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 🤯

@Whatwouldscullydo

Rapists are rapists. There should be no special category that is allowed to get away with it

Isnt it in itself homophobic and transphobic to not report on cases where the perpetrators of the offences are part of the lgbt community?

Why is expecting them to behave to the same standard of everyone else problematic. Do they not feel they ate capable? Or that they need to be asked to do these things in order to be fully involved in life? Who's the real transphobe here

You're spot on. Bigotry of low expectations apart from anything else.

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.

Quite.

This isn't one of those cases where the scale of the problem matters. It's not like a cost-benefit analysis for puberty blockers, or an analysis of male performance loss with lowered testosterone.

This is something that SHOULD NOT be happening at all. That they could find more than one person reporting this "it never happens" thing is sufficient.

And the the reaction to people reporting it happening tells you everything you need to know about the climate lesbians are finding themselves in. If it ever DID happen it's clear they would get no backup.

@ScreamingMeMeSawUs

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

In part. Some are from other countries, are global not UK stats, may be for sex workers in Brazil, that kind of thing. Always misrepresented at every turn.

This piece is open and up front about the data. No misrepesentation, no claims of being 'the worst/most harmful' anything.

@Artichokeleaves

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.

The Serano piece is readily available on web.archive.org by entering the URL in the search box.

@Vanishun

I'm absolutely delighted that the trans community is so outraged - this means that they will surely join us in protesting the incredibly rare group of trans people who say and do these things?

Quite. Just like we know it’s not all men, it’s not all trans women either. We need to be able to say that some people are rapists how ever they identify.

[quote BigHeartyTruffle]@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.[/quote]
"Nothing to see here! Move along now!"

...worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions...

Anything is "worth considering", I guess, but this kind of comment is easily considered and rejected in the context of homosexuality, as it's classic and well-worn (and when people push it in this context, it's of course homophobic). There are a few fallacies at play here, I think.

(1) Conflation and confusion of sexual preferences with sexual orientation, something Stonewall used to consider part of its mission to educate the public about.

(2) Conflation and confusion of private choices with public life, a la "single sex spaces aren't needed 'cos you'd let your husband/dad/brother/son use the loo at your house".

If I'm constantly complaining to my friends that I really want to be in a relationship but I somehow can't meet anyone compatible who's also between the ages of 29 and 31, at least 5'11" but no more than 6'1", has blue eyes and red hair and a PhD, lives no more than ten minutes' drive from me, etc., THEN maybe my friend is reasonable to say I'm too picky and should maybe consider a blond 32 year old who lives 15 minutes away.

Sexual orientation is not the same thing as dating standards.

Rejecting a potential partner as not compatible is not the same thing as legal (prohibited in the UK) discrimination in public life.

I feel that these issues risk eclipsing other issues that face women, which are already given little enough attention.

I don't think it's possible to talk about any issue that faces women if you can't clearly explain what a woman is.

In order to cary out any research, you need to be able to define your parameters.

I also think this is just one article that will probably be ignored by most people. It really isn't eclipsing anything.

@Babdoc

Wow, the BBC are frantically playing catch up here, aren’t they! Let’s hope they have finally realised they were backing the wrong horse all along.

Catch up, or reverse ferret? Call me a cynic but it me wonder what's causing this change of direction.

Here's a thread of evidence I made starting in mid 2018, some of it has been taken down but not all

"Cotton Ceiling" evidence thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3294339-cotton-ceiling-evidence-thread

@GingerAndTheBiscuits

Stonewall: “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.“

This is conversion therapy by any other name isn’t it? “if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like men, or women, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions.” So sexuality is nurture not nature and we can all be shaped out of it.

It’s exactly like conversion therapy and thats why Stonewall & others are putting pressure on the UK government to ban it. Surely talking to a psychiatrist about being gay or not is normal therapy not converting someone? It’s airing your feelings and emotions to a neutral person or certainly should be.

Interview-based qualitative research is an entirely valid research method for academics - and, obviously, the whole basis of traditional journalism.

Of course it is. Little OJ must know this, unless he's an even worse journalist than we thought. Take practically any subject you care to name and the way that journalists write about it is to interview a few case studies and draw conclusions.

I thought it was interesting that the headline was phrased some transwomen. Not because I think it's all TW. But because in journalistic language the "some" is usually considered to go without saying. We know when a headline says "Refugees entering the UK" it means some refugees. When it says, "Parents outraged by..." it means some parents.

It just strikes me that they are being super careful because they know that any potential weak spot will be blown to shreds by TRAs. They were careful to explain the relevance of the data sample, and careful to explain who they'd asked to comment, and careful to include TRA opinions (and not the most horrific ones either).

Not saying any of that is a problem. If journalists were this careful on every topic, we'd probably be in a better situation all around.

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

Graham L. keeps busy doesn't he? Must be exhausting single-handedly orchestrating the UK GC movement. Hope he gets a chance to have a cup of tea and a sit down occasionally.

adviser to Stonewall, ran a workshop on "Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling"

The BBC chose not to name the person. As has been mentioned in this thread, that person is said to be involved in the criticism of Allison Bailey that lead to her difficulties with her chambers. The person may be involved in the legal trial next year. There are several reasons to err on the side of caution and not name the person.

@SapphosRock

I can't think of a single lesbian group where I could share this article without being labelled a bigot or a transphobe which says it all really.

Yep

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

I heard that ''Julia Long'' is actually an actress paid by Linehan.

to be really frank, I feel that these issues risk eclipsing other issues that face women, which are already given little enough attention

So do you think that we should not be worrying about the issue of women being raped or murdered by serving police officers? That's taking up a lot of attention at the moment but seems to happen to only a very tiny proportion of women in the UK.

And not really sure why you think the issue of lesbians being homophobically bullied or raped by people with penises risks eclipsing other issues when this is the first day ever that it's been a story in the mainstream media. I think it's worth at least one day's discussion. Don't you?

I've just given the BBC positive feedback on this article.

This thread has made me remember Lily Madigan who had allegations of sexual harassment made against him by female friends, I think.

"It doesn't matter to most women" is perhaps homophobic in itself.

Statistically lesbians will always be a minority. Does that mean they don't count?

@GingerAndTheBiscuits

Stonewall: “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.“

This is conversion therapy by any other name isn’t it? “if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like men, or women, then it's worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions.” So sexuality is nurture not nature and we can all be shaped out of it.

That is what they are saying there yes.

Fascinating for me really, I always disliked the way stonewall phrased things but this is gloves off and honest about how they feel.

Stonewall wants everyone to know now that it is OK for genetically male humans to force genetically female humans (who are same sex attracted) to have sex with the genetically male persons penis being involved.

That is called rape or sexual harrasment in the rest of society, but it is "trans rights" for Stonewall.

@Vanishun

"It doesn't matter to most women" is perhaps homophobic in itself.

Statistically lesbians will always be a minority. Does that mean they don't count?

And it matters a lot to everyone of us with same sex oriented family and friends and that feels like a very big number.

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.

Why, though? So you can dismiss it if you deem it to be sufficiently minor?

It isn’t a standalone problem anyway. It’s a sub-category of another, much larger problem - male violence against women. I can give you a ton of statistics about that if you want.

And anyway it doesn’t matter how prevalent it is. It’s a bit like when people say that ‘stranger abductions of women and girls are rare’ when yet another woman gets strangled or beaten to death on her way home - it’s a form of dismissal. Yes, they’re statistically rare, but they’re a type of male violence, which is not remotely rare. And no matter how rare they are, they have to stop.