BBC article about cotton ceiling

[GingerAndTheBiscuits]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385 including Angela Wild, Rose of Dawn and Debbie Hayton. There’s no way this would have been published even just a few months ago 🤯

BigHeartyTruffle, I know a lot of TRAs are jumping on this like it's some massive gotcha, but the article is based on qualitative not quantitative research and the reference to the survey is really just a hook on which to hang the story rather than the evidential basis for it. Interview-based qualitative research is an entirely valid research method for academics - and, obviously, the whole basis of traditional journalism.

And although self-selected samples are problematic, if 45 lesbians are saying they're being ostracised, bullied, or raped for refusing to date trans women, that's objectively a big fucking problem, whatever proportion of young lesbians they turned out to be.

@CrumpetShaw

Excellent that BBC have put this article out 🙂... Feels like the bias towards gender ideology might be slowly changing. Or at least the fear of saying anything that contradicts it. Still, noone is allowed to say the elephant in the room are they : the reason it's "OK" to discriminate against this particular group (transwomen) for lesbians, in terms of sexual attraction, is BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WOMEN. FFS!! How have we got so far that noone can publicly say this very obvious fact? We've all known that it's unsayable for years now and still it blows my mind 😤 It is not hate to speak the truth.

It is excellent to see it in the open.

After years of #NoDebate and affirmation there are probably a lot of people out there catching up and making sense of it, now that Auntie has spoken.

We can't restructure society based on a legal fiction.

At no point do I deny that this has happened, or that it is abhorrent.

I still stand by my desire to use rigorous methods to understand the scale of this problem, in the context of the scale of other problems facing women. That doesn’t mean I think any of this is ok.

@Gmom

I knew Stonewall were on the wrong side of this issue (which is mind blowing since Stonewall should be championing the freedom to love and be physically intimate with whoever you like and without anyone else decreeing what is normal or acceptable).

I'm shocked that the "cotton ceiling" workshop was run by Planned Parenthood in Toronto. There goes my support for Planned Parenthood. I've supported them in the past in the face of right wing conservative politicians attacking them. Framing a woman's unwillingness to be penetrated by a penis as a "cotton ceiling" is pure misogyny.

Planned Parenthood have a very lucrative new business model in providing hormones under an informed consent model.

The reaction on Twitter now is that of course no transwoman would ever suggest that a lesbian not wanting to have sex with them makes them transphobic. Of course genitals preferences are not transphobic. This must be a hoax, women are lying to make transwomen look bad etc.

Like WiSpa, they are a bit mixed up about it. No it's not happening but it's fine even if it did, which it didn't, but if it did it is only asking people to think about why they reject people based on preferences. That's all. Nothing concerning or problematic there.

Is is just me or was this originally in AIBU and has now been moved to the naughty corner?

@BigHeartyTruffle

At no point do I deny that this has happened, or that it is abhorrent.

I still stand by my desire to use rigorous methods to understand the scale of this problem, in the context of the scale of other problems facing women. That doesn’t mean I think any of this is ok.

Your preference for "rigorous methods" is echoed by PPs and yet you seem not to see those many posts. I wonder why?

And, as has been pointed out many times, the article addressed the issue of the survey and didn't over-interpret it.

However, it would seem that your framing that women don't understand such matters is the preferred one of Twitter's own algorithm.

@Bollockstothat

BigHeartyTruffle, I know a lot of TRAs are jumping on this like it's some massive gotcha, but the article is based on qualitative not quantitative research and the reference to the survey is really just a hook on which to hang the story rather than the evidential basis for it. Interview-based qualitative research is an entirely valid research method for academics - and, obviously, the whole basis of traditional journalism.

And although self-selected samples are problematic, if 45 lesbians are saying they're being ostracised, bullied, or raped for refusing to date trans women, that's objectively a big fucking problem, whatever proportion of young lesbians they turned out to be.

well said. thanks for cutting through the 'gotcha'

By employing the unnamed Cotton Ceiling person, Stonewall make clear that they think it’s OK

Aren't the trans suicide statistics based on a self selecting sample too?

@BigHeartyTruffle

At no point do I deny that this has happened, or that it is abhorrent.

I still stand by my desire to use rigorous methods to understand the scale of this problem, in the context of the scale of other problems facing women. That doesn’t mean I think any of this is ok.

It's something you'd expect to be researched by academics or organisations that purport to represent lesbian women. It hasn't and won't happen though because any request for funding will be shot down immediately as transphobic.

James Caspian has tried for years to get permission by Bath Spa University to properly research into detransitioners and has been shut down for the same reasons.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4185003-James-Caspians-detransitioners-research-ECHR-application-declined

I'll just pop this thread here

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4188099-Evidence-of-TRA-Gender-Idealogue-Homophobia

Of course it bloody happens, women have been saying this for years. TW have been writing articles about the rottenness of lesbian women 'resisting the penis' for years. (TW Julia Serano, 'The Struggle to find Trans Love in Sanfrancisco 2010)

'The cotton ceiling, in short, makes the point that there are certain cis lesbians who are using their sexuality as a way to deny trans women’s womanhood.' 2018 medium.com/@notCursedE/the-cotton-ceiling-dd4eda2aed46

Multiple references by Miranda Yardley in 'Girl dick, the cotton ceiling' 2018.

