Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Radio 4 now

59 replies

BoreOfWhabylon · 18/10/2021 08:40

Today prog - Nolan talk about the podcast

OP posts:
nauticant · 18/10/2021 09:58

Guilt and also fear that they will be perceived of continuing the wrongs in any way.

RoyalCorgi · 18/10/2021 10:02

They did say that SW were subtly changing the EA wording from Gender Reassignment to Gender Identity. And i think getting it in that they have changed the definition of homosexuality will definitely bring in interest from people who wouldn't have known about that.

That's true. If you don't know about the finer detail of this stuff, though, you wouldn't understand the significance of misrepresenting gender reassignment as gender identity. You need to spell it out.

Similarly, if you're not familiar with the sex-gender distinction, you might not understand the difference between same-sex attraction and same-gender attraction.

Eucalyptustrees · 18/10/2021 10:05

Because married heterosexual women like Mishal Husein are really cool about homosexuality being changed to heterosexuality. They don't object so why should gay and lesbians?

LizzieSiddal · 18/10/2021 10:06

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

Mischance
Why do Stonewall wield such influence? I have never understood this.
Because they have a halo from all the outstanding work that they did achieve for LGB plus the residual guilt from Aids…

Plus they lie about the Law, claiming in advice documents to organisations that “gender identity” is a protected characteristic when it is not. So organisations believe this and write it into their policies. Anyone who challenges it, they point to “the Law says..” not knowing they’ve been lied to by Stonewall.

Pterfodactyl · 18/10/2021 10:07

@RoyalCorgi

I didn't feel that the segment covered the topic that well. For example, unless I missed it, they didn't really explain how Stonewall is misrepresenting the law. We have to remember that although most of us understand this stuff inside out, the average person has no idea what's going on, or what the Equality Act is, or what protected characteristics are.
To be honest, it never will to those of us for who have lived and breathed the intricacies of this stuff for years. That's the problem with every current affairs programme where all you get is a couple of minutes at best. It's easier when they are dealing with a discrete issue that has been effected, e.g.,freedom of speech. People can look at it through that lens, rather than the batshitery of gender theory. In 30 seconds, it is almost impossible to explain why changing the definition of homosexual from same sex to same gender attracted matters, or the finer subtleties of the Equality Act. People who are not in the know, not gay, not a GC woman and who use gender and sex interchangeably in every day parlance, don't realise that they are firing metaphorical loaded guns when they use those words. And I think that confusion and uncertainty is exactly what Stonewall wanted: because once everyone is confused - and throw their hands up and say, "You can't say anything now without causing offence! " - then Stonewall can sweep in and tell you what to say, tell you what is "right". And people will let them, because they are kind and want a quiet life, or not confident in their own beliefs and intelligence, or fearful or simply don't care because it doesn't really effect them.

We actually need a public enquiry into Stonewall, I think. There has been a major misuse of public funds by the BBC, and possibly a major breach of their charter. A misuse of public funds by OfCom, the Civil Service, the ECHR etc. Dentons seeking to influence public life in an unprecedented manner for a private law firm. This is as big as Savile. All of it needs to set out for the public to digest and understand what has been done.

Anontwentyone · 18/10/2021 10:09

@Mischance

Why do Stonewall wield such influence? I have never understood this.
Their workplace equality index is basically blackmail.

If your company is not on it, you'll be branded as "unsafe" for LGBTQ+ workers.

The higher up you get on the index the less "unsafe" you are.

Obviously you need to pay Stonewall good money to climb higher up the index too.

Doomscrolling · 18/10/2021 10:12

Excellent to hear it featuring on Today, such a high profile programme

BoreOfWhabylon · 18/10/2021 10:17

@Eucalyptustrees

Because married heterosexual women like Mishal Husein are really cool about homosexuality being changed to heterosexuality. They don't object so why should gay and lesbians?
I don't think that's fair to MH or true of heterosexual women Eucalyptus
OP posts:
BoreOfWhabylon · 18/10/2021 10:21

We actually need a public enquiry into Stonewall, I think. There has been a major misuse of public funds by the BBC, and possibly a major breach of their charter. A misuse of public funds by OfCom, the Civil Service, the ECHR etc. Dentons seeking to influence public life in an unprecedented manner for a private law firm. This is as big as Savile. All of it needs to set out for the public to digest and understand what has been done.

