Woman's Hour now: BBC walking away from Stonewall

[nauticant]

Emma Barnett is asking the questions.

@littlbrowndog

Did that guy actually say that only women can give birth is highly contested

When Emma asked specific questions about what freedoms BBC journalists have to talk about transwomen in sport (explaining that a transwoman in the Olympics is biologically male) or how they should clarify when speakers talk about pregnant people, he responded by saying (my summary) that these were hypothetical situations that he couldn't respond to in this interview. He then said that these were matters of public policy and were (quoting) deeply deeply complicated matters

Summarising in a phrase the mess they're in having believed Stonewall's fantasies rather than facts.

The language has been embedded, by Stonewall, via the BBC, to such an extent, that the TV executive didn't even realise where those terms and words have come from.

I hadn’t thought of it like that. Spot on.

@KaptainKaveman

Author John Boyne has an interesting tweet on the matter...

twitter.com/john_boyne/status/1458759025865236482?s=20

brilliant

@Hebewolfligh

EB is now unleashed and WH was interesting today. Finally the Beeb is debating this. However I just checked the Style guide (how journalist are to write their stories) and its still asserting that 'homosexual' is same gender attracted rather than same sex attracted. Conflating sex and gender like this not correct. Homosexuals are attracted to the same biological sex as in 'homo' meaning same and sex meaning biological sex. This is important as it has safeguarding implications especially for lesbians. We should write in and draw their attention to it

Well spotted.

The Nolan report talked at length about the style guide. This is what that man should have been addressing.

Their style guide comes from Stonewall. And he probably doesn't even realise.

The BBC senior management are in the position of checking their luggage onto a flight knowing their suitcase was packed by this dodgy bloke their mate told them was OK.

@nauticant

The BBC senior management are in the position of checking their luggage onto a flight knowing their suitcase was packed by this dodgy bloke their mate told them was OK.

🤣🤣🤣

Wow. Well thats backed them into a corner hasn't it.

Well played out.

Between the BBC and stonewall, the options are either say that none of it has any influence In which case raise questions over what the money has been spent on, why it was spent as its apparently useless and has made no difference.

Or admit that its had too much influence because by the very admission there would need to be discussions over basic biological facts being raised when relevant upon reporting the news.

And stonewall statement implies that the training is so useless that there have been no tools by which staff have been given and no learning at all to be had that the secind they stop paying fir said useless service towards employees that apparently cannot retain any information whatsoever , the staff will apparently all be in danger.

There is absolutely no angle upon which any of them look remotely good

Lies are exposed in whatever way you look at it.

The only hope here clearly is that no one is bright enough to figure it out

I mean obviously the best thing to do would be to publish the actual guidance that Stonewall have given the BBC, see if they've followed it, and whether not it's impartial.

That's the thing to do if they feel so bloody confident.

I said this on another thread and will say it again. You can take the BBC out of Stonewall, but it will take time to take the Stonewall out of the BBC. Their influence has gone on for years, and the BBC culture has been bent to accommodate it, employees indoctrinated to believe it and fear crossing it, jobs created to implement it. We should heap praise on the BBC for allowing journalists to speak freely, but there's still a massive scandal as to how they allowed it to happen in the first place, how much tax payer money was spent on it, how many people found their positions of employment untenable because of it, and how it did - because it clearly did - leech into their news output. They could start with answering Nolan's FOI requests.

As for Emma B, I think she was TWAW/be kind, but I think she shifted after the Olympics and when she interviewed the trans woman who convinced the IOC to change their rules based on just 8 cases. To be fair, Laurel Hubbard made a lot of people suddenly open their eyes to what is going on. I remember EB being quite defensive about that interview and the criticism of the BBC for not actually bothering to talk to any biological women on this issue (there was the Moral Maze as well that had 2 trans women and a bloke as witnesses). That was only a few months ago. But maybe the criticism opened her eyes?

FINALLY EMMA!!!! Thank you

From upthread
There are 400 trans people working at the BBC, so I imagine there is a massive internal schism going on at the moment.

That may depend on how they are getting that data. Stonewall's annual questionnaire, or at least the one DH had to complete for his workplace, assumes everyone has a gender identity. DH does not. (The poor soul!) So ended up having to opt for being non-binary. Presumably the management are being told that a surprisingly high proportion of their staff are trans, and need to be catered for. Whilst DH is perfectly happy with single sex toilets, indeed wants them retained.

Emma Barnett has written a book about endometriosis and how not being diagnosed with it impacted on her life.

She is a bright, tenacious and smart woman - I'm confident that she never had any doubt of what a woman is (crippled by pain because of a neglected female reproductive system) but is professional and strategic enough to do her job and bide her time.

I'm sure there is a network of influential journalists at the BBC with a secret WhatsApp who have been working on this for some time. Nolan did the podcast, but he surely didn't do that on his own. He's too perfect as a "stepping stone", could get the truth recorded because he's not well known outside of NI, and then the London lot can let rip with the BBC's own testimony.