Multiple threads right here on FWR with posters arguing back with homosexual women against their right to be homosexual and to exclude male people from their body.

Multiple lesbian groups disappeared or gone underground when they were unwilling to support mixed sex groups and relationships but were not permitted to make this choice.

Trying to pretend it's not really a belief (and if it is a belief no one actually acts on it) is about as desperate as trying to pretend that no female's been hurt in a female prison through placing male prisoners there. There comes a point where the realities have to be faced.

Yes, it's very important to understand the scale of the problem but you can't seriously expect a journalist to have undertaken that sort of research - that's not their job, and the article never claims that's what they've done.

Why do you think it's important "to understand the scale of the problem, in the context of the scale of other problems facing women"? We don't say that it's important to understand the scale of domestic violence in the context of the scale of other problems facing women, or that it's important to understand the scale of women being sexually assaulted by male police officers in the context of the scale of other problems facing women - it's important to know how widespread these problems are, but we don't (I hope) think that the seriousness of these assaults on women depends on whether other types of problem are more widespread.

afterellen.com/girl-dick-the-cotton-ceiling-and-the-cultural-war-on-lesbians-girls-and-women/

Yardley article. The Serano one is sadly now behind a paywall.

I still stand by my desire to use rigorous methods to understand the scale of this problem, in the context of the scale of other problems facing women. That doesn’t mean I think any of this is ok.

Again, I think the scale of the problem is evidenced by the fact that Stonewall have released a statement that seems to describe same sex attraction as transphobic.

I see a lot of the whinging is around the number of lesbians asked about this. As well as conveniently forgetting the double standard around sample size when it came to sports and suicide statistics, would a larger enquiry even be allowed? It's covered briefly in the article, and the point is made that even asking the question would be deemed transphobic.

"We want to do a survey about this"
"You can't ask that! It's transphobic!"
"Well here's a survey of 80 that we've done"
"Oh sorry that's too small, so we're going to ignore that data and call you liars"

The problem now I guess is any further study will either be hijacked by the activists to skew the data or the ensuing tantrums will ensure it never gets off the ground to start with

But what this has done has let in a whole bunch of sunlight, shown the wider public that yes, this is a thing, it DOES happen (despite it never happens ) and got people talking

@Bollockstothat because, to be really frank, I feel that these issues risk eclipsing other issues that face women, which are already given little enough attention. Please note that this is very different to me thinking that they are less important.

I still stand by my desire to use rigorous methods to understand the scale of this problem, in the context of the scale of other problems facing women. How many?

I think I understand what you mean, I am usually the one shouting for rigorous studies into various phenomenon.

But this is different. One woman.. 100 women? How many have to experience this before it is accepted as a real phenomenon? WHat does the scale of it matter? That it happens is enough, surelly!

In asking for rigorous studies into the chat up/would be sex lives of lesbians you are requiring a far higher burden of 'proof' than is necessary - how many other sexualities have to provide proof of their dating experiencs for those experiences to be accepted as real?

You are, hopefully accidentally, supporting those who say 'this never happens'.

About time, but thank you BBC. We can give positive feedback on the article and please do. Stonewall is falling...😊

[quote BoreOfWhabylon]Well done Caroline!

Something has definitely shifted at the BBC. Stephen Nolan said that lots of staff told him that they felt unable to discuss these issues.

FEEDBACK TO BBC, LET THEM KNOW WHAT YOU THINK

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/comments-feedback/#/Your%20comment[/quote]
Just wanted to say this again.

@Bollockstothat

BigHeartyTruffle, I know a lot of TRAs are jumping on this like it's some massive gotcha, but the article is based on qualitative not quantitative research and the reference to the survey is really just a hook on which to hang the story rather than the evidential basis for it. Interview-based qualitative research is an entirely valid research method for academics - and, obviously, the whole basis of traditional journalism.

And although self-selected samples are problematic, if 45 lesbians are saying they're being ostracised, bullied, or raped for refusing to date trans women, that's objectively a big fucking problem, whatever proportion of young lesbians they turned out to be.

Agreed, unless you buy the argument I did see on Twitter, that those 45 lesbians were actually all sock puppets orchestrated by Graham Linehan...

From that thread (thanks to Dowowowown):

^"The BBC now define homosexuality as same gender attraction.
And they define "gender" as gender identity and "sex" as the physical body. So they know exactly what they're doing.
The definitions are in the News Style Guide - which ensures that their news reporting is, we can't say factual, can we, so let's just say "on message".
Please use the online BBC Complaints process to complain."^

I wonder if the BBC will be changing this now?

some of that article is quite scary, about the "cotton ceiling" - no one has to have sex with someone else just to validate them, crazy that this is even implied.

@ArabellaScott

"Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions."

Nancy, if only you'd stopped after the first sentence.

Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren't attracted to. But...

Yes... or if she'd realised that the group relevant to the situation was 'like people who are of the opposite sex to you' .... Put that in for completeness and see what it sounds like, Nancy.