BBC WTF

[ArabellaScott]

The fact the BBC have not reported on the Commons debate, or generally on Cass bar a couple of very weak, short pieces is absolutely outrageous.

The silence is stretching.

They have two members of staff whose sole remit is to report 'LGBT' issues. Where are they? This seems absolutely deliberate omission.

Scarlet Blake.
WPATH.
Cass.

We used to get propaganda, now we get silence.

What do we do, here?

BBC complaints seem to go nowhere, and the hoops to get to an Ipsos report seem virtually impossible.

How do we hold our public broadcaster to account?

https://twitter.com/whtwldbabsdo/status/1780323215618814416

There's something weird going on psychologically here, isn't there? This story should be catnip to journalists, because it's got so many angles, all of them emotionally engaging. The HoC debate added even more, because MPs clearly felt emboldened by Cass to start talking about all sorts of trans issues, some of them outside the scope of Cass.

I can't believe it's all about bosses with 'trans kids' either. If I had a trans kid I'd be praying for the banning of medical transition in under-25 year olds. Sure, the kid would be unhappy, but they'd have a long-term objective and light at the end of the tunnel, instead of prolonged uncertainty. And I'd be thinking about that 80% desistence rate...

@mnhq a thought:

Would you consider inviting Tim Davie on for a Q&A to discuss media coverage of gender identity belief? Obviously questions submitted in advance etc like normal.
I think he'd discover pretty quickly, just from the questions, that passion and anger do not directly equate to "toxic".

BBC have just reported on this though…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68844119

The Sandyford has paused PB prescribing!!!

Ooh I forgot to copy Mr Davie into my emails, I know his inbox is so empty.

Well, well, well!
The Scottish government has realised that Scottish children are not a different species from English children and the BBC has decided to report it. Progress.

However, this sentence from the BBC's article needs unpicking as it's incredibly misleading:

In the NHS in England, fewer than 100 children - who had already started a prescription - are now taking puberty blockers.

The Hannah Barnes article in the New Statesman has a figure of 210 children who are on blockers or cross sex hormones currently (of which some were on blockers previously - I assume the only reason to stop the blockers would be if puberty were already successfully blocked and the child's personal window for further pubertal development was now closed).

https://archive.is/O728E

Screenshot to go with the above. I hit send too soon and couldn't add the image on the edit.

Somewhere in the dark depths of the internet (on a MN thread) is a comment from me about Glinner when I first started learning about all of this stuff. I found MN about 15ish months ago.

At that time I thought he was hideous. I stayed away from all of his content because of the small amounts I'd seen. My friend would occasionally send me screenshots (I had no idea they were from his Substack - mostly written by JL, some by him too) that were interesting and well-written. Eventually there was a three part story written by the mum of an ROGD girl and she had no choice but to send me the links. The articles were too long for screenshots. She apologised because she knew I didn't like him.
Then I looked at what he was saying on the rest of his site. I would heartily recommend anyone who is sceptical or, like me, has a fixed opinion about his toxicity to do the same.

Why should the BBC apologise? They don't need to like him or even sanction his vulgar, crass approach (which sometimes I like, sometimes I don't.. but either way, I listen with interest to what he says). Instead, they should take a look at their Newsnight footage when Sarah Smith interviewed him, recognise that she was anything but impartial, work out if they disagree with anything he says and then apologise directly to him for how they injected bias in to their presentation of it. Whether they still think he's "toxic" or not is irrelevant.

I don't know. Maybe it just wasn't covered because there is consensus. HoC is normally covered on the news when there is a barney, which fits into a news story they are covering that day. And Cass was covered quite extensively the day before.

The Cass report has come out. Everyone agrees it should be implemented.

@AdamRyan and other posters (apologies for not remembering all names) do make good points that there has been some coverage on the whole topic (@ArabellaScott I appreciate it's the HoC debate you were referring to) and that's definitely valid.

However, it's a) the obfuscation and b) the bias of the angle on most occasions that is the net effect.

Whether it feels like bias or not will presumably come down to a combination of:

1. the person's core belief (do they believe that everyone has a gender identity or not)
2. their wider knowledge on the subject (have they listened to lots of viewpoints? On the medical stuff, LGB opinions, trans people's opinions and the women's rights stuff)
3. do they have any skin in the game of any kind? E.g. relative who identifes as trans, they've been previously vocally supportive of "trans rights" and/or children being free to "choose their gender", they adore/hate the BBC

I'm sure there will be more but those were the top ones that sprang to mind.

When looked at objectively, as far as anyone can (we all have a bias of some kind), does the BBC's coverage reflect what the main story is here?
I am firmly of the belief that it doesn't. The HoC debate was about a national and international medical scandal that has impacted tens of thousands of children and young people globally. Top names are saying that they recognise this. Why can't the BBC tell its audience as more and more emerges on this hideous episode in world history?

I'm reminded of the Nigel Lawson debacle where the BBC felt it was obliged to give "both sides" on climate. That didn't go well for them.

When there is an actual story, be it climate change or an international scandal about medical experimentation on children, the "impartiality" obligation should never result in the obfuscation of the actual major story.

Thanks for this thread. The Scottish reporting is good, but so brief. My heart goes out to the families with children taking this poison. I hope they aren’t persuaded by the TRA bleating about bias , and actually read the Cass report for themselves. This is why I’m so concerned by the “toxicity of the debate” and “both sides “ arguments. Having the healthiest looking transpeople they can find on to explain what a lifesaver these drugs are, may keep more kids on it causing lifelong damage. We have been injecting untested toxins into children, with no oversight whatsoever, in order to assist them in a fantasy that they can change sex.. This is not a conspiracy theory. It’s not tinfoil hats . It’s true. The BBC need to step up.