It's genius.

What's after WH? Horizon?

This might help get the Stonewall out of the Beeb.
www.vice.com/en/article/n7nv97/lgbtq-employees-are-quitting-the-bbc-because-they-say-its-transphobic

"the key thing is, to engage with those staff groups, to discuss our thinking and our reasoning"

He just doesn't get it, does he. All his INCLUSION is excluding women, and he just can't see it. He doesn't want to see it. He just wants to talk to the glitter people. He doesn't think that women are fully human.

To him, it's the "key thing".

deeply deeply complicated matters only because Stonewall misrepresented the EA.

Emma has been GC for a long time, how do I know this, because people she associates with are GC (not divulging). Had she been shackled, yes of course but once the EHRC confirmed that women should be able to debate, then it's open season.

This is WOMAN's HOUR ffs of course we should discuss and in any way EB choses. For me, it sounds like EB has had that script ready for a while. She is good and have always admired even though I don't always agree. I listened to her take apart a politician on Radio5 and I wouldn't be interviewed by her for all of Fanny Facebooks billions

Glad Ben Hunte got a mention. Unbelievable that he was seemingly given license to write anything he wanted, instead of upholding basic journalistic standards. All part of the 'opinion writer' trend in journalism, but if you want to write in that style, perhaps don't work at the BBC?
I'm sure there was fear and hesitation from senior staff around challenging his content, which is a farcical situation - I imagine what's happening inside the BBC is a bit like the recent NY Times article about older staff being scared of younger all-knowing grads www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/business/gen-z-workplace-culture.html

BBC finally decides to start adulting. Cue tantrums from toddler employees.

Always good to hear an excellent interviewer cut through the waffle.
I have sent congratulations to WH via the BBC comments page.

BBC finally decides to start adulting. Cue tantrums from toddler employees

The anger is always misplaced Isn't it.

Everything is the fault of an employer who drew a line. Now let's remember that the ministry of justice places male bodied rapists in womens prisons and still only made it to number five in the 2020 top 100 employers, so you you have to ask just what would get you higher at that point.

And never the fault of someone who misrepresents the law,.disregards all 8 other legally protected characteristics , and uses false suicide stats to do so.

The beef should be with the lies and false promises not someone refusing to pay another penny for bad advise

Thank you Emma, hugely impressive!

Well what was so wrong with the bbc they felt they needs to pay such a huge amount to an outside agency to influence their internal policy?

Why couldn’t they understand the equality act themselves?

Why couldn’t the treat lgbt+ employees with dignity and without discrimination without an outside agency telling them how to behave?

That alone raises some pretty significant questions.

BloodinGutters, exactly. I say this about any organisation, it's the easiest thing in the world NOT to discriminate, why the fuck should any reputable organisation need a lobbying group to tell them how to do so.

@Manderleyagain

I've just realised that Emma Barnett was the interviewer in that interview with Jo Swinson in 2019 before the election. She has been willing to talk about these issues for a while it seems.

I'm with Manderleyagain and BoreofWhabylon. What was clear about the Jo Swinson interview was that Emma had clearly done a lot of background preparation. It was proper journalism as she raised concerns from multiple perspectives, as she did today.

Now the person who has changed his tune is Stephen Nolan. He uninvited Nic Williams when Veronica Ivy refused to be in the same studio as her. After a lot of complaining, he eventually offered Nic Williams some ridiculous time to come on which wasn't at all convenient for her.

@KaptainKaveman

Author John Boyne has an interesting tweet on the matter...

I'm glad he's GC, I love his books

[quote CatsOperatingInGangs]This might help get the Stonewall out of the Beeb.
www.vice.com/en/article/n7nv97/lgbtq-employees-are-quitting-the-bbc-because-they-say-its-transphobic[/quote]
Did you see who wrote that? Ben Hunte. So it's not going to be impartial and it's unlikely to be 100% based in fact. This is what the allegation is based on:

'“I know someone that walked out the other day over the article. I know someone else that left a couple of months ago. I know about eight trans people that left the organisation in the past 12 months because they don’t believe that the BBC is impartial anymore,” said one current BBC employee on the call.'

An anonymous person at the BBC says they know someone who walked out (does that actually mean left or just walked out of the building?) after the article about lesbians being groomed by male-sexed people was published. A few other LGBTQ+ people have left months ago. That's it. An unnamed source, unverified allegations. The BBC is a massive employer with loads of folk on short-term contract and a high turnaround of employees.

Last week the TRAs were squealing at the BBC for publishing Angela Wild's findings about lesbians being pressured into relationships with male-bodied people on the grounds of the scope and impartiality of Angela's research — which was never claimed to be rigorous or definitive. Now here's Ben Hunte making allegations on the basis that and anonymous someone he knows at the BBC has told him something unverified.

It's on Sounds now. But look how the interview isn't mentioned on the snapshot

They’ve updated it and it’s front and centre now.