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?

Episode 5.

Dr Bell is explaining that clinicians are scared of asking questions of children for fear of being accused of transphobia. The change in his voice when he replies to this question sent shivers down my spine. He sounds so upset by it.

16.12
Nolan: Surely any decent professional clinician will ask those questions and will be neutral. Surely they will. They’ll not be frightened of asking the right questions, will they?

Bell: I’m afraid they are.

Wow. Watched all 10.

The final conversation in the whole thing (which they eerily fade away into the closing music) is really powerful.
Much more could have been made of it! I'm left with a feeling of not enough was said about the problems with redefining homosexuaity.

If they had had one lesbian from LGBA on to speak, no idea why they couldn't speak to a gay woman only one male representative, she would have been able to summarize the gay conversion that lesbians have been subjected to by gender ideologists for years now. Expecting lesbians to do dick (if the man identifies as a lesbian) is so sinister and rapey it's beyond words, but even that lesbians can have a dick is , and almost all listeners will agree. The only people who believe all that are extreme gender ideologists.

The BBC have clearly taken an extreme stance that is way beyond impartial.

It's fantastic that the Nolan show has done this. I only hope people listen.

Just finished!!! Well done Stephen Nolan and David Thompson.

I want to also buy Sam Smith, the exBBC editor/presenter a drink. She was a refreshing glass of reality.

One criticism is that Nolan could have made more of the fact of the clear skew for male voices. I assume since they said at the start they had trouble getting people to speak, they asked many. It would have been good to point this out and that women are scared to speak out during the last two episodes.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

'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.

I work at home for myself by myself - I don't bring my full self to work even then, not least as I'd be too stoned to get anything done.

I was really struck by how much Ben Cohen went on and on and on about providing his non binary member of staff with toilet provision they were comfortable with but thoroughly waved away concerns of women wanting the same thing...

.... You know what, I am all for gender identity being made a protected characteristic in the equality act. Because that would include CIS gender. That would mean that cis women would be entitled to toilets they were comfortable in....

One criticism is that Nolan could have made more of the fact of the clear skew for male voices…women are scared to speak

You're right - I think people who are new to all of this won't be aware that men will not experience anything like the social media consequences as women do, nor will they have so many employers who are keen to sack them.

.... although, I really want to see the genderfuck loos.

They can be themselves at work, but everyone else has to button their lips, plaster a smile on their face, ignore their inner shriek of 'there's a man in the ladies loo' and not show any indication of what they're really feeling.

This is tyranny, isn't it? And it makes me wonder whether that was what people felt forced to do for the LGB population. Are the people I work with secretly homophobic but just hiding it well? I do get a vibe from some people. I've talked about it and have been told that no, of course A or B or C doesn't have an issue with me being a lesbian, they're just a bit grouchy/ don't make eye contact/ having a bad day. But I wonder...

At least Benjamin Cohen was honest about not employing people that would provide a balanced view. That they look for people who agree with the extreme bias that penis news takes. He was upfront, as ‘an employer’ (if you didn’t get it the first few times) that unless you believed in the doctrine, you wouldn’t get through the interview process.

It says so much about the lack of impartiality of that particular media entity. But we already knew that.

They can be themselves at work, but everyone else has to button their lips, plaster a smile on their face, ignore their inner shriek of 'there's a man in the ladies loo' and not show any indication of what they're really feeling

What is this "being themselves anyway". Its a work place everyone's expected to just get on with their work and behave appropriately surely?

Peope are also entitled to not agree with being gay or whatever. I've worked with people who don't. And you wouldn't even really know. They mind their own business, treat people fairly and with respect regardless and it doesn't even come up.

This whole thing of pushing people, expecting them.to outwardly display " appropriate" views at the will of others who what the recognition for apparently making the workplace more inclusive/ friendly, then accusing them of making the work place hostile is bonkers.

If they aren't bullying people, are just getting on with their work then surely that's OK? Surely all this stuff is just creating the problem? A problem someone else will " fix" for a fee?

If people what ro be left alone be be who they are then leave eveeyine else alone too. Stop creating drama and problems where there are none.

@RockaLock

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.

Ultimately this is the fundamental elephant in the room.

Why should anyone care about another's gender identity, let alone put it into law.

OBVIOUSLY immutable biological sex which is RECORDED at birth, and sexual orientation, should be protected characteristics. Gender expression should probably be protected too, but on the other hand even this isn't straightforward, as, whilst no-one is going to get upset by a man with long hair and a lipstick, there is a very strong argument that womanface should be as unacceptable as blackface rightly is.