Yes, indeed, this is a medical scandal, and that's what's not being reported.

Cass Report was on the BBC before it dawned that it was the revealing of an enormous medical scandal, not just a strategy report, I think. Now sections are being stunned into silence because they are unable to spin it as anything other than a scandal. They are unable to report on 'trans' in anything other than glowing martyr terms. They don't even have the language, I think.

It's a bit like Isla Bryson puncturing the public myth of a transwoman as a completely harmless non-male. Once that bubble was burst, and people realised that a transwoman is just a man who says he's a woman, the whole story falls.

However those who have been paying attention do have the language:

Children who are gender dysphoric or confused are often vulnerable, they do deserve good, helpful evidence based care, they are being let down and harmed, they do need our support.

They are not mythical beings, they do not have the ability to change sex, they are not a medical experiment, they do not require more rights than everyone else.

We're coming back down to earth.

Tbh I felt the same - at times he can be a little too direct and it jarred with my Allsoppian philosophy of ‘let’s all be civilised and discuss this as though we are friends sharing a bottle of chablis’. However, as I learned more, read more (Hannah Barnes et al) I soon realised he was right to be screaming it from the rooftops and sod the politeness.

I am biased, obviously having a child damaged by all this, though - thank fuck I stopped her taking anything over our 6-7 year journey.

I now believe that if these people weren’t screaming, the Cass Review might never have happened.

So Scream Away, all ye Glinners. And I’ll join in with you.

Re: medical scandal

I think it's really important to remember this. Hundreds of CHILDREN have had their MENTAL ILLNESS treated with drugs and surgeries which cause or result in:

• genital atrophy
• uterine atrophy
• brain damage
• osteoporosis
• ostopenia
• mental health problems
• neurological damage
• infertility
• anorgasmia
• amenorrhea
• growth stunting
• amputation/mutilation of genitalia
• post surgical infection
• nerve, tissue and muscle damage
• ...and more

the above result in lifelong disabilities and chronic conditions

This is bigger than past medical scandals in the number of children it has affected. Bigger than lobotomies.

It was pushed on by political activists and sexual fetishists rather tan clinicians

We should ALL be angry

Cass is just the start. In 10 years' time there'll be people in jail, ministerial handwringing, books, TV docs, movies

My only hope is the victims get justice

Media show at 8 on radio 4 is talking about Cass report and what journalists can learn about how to report on controversial issues.

Absolutely stark when you lay it out like this CantDealwithChristmas

I don't think anyone who pushed this will really be able to face up to the shame of this if they let the truth of it land in them.

Hence the doubling down.

Ha ha the scold has arrived!

@BusyMummy001 too fucking right. In my session with my counsellor this week (there is no way I could stay on the right side of sanity without going to counselling) I used to the work "fuck" I don't know how many times. I don't normally use it on here, although I do occasionally (I've been known to do the same over a sauvignon blanc) but it was everything that is coming out this week that is making me so angry. I'm aware that your daughter is much further in to this risk-wise than mine because of her age. My fear and anger is a small fraction of the fear, anger and pain that parents of adolescents and young adults are feeling where irrerversible damage has already been done and/or they are estranged.

@CantDealwithChristmas brilliantly put.

Re the Media Show on Radio 4 tonight, I presume this will be a repeat of what they aired this week already. If so, that's great. I need to listen to it again because there was so much good stuff in it. Including a pregnant pause after a particularly daft "both sides" question that was so big that if they had had a transwoman on the show, baby names would have been picked already. As it stood, after the awkward silence, Hannah Barnes came back and said "No".

You don't need to balance out all reporting on this with a "lived experience" trans voice: if the topic is whether the media is adequately reporting this scandal, you need journalists who understand how editorial direction and accuracy work. More of that please BBC 🙏

Ps obviously I know that transwomen can't get pregnant 😁

That was the sanitised version of the dark humour that popped in to my head about transwomen claiming such things will become possible. What stopped me using that instead was that awful, awful video of the transwoman talking about wanting to be the first person to have a successful uterus transplant. However, it was too disgusting and upsetting for use as a joke because, as anyone who has already seen it will know, that wasn't the only desired "first". That video remains one of the most upsetting things I have seen so far, beyond the harm being done in this current medical scandal.
(And yes, I'm pro-choice, but I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would ever take a fetish that far that it would incorporate a deliberate and planned abortion).

Perhaps I'm not being very nice though in calling that revolting video out, or even when I did the original little pregnant pause pun. Perhaps I'm being toxic. What do you think, BBC?

... and add sterilisation to the list

I hadn't come across the programme before. Only on episode 3 so far but it's so good. Thanks for this link.

So the BBC deal with complaints in-house?

Does anyone know if Ofcom could, capacity wise, take on the role of monitoring BBC complaints?

Could we petition for Ofcom to step in?

I'm increasingly disappointed, frustrated & infuriated with the BBC's bad faith on a range of topics.

Russell Grant? 😮

What did I miss about Russel Grant?

The BBC require you to go through three stages - 1a, 1b, and 2.

Only after you've done that pointless exercise are you supposed to appeal to Ofcom.

@BonfireLady . I feel the same. The anxietyI suffered when my adopted child said they were trans was so appalling. Luckily my horror at the treatment made me completely unable to go along with it, and eventually she desisted, after about 3 years. She’s been home this week and ive not been able to have the tv or radio on. I think she is starting to see, but has really close friends who have transitioned, i cant afford for her to know just how opposed I am.I so want to ask if they are medically ok, but it’s just not possible yet. I love them, I really want them to be ok. I really would so much rather be the terf our monitors expect ,with no lived experience of trans people.