Another BBC one <facepalm>

[NitroNine]

LGBTQ+ people 'feel threatened on London public transport' - naturally including the infamous conflation of “hate crimes” & “non-crime hate incidents” so readers can be Shocked & Dismayed by their dizzying rise & how such a small minority experience so much hate.

No comparative data provided, naturally, on the feelings/experiences of any other group.

Absolutely even now, even in London, same-sex couples have to be more cautious about PDAs (even holding hands, I mean) than opposite-sex couples. I don’t mean to dismiss that. The dreadful assault on a lesbian couple on a bus a few years ago must have (understandably) heightened anxiety. (Of course, some of the TQ+ have shown they have far less to fear 🤨)

It’s boggling the BBC continue to try to push the “most vulnerable” narrative (because we know who this story is really about) - & frankly insulting they considered this news. I demand a waterskiing budgie! There are probably more users of the London Transport Network who’ve felt threatened than not; & anyone brought up in London learns as a literal child [to try] not to draw attention. Some of us don’t have the luxury of opting out of what gets us targeted: visible disability aids; skin colour; & even, I’d argue, religious dress. Pronoun pins aren’t a requirement of being trans, but in many religious orders no “mufti” is owned other than nightwear. There is also a substantial difference between “a super-special version of a name badge” & part of how someone connects to God, expresses their faith, feels comfortable in themselves & around others, & in some cases carries out an explicit religious obligation.

The constant stream of stories like this is the news equivalent of EDI training that forgets about all the protected characteristics but one. Obviously I have sympathy for anyone who’s been assaulted on public transport (or anywhere else!) but this feeling of threat isn’t news & is, at least in part, manufactured. If you’re told everyone hates you & you’re about to be genocided, you will be fearful; you will feel threatened. Arguably it’s actively irresponsible of the BBC to further stoke those fears; especially with the warped stats.

Time to complain again?

Anyone being attacked or harassed on public transport is obviously appalling and the perpetrators need to be dealt with but as someone born and bred in London and now living in a suburban commuter town, I would say that anything goes a lot more in London than outside and - as an example - a 6ft man dressed as Carmen Miranda would attract a lot less attention in London than where I live now.

Yes there are a thugs everywhere but I’ve always found most Londoners ignore everyone else and are less likely to point and laugh.

What feminists want is abusive aggressive violent men dealt with properly.

This would have the effect of reducing misogynist AND homophobic and transphobic attacks. Wins all around.

Unfortunately the establishment (BBC, Government, Stonewall and other major organisations) work against feminists to suppress any effective feminist movement and, worse, propagate a lie that implies feminists are the cause of LGBTQ attacks.

This is the source of the frustration at articles such as in the OP.

Legs. Sealions have rudimentary legs they can lift themselves up and walk on, whereas seals cannot stand on their flippers and have to move on land by bouncing along on their bellies.

Above is an example of a sealion.

Call me cynical but that's probably more to do with him being a big bloke who could beat the crap out of anybody mocking him.

But how do other passengers know that someone is same sex attracted? Unless they are wearing a badge or a t shirt proclaiming it, which is unlikely, at least on normal working days.

Ash says Ash has given up wearing a’pronoun badge’ on the Tube. Do people really go about squinting at other peoples’ badges’ to see whether they should attack them these days? When I used the Underground, you were too busy looking for a seat or desperately trying to get near enough the door to get off at your stop, but I suppose times change.

Gay and lesbian couples do travel together you know, and sometimes even hold hands, hug, or kiss!

Are you really trying to belittle the attack on the person in the article because you don't believe a pronoun badge would be noticed?

Nowhere in the article is it hinted that feminists are the cause of these attacks? Did I miss that?

It seems instead to focus quite heavily on lack of faith in the police as the reasons why they both don’t feel safe or report crimes:

‘’The passenger watchdog said many LGBTQ+ people it spoke to had little confidence or trust in the police, adding that this often led to incidents on London's public transport network often going unreported.

More than four in five respondents who said they were victimised on public transport in the past year did not report their experiences to the police, either because they felt they would not be able to do anything, or for fear about how they or their report might be handled.’’

Probably,he didn't look like he'd fall over if someone farted on him.

It seems instead to focus quite heavily on lack of faith in the police as the reasons why they both don’t feel safe or report crimes:

Given the huge number of serving and ex police office involved in sex crimes and racial assaults in my area hitting media headlines and all the well published Metropolitan Police service problems and other forces - sadly many in society feel this way as well.

If the OP was written by a man, moaning about an article about women being abused, pointing out that men are victims of more violent assaults on public transport than women and criticising the fact that women choose to wear short skirts when they don’t have to, they would be absolutely torn to shreds. And rightly so.

I can’t believe you think there’s cause to complain about this article, it looks like outright prejudice.

indeed. If you are a woman you can wear baggy clothes, long jackets, trousers and still get smutty comments and leered at. Plus males have the height/weight advantage.

