Special Edition of BBC Question time for balance.

[FannyCann]

Apparently the BBC is to have a special edition of Question Time next Thursday (3rd Feb) to allow anti-vaxxers - "vaccine sceptics" to have a say.

www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/01/25/special-edition-question-time-vaccine-sceptics-has-bbc-lost/

If they are going to have special editions like this, to allow unpopular arguments to be aired then I think they should have a special edition for those who believe humans can't change sex.
I want to see Professor Winston in star position with David Lammy explaining how it is possible to grow a cervix. Maya Forstater should obviously be on the panel. And I can't remember her name but the female labour MP who said something along the lines of babies not having a sex when they are born - sorry my memory is hazy here but I'm sure it's burned into the brain of someone else here who can correct me.

I want a whole section of the audience reserved for Mumsnetters!

Can we lobby for it?

We need balance. And Fiona Bruce owes Prof Winston an apology.

Dawn Butler.

Agree that GC people should be able to speak freely, not something the BBC has hitherto facilitated. However, we don't have an unpopular opinion. Our opinions are normal, widely held and backed by law, science and societal norms. So I would like your programme reframed as, "Experts with scientifically backed evidence of human development and behaviour and law versus gender ideologues and opportunistic MPs who have spoken in soundbites with no basis in any of the above". Or something like that.

Labour’s Dawn Butler was the genius that said babies were born without a sex.

What I mean is, the gender ideologues need to be the ones justifying why they are trying to change societal behaviour, science and the law. They need to be the ones sat there justifying themselves and backing it with evidence that is not just a load of made up stats and emotional blackmail.

This is the clip of when Dawn Butler said it

twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1229691214292832256?s=20

Can we have Lisa Nandy talking about why rapists should be able to serve their prison sentence in women’s prison if they identify as female. I bet the response starts with, “there is a transgender young person in my constituency who ….”

I haven't read the Telegraph article except for the screenshots above, but if this is true and the BBC is doing a QT for antivaxxers, they must have taken leave of their senses. As the screenshot says, what on earth will it achieve? By this stage, the entrenched antivaxxers are totally beyond the powers of reason and evidence.

Having said that, I never watch QT as it makes me so cross. Ditto Any Questions on R4. Much prefer a proper news report or documentary.

Totally agree @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

Sorry, the Telegraph don't do share tokens.
I screenshotted the main points before Michael Deacon headed for the jokes.

I forgot, probably ought to have Tom Harwood - A woman is anyone worthy of a cat call - on the panel.

More from the article

Thanks @BriocheForBreakfast
How could I forget that!

I want to see Professor Winston in star position with David Lammy explaining how it is possible to grow a cervix. Maya Forstater should obviously be on the panel. And I can't remember her name but the female labour MP who said something along the lines of babies not having a sex when they are born

We need some Tories and LibDems on the panel.

How about Caroline Nokes explaining the contradictory statements in the Women and Equalities Committee report on the GRA? The report says that the two-year requirement to live in the acquired gender before getting a GRC should be scrapped because there's no definition of what this entails, but the statutory declaration to live in the acquired gender will be kept and someone who fails to do this will be prosecuted.

And Layla Moran could explain exactly how she sees into people's souls to see if males who claim to have a womanly identity are genuine.

Dispense with the small fry and have the party leaders on explaining their positions and what they understand to be human biological reality; what they understand safeguarding and the EqA is for; hit them with the real stats on trans suicides and murders; and then ask why women should trust them at all, given the rates of murder, rape and DV that go on every day with barely any interest by the police or politicians, while they unlawfully pursue none crime "hate" crimes and legislate to protect the (mostly) white, male born minority that has been given the bully pulpit, so that MPs can score easy progressive points, whilst failing to make any difference to the real issues damaging our society.

Sorry for that last, poorly punctuated sentence. Just angry thinking about those smug fuckers Starmer, Davey, Sturgeon and Johnson.

I don't really think Question Time is the right format - it has to keep to a strict time schedule, people interrupt and try to make crowd-friendly soundbites.
I'd far prefer to hear (on either subject) an actual debate with a proposed aim / question to answer with both sides trying to get to the truth.

Otherwise it's just who can shout the loudest and condense a complicated subject down to the shortest headline. And I think 'TWAW' is devised to be that sort of headline.