I agree with this but I am heartened by the fact that this is now being talked about and increasingly so. The genie is now out of the bottle and it won't be going back in.

OP posts:
EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 18/10/2021 10:24

We actually need a public enquiry into Stonewall, I think. There has been a major misuse of public funds by the BBC, and possibly a major breach of their charter. A misuse of public funds by OfCom, the Civil Service, the ECHR etc. Dentons seeking to influence public life in an unprecedented manner for a private law firm. This is as big as Savile. All of it needs to set out for the public to digest and understand what has been done.

Literally, in public. Broadcast and available on catch-up. Like the brief period when the nation was caught up in Parliament TV.

Pterfodactyl · 18/10/2021 10:39

*EHRC not ECHR

David Isaac and the tangled web he weaved whilst Chair of the EHRC is another one. How did his appointment as chair come about? How was he influenced by his old pals at Stonewall, for whom used to be chair? How was he conflicted being in this role and simultaneously being a very senior equity partner in a law firm year upon year held up by Stonewall as their Employer of the Year? Why, under his watch, did the EHRC need to be reminded by lay people that their own online material was breaching the Equality Act?

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 18/10/2021 10:41

It's been insidious, I think. To start with, as others have said, Stonewall justifiably built up a lot of goodwill in the years when they were campaigning for equal rights for lesbians and gay men (and latterly, bisexual people too). They went about it very skilfully and they had high level support from many well loved public figures, e.g. Sir Ian McKellen.

A lot of liberal, progressive people would therefore automatically think of Stonewall as an organisation with worthy, obviously good aims, based on those early years. There's a kneejerk assumption that anybody criticising Stonewall is a homophobe or a bigot or a ridiculous old fogey who hasn't kept up with the times.

What these people have not grasped is that Stonewall has moved on from those early days. When their early objectives were largely met, they had to consider what to do next.

They could have decided to campaign internationally for equal rights for LGB people. There are sadly a great many countries of the world where it isn't safe to be openly gay.

They could have decided to focus on providing support for LGB people in the UK - social groups, phonelines, employment law advice, targeted health advice, and so on.

What they actually decided to do was expand from LGB to LGBT. This was as late as 2015. And since then the work on T causes has totally eclipsed the work on LGB causes.

I am not LGB (or T), so open to correction on this from people who know about this first hand, but I have never understood why T belongs with LGB. They are quite different things. LGB people share the characteristic of having a sexual attraction to their own sex. T is about gender identity. To me it's like the NSPCC merging with the RSPCA and spending most of their time on animal issues because child protection is old hat.

The other thing Stonewall decided to do was to encourage employers to focus more on equality and diversity by publishing a league table of LGBT friendly employers. This would have been OK if they'd funded the work involved themselves or got a grant to do it from some charitable foundation or the government (as long as govt depts were excluded from the table), because then it would have been objective. What actually seems to have happened, though, is that Stonewall gets a lot of money from organisations who buy its E & D training and they also charge organisations a lot of money to evaluate their E & D performance for inclusion in the league table. Left, right and centre, organisations have changed HR and other policies to fall in line with Stonewall's requirements, so that they will move up the league table.

IIRC, the organisations doing this included until recently several government departments, the Welsh and Scottish governments, police forces, universities, the BBC, Ofsted and Ofcom, as well as many large companies.

The podcast shows that the BBC's style guide, used by all journalists and producers, telling them how to define certain words and how to refer to certain groups, was run past Stonewall before its most recent revision. This would include instructions to refer to violent criminals by the pronouns for their chosen gender identity rather than their sex.

In these circumstances, how can the BBC then scrutinise Stonewall in the same way as it would any other lobbying group?

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 18/10/2021 10:47

The podcast shows that the BBC's style guide, used by all journalists and producers, telling them how to define certain words and how to refer to certain groups, was run past Stonewall before its most recent revision. This would include instructions to refer to violent criminals by the pronouns for their chosen gender identity rather than their sex.

