Spectator: How Did the BBC Get the Trans Debate So Wrong?

[RethinkingLife]

Author: Charlie Walsham is the pseudonym of a BBC News employee who has worked at the Corporation for several years

Now, thanks to the diligent and courageous work of Dr Hilary Cass, the BBC has been forced to reflect on its sins of commission and omission, and platform some sane voices on the subject.
On the day of her review’s publication, Radio 4’s Today programme broadcast an interview with Dr Cass. With the measured and level delivery one would expect of a respected clinician, she detailed some of her shocking findings, from the rocketing number of troubled teenage girls seeking gender dysphoria treatment to the fact there is no good evidence puberty blockers are a safe treatment for young people wishing to transition.
She refused to opine on whether her review had uncovered a scandal. The author Helen Joyce was far less reticent when, nearly three years after publication of her book, Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, she was finally invited on to the BBC to talk about the issue.
She told the 5 Live breakfast programme the report was: ‘A stinging indictment of the NHS, of the regulators in healthcare, the politicians and the media, including the BBC… all of whom have looked away as a medical scandal unfolded with vulnerable children at its heart.’
In a move characteristic of the intellectual level of 5Live debates however, Joyce was only allowed to speak after listeners had been subjected to the views of former Big Brother contestant and transgender celebrity Hallie Clarke. Clarke declaimed she had always known that she ‘wasn’t in the right body’ because she used to dress up in ‘blonde wigs’ and wore pink as a young child.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-did-the-bbc-get-the-trans-debate-so-wrong/

Simon Edge posted this helpful assistance: https://archive.ph/4avLx

And if anyone knows him on TwiX, please let him know that the the running man on the sand hills gif he posted but can't identify is Buster Keaton's chase scene from Seven Chances 1925.

I've just been thinking more about this and the potential overlap with Henderson's luxury beliefs that share some roots with Thomas Sowell's Vision of the Anointed and Intellectuals and Society.

"...intellectuals are people whose end products are intangible ideas, and they are usually judged by whether those ideas sound good to other intellectuals or resonate with the public. Whether their ideas turn out to work — whether they make life better or worse for others — is another question entirely." [Intellectuals]
…
"The acclaim given to intellectuals, despite their predictions having failed, is a prime example of the lack of ultimate accountability." [Intellectuals]

“When the anointed say that there is a crisis this means that something must be done—and it must be done simply because the anointed want it done.” [Vision]
…
“People are never more sincere than when they assume their own moral superiority.” [Vision]

That's a great article - and straight from the mouth of a BBC employee.
The BBC's determination to sell changing sex as a positive to even primary children is shameful. But they'll never acknowledge it while the trans lobby is able to influence programming to the extent demonstrated in the Nolan Report:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p09yjmph

It's a good article. It's shame it didn't mention the dreadful I Am Leo CBBC programme.

Out of everything the BBC have done to contribute to this terrible situation I feel a straight line could be drawn between the decision to air that on a children's channel and real life medical and psychological harm to young girls.

I'd be fascinated to know the socioeconomic breakdown of BBC's younger employees.

They may present with more diversity in some dimensions but not in those that are typically associated with the social or wider determinants of health and social mobility.

Are the BBC people making these decisions those who are least likely to be affected by their outcomes? Luxury beliefs?

Its also worth remembering that is was the BBC's newsnight investigations, that was the start of the media quesitoning what was happening at the Tavistock etc..

In terms of the media, they were / are all to blame with their total failure to stand up against the Stonewall directives etc..

So not only the BBC, but just about every institution (and if anything the worse the NHS) encouraged and allowed a tiny minority dictate culture within the organisation, and growing out of that, how they then carried out their work.

So obviously the Spectator has an agenda re the BBC, but in focusing on them, they fail to deal with the fact that so many parts of society became such submissive handmaidens to the Rainbow flag.

TV has a massively privileged demographic. You have to start out a runner, which is either unpaid or very low paid, so only those with family money and/or free accommodation in or near London can even consider it. They are good at making 'front of house' look diverse, but while they might have a lot of people fronting the news from ethnic minorities, most went to private school (Amol Rajan being the main exception I can think of; his documentary on class was excellent). DH works in TV and is often the only person in the room who didn't go to private school.

Recent comment from Deborah Cohen (jointly responsible for Newsnight item):

Absolutely bang-on. I've been in this since before the Spartacus incident on MN, and I remember how bizarre it was when it became clear that the Tories, Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the Beeb, the courts, the police, all the major tech platforms, and the charities were all in lockstep on this and none of us had seen it coming.

I hadn't seen this before. It was linked in one of the articles above. It's a BBC documentary made 9 years ago by Victoria Darbyshire consisting of interviews with two 'trans children' and their parents 9 years ago. The children were 6 and 8 and It was done with the support of the Tavistock which wanted to help raise awareness. It makes very uncomfortable viewing.

I hope 'Lily' and 'Jessica' who would now be in their mid/late teens are ok.

It's a brilliant and scathing article