But gender identity I just don't get. On what basis should it be a protected characteristic, and how should that protection manifest itself?

If you are going to say that gender identity trumps sex as a protected characteristic then obviously sex ceases to be a protected characteristic, so that doesn't work. Could it be a protected characteristic so long it doesn't impinge on sex-based rights? In theory, but then again trans people have all human rights already, other than other people's sex-based rights, so with identity based rights it is either "trump sex based rights" or "identity based rights are meaningless".

I am a southerner, English, British, a citizen of the UK, european and a citizen of planet earth. I'm also an anglo-scot by blood. All these things are literally true and I have rights based on some of them. My identity is more complex - the fact that I consider myself any one of those six things at certain times means nothing. The fact that I think of myself as a southerner when talking with a friend who lives up north about the difference between opposite ends of the country is meaningless in terms of my rights, as is the fact I identify as English when watching the England football team.

What is a gender identity? How does it differ from my identity as a Wimbledon AFC fan or my identity as a lover of alternative music? Where the hell does this end?

Using logic, reason and persuasive arguments please explain why someone's gender identity should matter to anyone else?

Please do so without claiming that people should be able to self-ID into the single sex-spaces belonging to other protected groups, as that is an unacceptable, entitled, despicable demand to make.

@rabbitwoman

I was really struck by how much Ben Cohen went on and on and on about providing his non binary member of staff with toilet provision they were comfortable with but thoroughly waved away concerns of women wanting the same thing...

.... You know what, I am all for gender identity being made a protected characteristic in the equality act. Because that would include CIS gender. That would mean that cis women would be entitled to toilets they were comfortable in....

Obviously if they're winning we have to play their game, but I think it's a dangerous path to go down to accept the use of that despicable term.

So if you were to say ‘I am a woman and I need a safe place to pee’ they’d just say ‘tough, you hateful bigot, your fears don’t mean anything to me’. That’s it, right?

@Shedbuilder

They can be themselves at work, but everyone else has to button their lips, plaster a smile on their face, ignore their inner shriek of 'there's a man in the ladies loo' and not show any indication of what they're really feeling.

This is tyranny, isn't it? And it makes me wonder whether that was what people felt forced to do for the LGB population. Are the people I work with secretly homophobic but just hiding it well? I do get a vibe from some people. I've talked about it and have been told that no, of course A or B or C doesn't have an issue with me being a lesbian, they're just a bit grouchy/ don't make eye contact/ having a bad day. But I wonder...

Very good point about the hypocrisy of it.

I think that there are a lot of people who are happy to make homophobic "jokes" when they think it's safe to do so, but that makes them knobs rather than bigots. I also think that quite a lot of people are homophobic, and it's right that they are forced to be politer than they might be naturally.

I'd try not to worry. No-one has an obligation to like you and you're unlikely to ever know whether Steve in accounts is a miserable sod, doesn't much like women apart from his wife, doesn't like you because your face reminds him of someone he knew when he was younger, hates you for the annoying way you laugh, or is a bigot or some sort of combination. In some ways if his miserable nature around you is down to bigotry you can be re-assured that you need to pay no attention whatsoever to his opinions because he is a worthless individual.

@KittenKong

So if you were to say ‘I am a woman and I need a safe place to pee’ they’d just say ‘tough, you hateful bigot, your fears don’t mean anything to me’. That’s it, right?

If you were not to say anything, that would be validation of passing and a demonstration that the use of the facilities is problematic to no-one.

I believe that this is still known as Catch22.

If you were not to say anything, that would be validation of passing and a demonstration that the use of the facilities is problematic to no-one

Honestly I believe for some that actually not saying something is probably the worse thing.

I mean I'm pretty sure there are a some people who "want" the reaction
That's what I think this toilet /changing thing is. Now no one bats an eyelid at nakes pronouns clothing etc the need arises to push further in order to get the reaction needed to remain a victim.

Of course when you get that reaction rhe appropriate answer from management would be " look we changes your name badge, the website, provided you somewhere to change, updated the dress code, given you time off for your surgeries and check ups but that's it. You either respect the boundaries or you are out, your behaviour is no longer compatible with the work place "

Like those american students who having gained access to the rest rooms.of their choice then decided to still complain because the rebuild necessary to accommodate mixed sex usage removed the gaps from the top and bottom of the doors am the privacy was transphobic

Obviously if they're winning we have to play their game, but I think it's a dangerous path to go down to accept the use of that despicable term.