We've had a mainstream news organisation putting a Style Guide above their duty to inform the public clearly about matters of interest such as crime, it's now misleading several generations as to sexual orientation, and during a pandemic they're content to contribute to the undermining of the public understanding of science.

Enquiry, now. Please and thank you.

BoreOfWhabylon · 18/10/2021 10:57

Excellent summary Gasp0de

OP posts:
334bu · 18/10/2021 13:16

Good that the " same gender" sexuality replacing same sex was highlighted.

Blessex · 18/10/2021 13:26

I think they did really well. It is a short segment. They have to have clear Soundbites and no waffle. I think they did that rather well.

Changing word mother
Misrepresenting the law
Changing the definition of homosexuality
Not all LGBT community think the same
We are open to Stonewall to come and take part - we will make an additional episode for them

MH was simply doing her job to keep the balance and critically interview them. It sets them up to make their points.

BoreOfWhabylon · 18/10/2021 13:45

We should all contact BBC Radio Feedback programme. They may be able to get a bigwig respond

Email:
[email protected]

Phone:
03 333 444 544

(Standard geographic charges from landlines and mobiles will apply.)

Twitter:
@BBCR4Feedback

Write to us at:

Feedback, PO Box number 67234, London, SE1P 4AX

OP posts:
NancyDrawed · 18/10/2021 14:02

Transcript.

I assume by 'style guide' they mean the news style guide? In fact I'm sure do as I've just looked at it and sure enough under gender/sex (just under Geldof, Bob who I now know is not entitled to be called 'Sir Bob'!

MH: How much influence should advocacy organisations have on public sector bodies, including the BBC? That's a question at the heart of the Nolan Investigates podcast which has been looking at Stonewall, which was founded in 1989 to campaign for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender rights. Well, Stephen Nolan and David Thompson, who are co-presenters of the podcast are in our Belfast studio now. Good morning Stephen and David.
Um, what are the ways in which Stonewall has an influence on organisations like this one?

SN: Well, they have a significant influence and that is no criticism of Stonewall, I think the point, the fundamental point we make in the podcast is - Stonewall are a lobby group and are very, very good at it. The question here, is, how much should the organisations who are being lobbied be standing back, and be thinking about groups other than Stonewall who may have opposing views, and at the heart of this podcast, Mishal, is the reality that gender identity is a contested issue and what we're very aware of - the reason why we've done this - is because there is a fear factor for many, many people and we've received communications from senior people within the BBC, outside the BBC, who are frightened of speaking about this issue. As soon as we know that, the BBC needs to get right into that territory and needs to facilitate safe debate and that's what this podcast is trying to do.

MH: And Stonewall David, has a certain position on Gender Identity and are you saying that that is one position and therefore organisations that have them as part, you know, use them as part of their metric on how they are doing on workplace authorit, er, equality need to think more broadly?'

DT: Well, what Stonewall do is, is when they are talking to these organisations, they will emphasise gender identity and how important gender identity is, um, and they will advise organisations that they should change language and change language around the Equality Act. So, the protected characteristic under the Act is Gender Reassignment. Stonewall do a very subtle thing and they say, you know, 'use more up to date language like Gender Identity'. Obviously, that becomes contentious and that's opposed by other groups and that's kind of at the heart of why some of the advice that they're giving is so controversial.

MH: They, they didn't take part in your podcast, did they? I mean, they, they, they gave a statement about their work but didn't give an interview.

DT: Yeah, that's right, and, look, what we're doing is there's an open offer to Stonewall - we will create another episode if they want to sit down with us and speak to us and the questions are ones that we know people want to talk about. There has been an unbelievable response of opinion, both sides of this - supporting Stonewall, against Stonewall. You know, the word 'Mother'. We've seen from the research of how Stonewall were telling the Scottish Government to remove the word 'Mother' from their maternity policy. We could see the Scottish Government replying , saying ' Maternity Policy changed'. We have questions for the BBC and Stonewall as to, you know, this organisation we're broadcasting in now - the BBC, it submits itself to tests every year in the work equality, workplace equality index. That's basically, is the BBC complying with what Stonewall says you should be doing. MY question to the BBC is 'Why are you submitting yourself to a lobby group? Why are you doing that?' And the BBC haven't answered that question and Stonewall will not participate in the program either and these are big, big issues.