A man can choose to not wear hot pants and a boob tube (yes I’ve seen this at rush hour).

Women can choose not to wear hot pants and boob tubes too. Or is it OK to police what some people wear and not others?

There will be a piece on this on the 6:30 London news where they will be also "speaking to some people affected".

That's a non sequitur.
You may as well say "because blokes can be sexist, you're all wrong"....

Women can choose not to wear hot pants and boob tubes too. Or is it OK to police what some people wear and not others?

No one is policing what anyone wears.

A woman in hot pants and a boon tube will be equally vulnerable to comments and harassment compared to a bloke in that outfit. Neither will be more vulnerable than the other. The problem remains the same and it is men!

^ (Well actually, a man in a boob tube will have the advantage of physical strength to be able to defend himself better, but still just as likely to attract unwanted attention/harassment)

I’m pointing out the double-standards. Man saying that about women would be sexist. Women making equivalent comments about trans people is just fine, is it?

So why is anyone making it about what someone is wearing? They can choose not to wear hot pants, they can choose not to wear a pronoun pin. As you say the problem is the people who harass, not the people who are harassed.

Well it's not an equivalent comment is it?

Your hypothetical example of a comment made by men is based on hyperbole and political agitation and possibly something an incel might say, it's not actually true is it. Men aren't more vulnerable than women.

The group LGBTQ++ referenced in the BBC article who are implied as being "most vulnerable ever" includes lots of men who are statistically more likely to be perpetrators of violence compared to women, whether the men are in a boob tube or not, whether they're same-sex attracted or not. The alphabet group includes men.

You can't say all these people are "frightened to go outside" and expect anyone to believe it. It's more hyperbole and deliberate politics.

As an aside, the article focuses mainly on a transman who is sad they feel they can't wear a pronouns pin, barely mentions gay people, but try being a woman just walking around. Shit happens. It's men doing it.

Of course it’s true that men are more like to be victims of violent assault than women, that’s hardly surprising! Anyway that’s a diversion.

The entire article is about LGBTQ+ people as a whole, then they have one case study, which is quite normal in an article like this. You don’t know if they are gay or straight. There is no comparison with other groups - it’s not implied they are more or less vulnerable than any other group. It’s simply a about a piece of research with LGBTQ+ people (who tend to be under-researched, so it’s good to see a piece of research focusing on this). I’m sure I could find similar research about women’s experiences.

And is there really any need to belittle the experience of someone who has been physically assaulted and left traumatised as “feeling sad they can wear a badge”.

It’s not a competition is it? Women can feel vulnerable. LGBTQ+ people can feel vulnerable. Acknowledging the latter doesn’t invalidate the former.

Look plenty of research about women’s safety on public transport:

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-17557266.amp

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64877141.amp

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-29826982

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/half-of-women-feel-at-risk-of-harassment-on-london-public-transport-a3252051.html

The group LGBTQ++ referenced in the BBC article who are implied as being "most vulnerable ever"

I asked this of another poster but as no answer is yet forthcoming: please could anyone tell me where in the BBC article I can find this assertion that LGBT etc are the "most vulnerable" group.

It's not a competition but some people are missing the point of the discussion.

There was an attack on a trans man in public transport.

This is awful and shouldn't have happened. No one disagrees.

All harassment/ attacks on public transport are unacceptable, whoever the perpetrator/ victim.

That the attack took place
was reported by the BBC- fair enough because its news.

No one disagrees with that.

What isn't news and what is being discussed here is how the BBC often seems to make incorrect inferences from individual data points that support incorrect conclusions, and then publicise those incorrect/unevidenced conclusions as though they were facts.

These incorrect conclusions are being used to damage women's rights.

The analogy with MRAs (wot about the menz) is false for the following reasons:

There is a very notable and well documented social power differential between men and women as groups (and its based on sex). This is what the women's rights movement is all about. When men complain about women, it is the oppressor trying to complain about the oppressed. Most people can see that and it doesn't wash. Trying to cast women into that same role doesn't work because we are not the group with power, therefore the analogy is false.

Women have concerns about false statistics being used to dismantle their rights. Because it is actually happening. Articles like this shore up those false statistics and unevidenced beliefs. Even if they don't explicitly state 'trans people are most oppressed group ever', that argument is being used to demolish women's rights and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but articles like this give it credence.

Male violence is the problem.

So what "false statistics" are being used here to draw the wrong conclusion? What evidence do we have that they are false?

And when the article actually states that hate crimes involving race are highest with hate crime against LGBT being second highest, how does this imply that LGBT are the most vulnerable?

We've seen this week with the anti-Semitic abuse filmed on public transport that it was carried out by a woman.

Some of the victims of the homophobic abuse appeared on TV to say that they have been verbally abused by both men and women.

Physical assaults are much much more likely to be carried out by men, but the verbal harassment tends to be more balanced.