Wow. Their open letter has the same level of 'rigour' as all trans promotion.
It asserts that:
"This study breaks the BBC’s own guidelines about using surveys as sources for claims in coverage, as it is self selected, with a small sample size and a clear bias held by those self selected to respond."
The actual BBC guidance say that "Other organisations often claim they have conducted a survey – or a poll – when what they actually have is a self-selecting questionnaire of some sort. The results may be interesting and newsworthy, but we should not necessarily accept claims about how representative they are at the face value of a press release; we should not report them in a way which leads our audience to believe they are more robust than they are. If they are of no statistical value and appear to have been promoted only to generate attention for a particular cause or publication, we should exercise real scepticism and consider not using them at all, especially when they are concerned with serious or controversial issues".
But in the actual article it says that the survey owners acknowledge that their results may not be representative of the wider lesbian community. So there is no claim to the results being more robust than they really are. You'd have to be a fool to think that reporting on a number of sexual assaults and a larger number of worrying incidents of coercion was just about generating attention (and if you took that stance then many articles about trans issues should also not have been published). There is no breach of the BBCs guidelines and the letter does not even both to outline how they think it has been breached.
The letter says that "Additionally, the article itself acknowledges that outside of this small sample size self selected study there is basically no evidence for the claim that this is happening in any sort of numbers that would justify generalising this as a widespread experience.". But again the article does not do that. There is a quote where Ms Jackson says it has happening to a sizeable minority ". That is not generalising this as a widespread experience and clearly only rape apologists would see the numbers which were shared even in this self-selecting group as numbers which do not justify discussing the issue.
They say that "You cite a more than 50% figure from Get the L Out’s survey result, with the implication being that most cis lesbians will have experienced coersion into sex by a trans woman, in the same article as the below quote." There is no such implication. People who bother to read the article will not jump to such silly conclusions.
Letter writers evidence no understanding of UK law "The article itself routinely implies that transgender women are not women, uncritically quoting people who call transgender women men without at any point clarifying that this is ignoring their legal status as women in the UK." "Most of the people that the articles cites do not talk about not wanting to sleep with transgender women with penises, they talk about not wanting to sleep with people they see as men, or see as having male genitals. This should make it very clear what view those interviewed have on the legal status of the gender of transgender women". As well as this clear error, there it a clear attempt to control how others see trans gender women. In other areas of law, this kind of pressure would be seen as coercive and controlling.
"Again, this makes it clear that the person interviewed inherently feels that transgender women are not and can never be women. That is not someone who should be used as an unbiased source on the topic of transgender women’s existence." This part of the letter suggests that someone who believes TWAW is unbiased whereas someone who believes TWATW is biased. That is an unsubstantiable statement and a matter of opinion rather than bias. When an issue is one of opinion rather than fact, the question of bias is not clear cut. This presupposes the outcome of a debate which the trans lobby will not allow. As ever there is a confusion between a right to exist and a right to be seen as a woman rather than a transwoman. This argument is one of those which could be turned round on the translobby. Are they questioning women's right to exist when they refuse to understand the GC position?
"This again reinforces the idea that “true lesbians” don’t sleep with transgender women, a fact which is not accurate". Who gets to define accurate? Has there been any representative poll of lesbians to back up this claim or is this another fact that we are supposed to accept without debate just because they say it?
"The article also cites LGB Alliance. This group has registered charity status in the UK, but appears to be breaking the charity commission’s rules for behaviour and conduct of a UK charity⁵. A UK charity can campaign for the rights of a single group, but cannot exist solely or predominantly to campaign against the rights of a minority group⁶." And yet Stonewall are not entirely campaigning for trans rights and no longer recognise homosexuality as same-sex attraction. They are actively campaigning against the rights of women.
"The group does has not shown any evidence of campaigning for LGB (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual) issues such as halting LGB conversion therapy, addressing LGB hate crimes or tackling the high level of homelessness in the LGB community." The issues raised in this article are evidence of a new version of conversion therapy which some trans lobbies are promoting. In standing up to this hate speech, LGB alliance are trying to protect people from conversion therapy.
It's ridiculous to be cross that Hayton's view was represented when it is clear that in many trans lobby publications there is no attempt to present a balanced view. If there is a call for opposing view to be represented then the trans lobby groups need to find a way to stop the abuse and hate which is directed at anyone who disagrees with them.
The complaint of ", deliberately misgendered those with transgender pride flags" is as laughable as ever given the misgendering of lesbians (cis-lesbians) in this article.
"Additionally, this article completely overlooks the massive rates of violence faced by transgender people¹², The evidence for this is weak and it is not helpful to cite this in isolation from the violence which women experience.
"Those in the UK who campaign against Self-ID for transgender people use the argument that it will lead to an increase in sexual assaults, despite nothing of the such happening in any other country where Self-ID had been implemented." A ridiculous statement as if we believe TWAW then we have no words which would allow us to ascertain if there is an increase in sexual assaults
Overall a very poor letter indeed. A clear attempt to shut down opposing views. No empathy for the women who have been assaulted. No taking responsibility for the discourses which feed into this. No ability to understand that no-one is suggesting that all trans people are a risk like this, or even a majority are. The article is focusing on the consequences of the narrative which says that lesbians should be shamed for not fancying trans women. It does not say all trans women do that. It does not say it happens to all or most lesbians. It says that we need to think more about how this has come about so that it stops happening to people who it has or could happen to. It's another attempt to bully and silence and is shameful.