MH: I am just looking at what the BBC has said about this - that it doesn't take legal advice from Stonewall, doesn't subscribe to Stonewall's campaigning and that it simply provides advice that we are able to consider - we being the BBC. Stonewall itself says it is completely normal and appropriate for charities to engage with public sector organisations to advocate for their beneficiaries, to improve public policy. I guess what I'm wondering is, where you are an organisation that is trying to - that needs an outside view on, 'look. how are we doing? How is this workplace meeting the needs of different employees, how inclusive a culture are we?' You need to have those partner organisations, don't you - specialist organisations which work in this area who can sense check and heath check what you're doing and often criticise and say 'you need to do better in these areas'

DT: That is possibly an argument I think where, where the obvious conflict in this comes is where LGBT people within the BBC have a range of different views. And what's been really interesting since we began this podcast, since the podcast went out, is the number of people from within the BBC, from within the LGBT community who have contacted us and congratulated us for asking these questions about Stonewall, there in no unanimity of opinion amongst LGBT staff that Stonewall should be the arbiters of this.

SN: And if the BBC is taking a range of advice would they please tell us, other than Stonewall, who they have taken this advice from, cause we can't find it. So we can see - we give the testimony in the podcast of where senior BBC managers, very senior BBC managers are saying, 'We are working closely with Stonewall'. We have other statements from the BBC were they have said 'What is likely to be true at Stonewall is likely to be true at the BBC'. We can see how the BBC changed the definition of homosexuality in its style guide to one that is very, very similar to what Stonewall wanted. So the BBC is now changed - just so that people know - the BBC in its style guide has changed homosexuality to 'People of either sex who are attracted to people of their own gender' - gender being the key word there. So the BBC has changed that recently. Why? Where's the discussion? I think these are legitimate questions.

MH: And your, the whole series of your podcasts - I guess unless you do any extra episodes later on - is on BBC sounds now. Stephen Nolan and David Thompson, thank you both.

NR: It is a fascinating listen and a reminder that those of us who appear on the BBC - we don't run it, we just work for it!

ShagMeRiggins · 18/10/2021 14:10

@RoyalCorgi

They did say that SW were subtly changing the EA wording from Gender Reassignment to Gender Identity. And i think getting it in that they have changed the definition of homosexuality will definitely bring in interest from people who wouldn't have known about that.

That's true. If you don't know about the finer detail of this stuff, though, you wouldn't understand the significance of misrepresenting gender reassignment as gender identity. You need to spell it out.

Similarly, if you're not familiar with the sex-gender distinction, you might not understand the difference between same-sex attraction and same-gender attraction.

This is one of the details I’m most concerned about. I’m not sure there have been any legal challenges regarding this, and it’s always been murky language/definition, which leaves a lot of scope.

Stonewall says it’s effectively the same thing, ergo gender identity is protected.

Same with the right to single-sex spaces. I recently read an interesting and intelligent counter argument to this that made me question what the right actually means, as written.

It’s worrying.

JustSpeculation · 18/10/2021 14:21

To me it's like the NSPCC merging with the RSPCA and spending most of their time on animal issues because child protection is old hat

...and then recharacterising children as animals, and redefining their interests as being those of animals as defined by the RSPCA.

Of course, children are animals, but biologically. Not in safeguarding terms as per RSPCA.

NancyDrawed · 18/10/2021 14:45

Sorry, my 'style guide' comment should have gone in a separate post, it doesn't make sense where it is.

MrsFin · 18/10/2021 14:50

[quote BoreOfWhabylon]@nauticant I do think Mishal Hussein was playing Devil's advocate.[/quote]
Me too

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 18/10/2021 15:01

Thank you for the transcript! I followed it with an automated captioning system but it doesn't attach words to a speaker so I had no idea who said what.

Blessex · 18/10/2021 16:25

Mishal Hussein has tweeted the podcast.

Radio 4 now
EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 18/10/2021 16:34

@Blessex

Mishal Hussein has tweeted the podcast.
That's classy of Mishal Husain.