Title edited by MNHQ at request of author - Telegraph report on BBC's ongoing bias regarding gender identity ideology.

[ClaphamSouth]

Can't see an existing thread on this article by Ewan Somerville in the Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/08/tim-davie-facing-revolt-transgender-pride-network-policing-bbc/

Archive: <a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20230108220133/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/08/tim-davie-facing-revolt-transgender-pride-network-policing-bbc" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20230108220133/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/08/tim-davie-facing-revolt-transgender-pride-network-policing-bbc/

"Following the latest row over BBC Studios Pride chiefs suggesting they want more influence, a BBC insider said: “Pride believes the rights of transwomen are more important than the rights of women to single-sex spaces and sports.
“BBC senior management have been incredibly naive not to understand the political nature of gender identity activism and the way it’s been tacked onto gay rights."

The article describes a disagreement between a co-chair of one the BBC's multiple pride networks and Malcolm Clark at a science conference, and complaints about the undue influence of these pride networks on the BBC. It seems that having a person with a clear political bias on the subject as the DG's chief of staff isn't helping the BBC achieve impartiality on this contentious issue. Who'd have thought it?

I've just come into MN to post about this.

This is the short Archive link if that makes it easier:

archive.today/SK9mg

No names mentioned in the article, just the words of 'BBC insiders' but they are saying all the right things. They reveal that all the complaints about the BBC's heavily pro-trans bias (including several from me) to Tim Davie are filtered out by Phil Harrold, who seems to wield a great deal of influence and be wedded to the promotion of the T:

www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/phil-harrold

Good to see that rebellion is growing at the Beeb.

ongoing impartiality????? They’ve never been impartial on this topic.

@ClaphamSouth I've just looked at your thread title again after a cup of coffee to get my brain going... It doesn't make sense to me because the BBC isn't impartial regarding gender ideology. When you say 'ongoing impartiality' you're basically saying that the BBC is unbiased as it's always been, and that's the opposite of what the article states.

I think this thread would get more interest if you'd be willing to revise the title to something that reflects the article's content more accurately. Something like 'BBC insiders attack BBC's transgender bias'. You can ask the mods to change the title.

This is meant as kindly feedback in order to get as many people to read the article as possible.

Ah, cross-posted with Sheleftheweb.

Yes, sorry, 'ongoing partiality' was what I meant. Will ask MNHQ to change it.

The article makes it very clear that there is ongoing politically motivated bias influencing BBC decisions. I'm pleased that they mentioned the inherent homophobia of GI too.

Yes, the article makes all the right points. I suspect because of the homophobia angle the person/ people behind it are LGB. So many straight people just can't see how homophobic gender ideology is.

I agree.

One of the most frustrating aspects in all this is no one gets to ask these questions where the answers are amplified in any way.

"Do you accept homosexuality is based on sex, or not? Or are you of the opinion that two biological men can be lesbians?"

The answers to these questions need publicising.

In a report in 2018 on LGBTQ+ culture and progression, the BBC heaped praise on Stonewall and one of ten recommendations was for BBC Pride to be “strengthened”.

BBC pride need to explain whether or not they believe in homosexuality.

Yes, that would be a great way of approaching it. I'm learning to ask the less obvious questions. What is a transwoman? Does Pride believe in homosexuality?

Well isn't that interesting.

The frank summary is now out there that this political lobby believes that the rights of male people with TQ+ identities are more important and should override priority over women's rights.

Well it's nice we're taking all the word salad fig leaves out and being clear this is what is being sold: there is a clash of rights: it's either/or and they cannot both exist in the same space, and male people should win, but sex definitely doesn't exist.

Groups representing this lobby feel entitled to VIP consultant status with right to control, censor and veto all matters pertaining to women or homosexuals, and to spin/selectively present in order to keep the rights solely in the hands of male people with TQ+ identities and prevent inconvenient information escaping that may make people concerned about the rights/needs/experiences of others. This includes limiting and actually preventing the voice of others being heard in case of damaging the PR/Control.

They are aware that TQ+ representation and LGB representation in this sense are not one and the same or a homogenous group sharing the one interest.

Management are bullied into fear of saying or doing anything this group may (easily) dislike because the behaviour that will then be inflicted on them is highly unpleasant.

This is a taxpayer funded organisation.

When will the inquiry begin?

This stood out;
“People seem to think Tim is aware of the issue, but every complaint has to go through the Pride sponsor Phil Harrold, because he also runs Tim’s office.”

Transgender people are massively over represented in BBC staff. 1 in 50 compared to 1 in 200 of the population.

It's not impartial, although some of its staff have been very brave speaking up. I shouldn't have to type any of those words.

It's the politics, not the people that presents the problem.

I would wonder how many of the TQ+ staff agree with all this from Pride (and would dare to say so if they didn't) and how many of those involved pressuring and pushing are not actually themselves LGBT+.

Well done Telegraph for reporting this and bringing it out into the light.

@Thelnebriati yes, that is pretty shocking. No conflict of interest there.

I know plenty of people who work at the BBC worked there for 30 years. It's just like everywhere else, women especially feel they cant speak out. There are people in offices that will report you at the drop of a hat to HR for saying the wrong thing. These groups have far too much power and are stifling healthy debate both on screen and off.

Well who would have thunk it!

Is it just me or does it feel like everyone has reached the end of their be polite Be kind tether at round about the same time. It seems the anger of being silenced and denied is definitely starting to emerge as people see the truth behind all this crap.

Knowing their bias on this issue has really made me question the so called gold standard of BBC impartiality

Yes, that stood out for me too. Activists have been shown to be censoring correspondence to MPs as well, IIRC. It's starting to look like a feature rather than a bug.

Yes, if you want your representatives here in Wales to know what you think you have to book an appointment to see them face to face. Letters and emails are quietly binned by their assistants. I've been told about one Labour MP who was completely in the dark about what's going on because their (Labour HQ funded) assistant/ minder filters everything. I can remember some years ago talking to my own MP about this subject and his assistant sitting there with a face like thunder that I'd got through the net. It was quite scary.

On the latest Triggernometry podcast Helen Joyce talks about so many of our institutions being rotten to the core and how the work of the next decade will be to restore and replace them. How on earth you can start rooting it out at the BBC I don't know. How can you remove a trans-enthusiast operating at Phil Harrold's level?

In essence, TQ+ needs to stop being seen as a special and acceptable reason to set aside all normal and usual boundaries. It's been pushed as justifying any end.

It does not.

Equality, not hierarchy.