotland.

Solution without a problem.

the number of pregnant transmen potentially upset at the thought of being called a mother must be an absolute minuscule number.

A very reasonable point and I should think that it's one that holds if enbys, agender, or gender fluid people are included.

Upset at the word ‘mother’ wow - just wait until the labour starts...

And to be honest, I have to wonder why a transman would even want to be pregnant - it's hardly "living as a man", is it. (Yes, I know, these days men can be pregnant too ).

I am who I say I am. That is all. No you shut up. Takes one to know one. I know I am but what are you...

I think that’s how the argument goes.

I think the first point about "mother" was that we're talking about workplace maternity leave policies. Which someone (scotgov?) changed to pregnant woman to differentiate between arrangements for a pregnant woman and for a mother to be who is married to a pregnant woman. But stonewall then complained because it still said woman.

I think a degree of common sense would help. Maybe a footnote or two to confirm that the maternity leave policy also applies to pregnant gender-id men, nonbinaries, genderfucks and whatever else.

And perhaps people could be understanding that asking us out of courtesy to refer to them as something they are not is one thing, asking us to entirely redefine the English language so that we no longer have concise terms for useful concepts like sex is something completely different.

@RockaLock

And to be honest, I have to wonder why a transman would even want to be pregnant - it's hardly "living as a man", is it. (Yes, I know, these days men can be pregnant too ).

This is what I keep thinking. Keeping the parts of being female that they want to keep but crying that they feel unsafe if someone calls them she when they call themselves they or he. Gives me the absolute rage.

If you get pregnant and give birth you are female / a mother. You don't have to like it but it's a fact.

I'm listening to Ep 4 a second time. I'm trying to work the Mayor out.

I'm pretty sure that he is non-binary simply because -

(1) Aged 12 he was confused like we all were at that age, his parents mentioned him wearing his sisters dress when he was 5 and he went down a rabbit hole.

(2) He is gay or bi-sexual and is scared of revealing that he's not straight.

(3) He is straight and is scared of revealing he's not queer.

Whatever it is his relationship with sex is odd.

I seem to recall that Owen identifies (?) as omnisexual.

(Which, I suppose, is logically the only way to avoid being transphobic.)

@BaronMunchausen

I seem to recall that Owen identifies (?) as omnisexual.

(Which, I suppose, is logically the only way to avoid being transphobic.)

I have to admit that I need to look this up:

Many people use the terms pansexual and omnisexual interchangeably. While they are closely related, there are differences between the two. Those who identify as pansexual feel attraction to people without noticing their gender, while omnisexual people recognize the gender of potential partners.

I'm not markedly the more enlightened as to the material difference but I accept that there is a notional semantic difference. However, this must be a relatively recent distinction as I recall that Dean Martin was described as pansexual - except it was interestingly that there was pretty much nobody that met him who failed to be ensorcelled by his sexual charisma.

"Many people use the terms pansexual and omnisexual interchangeably. While they are closely related, there are differences between the two. Those who identify as pansexual feel attraction to people without noticing their gender, while omnisexual people recognize the gender of potential partners."

When someone says that they are open to sex with either gender then we know NOTHING about their sexuality. They could be attracted both "genders" so long as they're in a male body, or female, or they might be bi-sexual. It seems to me that non-binary is about being secretive about your sexuality. Now I don't have a problem with people being secretive about their sexuality - it's none of anyone else's business. But if OH is going to bang on about issues relating to sex and gender and claim a queer identity then I think we have a right to know whether his sexuality is straight or it is actually gay or bi.

Actually, I've had another thought. Is the nonsense that OH spouts kinda subconsciously deliberate? Is it that maybe OH is so utterly clueless about sex and sexuality and that OH has to invent a whole new personal language to ensure that he never actually has to exchange ideas with anyone outside his own tiny little bubble? That's it isn't it, it is ALL about desperate people looking for something to give them hope, when the reality is that the only hope is to move towards a more left wing distributitive economic system. As if the billionaires will allow that.

I think the thing I find most astonishing about OH, other than OH's ability to spout nonsense, is the way OH can't comprehend that one could simply accept your sex and express your gender however you wish. I mean, it really isn't complicated. Unless you need it to be in order to make it you entire life and personality.

The overriding thought I had when I was listening to OH was "but WHY does any of this need to be recognised officially and appear on "official documents"?!?!?

So what if some days you feel more masculine and some days more feminine? I mean, some days I wear trousers and no makeup, and sometimes I wear a dress and put on lipstick. But I am still a biological woman every day and so this is what is reflected on my passport etc.

I just don't get it.

Just listened to the Owen Hurcum episode.

That [person] sure can talk a lot of shit.