Indecent exposure and Jordan Gray on Radio 4

[BaronMunchausen]

The Today presenter (Justin Webb?) on Radio 4 has just aired the connection between indecent exposure and gender ideology. While interviewing a Labour MP about the cultural acceptance of indecent exposure, he said that a lot of women were very offended when Jordan Gray stripped off on Channel 4, but Ofcom said it was ok and Channel 4 was “actually rather proud of it”. The MP kept to generalities, but it was good to hear.

Radio 4 will doubtless be inundated with complaints, but other listeners (at least those who remember Jordan Grey) will perhaps understand the implications of the demand that trans identifying males be given unfettered access to women's safe spaces.

I ❤Justin

I'm very, very tired of seeing penises in polyester everywhere. I could really do without having seen Jordan's naked todger on telly.

Tedious.

Well done Justin. He's what keeps me on R4.

I heard that and thought, well done Justin. Exposing double standards.

@SallyLockheart he's been consistent in this. He's great

I thought the same.

Webb held senior BBC roles in the US from 2001 to 2009. He fell in love with the country and over time came to the view that the BBC was anti-American. He returned to the UK in 2009 seemingly with a strong dislike of identity politics and my assumption is that he saw what it was doing to the US and was dreading what it was going to do to the UK.

I was interested to see this on Wikipedia:

"In 2022, the BBC said Webb was not sufficiently accurate when he described the philosophy professor Kathleen Stock – who resigned following protests over her views on gender identity and transgender rights – as being "falsely" accused of transphobia. However, said that it was accurate to describe her as a subject of abuse by students.[17]"

The source given is The Guardian. It doesn't appear to exist otherwise than on Wikipedia and in The Guardian.

Good for him. I expect he'll be shunned in the canteen by his idiotic colleagues in the comedy team who have commissioned Grey for a radio 4 show.

Glad JW brought this up. It seems mad that there was no fuss about Jordan's penis being displayed clearly on C4 (I was watching live) but Elaine Millar was at risk of prosecution for displaying an obvious merkin on top of leggings in the Scottish Parliament.

❤️

AGP males are free to ramp up their fetish and expose genitals en masse.

Wayne Couzens sentenced for fetish behaviour exposing genitals in public in days prior to abduction & murder.

Why are we using wokeness to normalise fetish behaviours that can be very, very dangerous. Why do we want to protect the 'arty' AGP'S and not see the dangers are coming from same thing?

He’s a truly independent thinker

I've found the original source, on the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit findings pages. It's the outcome, published on 3 February 2022, to four complaints received.

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/today-radio-4-13-october-2021

"As the validity or otherwise of the accusation of transphobia are at the heart of the controversy over Professor Stock, the ECU agreed that it was not duly accurate to refer to it in terms which suggested it had been disproved, and upheld the complaints in that respect.

However, it did not agree that the use of “falsely” indicated the producer’s personal opinion (which would have been contrary to the guideline on impartiality which says BBC journalists and news presenters “may not express personal views” on controversial subjects in BBC output), but considered it was better understood as an anticipation of the article being introduced, which did indeed argue that the accusation was false.

In connection to the reference to protestors “abusing” Professor Stock, the ECU noted that publications by her antagonists had applied terms to her which were incontestably abusive, irrespective of the merits of the arguments they were associated with.

Accordingly the ECU did not regard the reference as raising issues of accuracy or impartiality.

Partly upheld."

Thanks!

Woman's Hour is asking listeners for today's programme: With the sentencing of Wayne Couzens would you feel more confident if you reported an incident of indecent exposure to the Police?

Good on Justin. I noticed he posted a selfie from the Hannah Barnes book launch and said there was a lot of BBC staff there. It's a sorry state of affairs that seemed a bold thing to do!

Male nudity on television isn't automatically offensive, I watched A Room With A View the other day and there were a surprising number of cocks on show for a Sunday afternoon, but the Jordan Gray incident had an aggressive and territorial aspect to it: 'Fuck you, terfs! I'm in your spaces and what are you going to do about it?'

There were so many media debates yesterday concerning indecent exposure and 'non-contact sexual offences,' with some defensiveness from the police but also many pledges to take things more seriously. I just thought that we could actually see the official statistics on these incidents go down because transactivism has found a way to trans away the illegality of indecent exposure and voyeurism - which, of course, is the endgame.

The conflicting cultural discourse around this kind of issue is one of those things that feels like it is purposefully designed to drive women mad, and to always be wrong-footed. One second it's #MeToo and candlelight vigils and angry marches and 'why don't the police care about women?'; the next second it's 'ugh, why are you such an uncool bitch and a prude?' and 'you're the sex offender for staring at someone's penis in the locker room!' and 'white carceral feminists want rapists and murderers locked up!' Liberal feminists always oscillate insanely on this issue because their opinion always stands in relation to the status of the male offender and never on the side of the female victim. Police officer = bad sex offender; someone on their side = errrr, quick, blame white feminism for something.

I would feel much more confident today.
It was interesting in the aftermath of sarah Everard's murder mu DD, who lived in Clapham , had a stalker (something which has followed her since uni). She reported to the police and they took it seriously, speaking to the stalker, who hasn't reoffended. She felt they were feeling stung and had to react.
Now is the moment, ladies, report report report.

Keep the ball rolling. So to speak

I know, it's not even like they are particularly nice to look at. They certainly agent nice outlined in cheap materials! I'm quite happy never to have to see a male appendage or the outline of one, unless it's attached to someone naked in my bedroom ever again. And even then I could take it or leave it at this point to be honest!

It does need to be made very clear, as I heard Julie Bindel do recently, that our objections to seeing penises is NOT modesty but an awareness that men will use them as weapons. So, when we see one without our consent, there's this primal reaction that we're about to be harmed. We know 'flashing' is often a precursor to more serious assaults (Wayne Couzens). This shouldn't be minimised by anyone.

Do people generally expose their genitals unexpectedly as a mark of respect to the person they’re exposing themselves to?

of course not. It’s always an act of aggression and / or a demonstration of disrespect

anyone who thinks otherwise doesn’t know how humans work

Good on Justin for raising this.

Am I right in thinking that technically, it's only "indecent exposure" if the man's penis is erect? That displaying a non-erect penis isn't regarded as a crime?

@RoyalCorgi - no requirement for an election - just exposure of genitals!