This. For goodness sake do not play the game.

If you accept that label pressed upon you by this political ideology you are accepting your 'privilege' and therefore you have agreed that it is right and just that you should be subordinated and punished for it. By having lesser rights to privacy, dignity, safety, it is righteous that females suffer in order to provide social redress for people with trans identities. Hence the 'its sad but ok that more women will be assaulted etc in prisons and toilets but that's the price of trans rights'.

No. No thank you. I don't believe that females are subhuman. I will never agree that some humans matter more than others and equality is a hierarchy that some enjoy and others must accept their lower caste and suffering.

Just no. It's ridiculous.

@Whatwouldscullydo

Like those american students who having gained access to the rest rooms.of their choice then decided to still complain because the rebuild necessary to accommodate mixed sex usage removed the gaps from the top and bottom of the doors am the privacy was transphobic

There were a few highly cool and trendy types on another thread last night insisting that a male presenting as a man, openly peeing in a women's toilet with the door wide open was doing nothing wrong and women were for not gladly indulging this.

It's a very fast slide indeed from 'you won't even notice' and 'will never do anything to harm or distress', and makes it clear that the slightest chink in women's protections is just immediately forced as wide as possible. Frankly at this point I wonder what a male would have to do before some women were prepared to admit that possibly, yes, their intentions might be questionable and a boundary might be appropriate.

Frankly at this point I wonder what a male would have to do before some women were prepared to admit that possibly, yes, their intentions might be questionable and a boundary might be appropriate

Me too. I mean literally nothing seems to change anything. the support for the wi spa sex offender was beyind a joke

@RockaLock

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.

My thoughts exactly, Rock

Gender identity = personality, surely?

Nothing to do with someone's sex

No adjustments needed by employer imo

No adjustments needed by employer imo

I would love to see a break down. Of discrimination trans people claim to face. Whether it's truly because of their identity, and how much is down to other things. I mean you can be trans and still poo at your job, apply for jobs that aren't appropriate for your personality and skill level , be unable to handle criticism or direction, and exhibit behaviour not compatible with the job.

How many were positions they put themselves in in the first place. Such as running a rape crisis centre or being a bra fitters where the liklihood is that a female staff member will be requested. A person wouldn't be rejected on the basis of being trans but being male. Same as any other male staff member.

We hear alot abiut being marginalised and discriminated against but we never hear the actual reasons.

If a male turned up to a job interview in a short skin tight, low cut dress and shiny pvc thigh high boots they'd probably be rejected. Bit because if being trans it for turning up inappropriately dressed fir the interview. As woyid any other women who turned up like that unless it was an interview fir a pole dancing club.

What basis does this discrimination take?

@Whatwouldscullydo

No adjustments needed by employer imo

I would love to see a break down. Of discrimination trans people claim to face. Whether it's truly because of their identity, and how much is down to other things. I mean you can be trans and still poo at your job, apply for jobs that aren't appropriate for your personality and skill level , be unable to handle criticism or direction, and exhibit behaviour not compatible with the job.

How many were positions they put themselves in in the first place. Such as running a rape crisis centre or being a bra fitters where the liklihood is that a female staff member will be requested. A person wouldn't be rejected on the basis of being trans but being male. Same as any other male staff member.

We hear alot abiut being marginalised and discriminated against but we never hear the actual reasons.

If a male turned up to a job interview in a short skin tight, low cut dress and shiny pvc thigh high boots they'd probably be rejected. Bit because if being trans it for turning up inappropriately dressed fir the interview. As woyid any other women who turned up like that unless it was an interview fir a pole dancing club.

What basis does this discrimination take?

This times one million.

What rights do trans people have under the law as it stands today?

What rights should they have?

Can we have answers to these please?

An aside - I have just come out as explicitly gender critical on facebook and some trans activist has accused me of xenophobia. That is the level of debate we're at.

What rights should they have?

One of the "rights" they have campaigned fir puts themselves at risk. Such as the right to alter your paperwork at the drs. This means medical screenings aren't always targeted at the right people. But it's precisely what was asked for. You cant request to change her details then complain when that means your health suffers as a result. Do they not realise they are all just being used to keep the organisations paid to deal with the very problems they created in business?