I thought the programme was extremely sympathetic to the participants who identified as transgender. They were given the opportunity to set out their concerns, thoughts, feelings and wishes. They weren’t challenged on any of the statements or assertions they made. There was barely any focus on women’s rights or the impact on women. There was an extended sequence on political support for TWAW/TWAM in Norwich.
The overall editorial ‘message’, such as it was, was that people should come together, talk to each other, and live in harmony - with the choir sequence deployed to add an unspoken appeal to emotion to that effect.
It’s surprising that Whittle et al find the programme so objectionable.
Reflecting on why, two points strike me. First. The participants who identified as transgender outnumbered those explaining the women’s rights/ gender critical viewpoint. Twice as many, I think. If there are nine voices to be heard from one side and three from another, then it’s hardly surprising if not all of those nine individuals get the same amount of air time as an individual who is one of the group of three. There was a sense from Whittle’s tweet/ blog statement of an expectation of being owed the same amount of air time as Kathleen Stock. I would have expected a more realistic understanding of how a TV programme is likely to work from someone with Whittle’s very successful track record of behind the scenes campaigning to influence the media approach to coverage of individuals who identify as transgender. A person who has lost their job and been subjected to protests and demonstrations very recently is going to be the ‘main character’, as it were, of the tv programme. A person whose contribution was in the past or went under the radar won’t be.
Secondly, it seems to me that the fundamental objection to the programme, from those complaining about it, is that it featured Kathleen Stock. They wanted her cancelled. They wanted her silenced. And there she is: on TV, being heard. That’s what’s causing the rage.