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

Thanks for the reminder - the article is on my list to get through when I've recovered from reading the For Women Scotland submission to the UK Supreme Court. Is it weird for me to recommend a legal submission to you as a good read? 😂

I absolutely get fed up with people, like for example Jesse Singal and Katie Hertzog, who seem determined to refuse to understand that there are different types of grooming and that Graham is referring to ideological grooming. Hertzog and Singal et al jump to the lazy conclusion that Linehan is using grooming in its purely sexual sense. I think this is their way of ignoring him, and feeling good about themselves for doing so, because I know neither of them is stupid.

The Irish establishment is treating Graham in the same way they treated non-conformists (like Sinead O'Connor) and how they treated victims of historical clerical and State abuse: excoriate them for decades for 'letting down Ireland's reputation internationally' and for 'misrepresenting events' and, eventually, when the evidence becomes unsurmountable, the Great and Good will scramble over each other to be seen to lionise those they previously castigated. I predict the same will happen with Graham.

Just saw this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0z0y2z3mjo

Adding this thread here:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5226742-puberty-blockers-can-a-drug-trial-solve-one-of-medicines-most-controversial-debates

The BBC has pulled a blinder and actually written a good article related to the Cass Report and the dilemma of whether running a trial to establish an evidence base is ethical or viable.

It's quite the contrast to its emotional puff pieces on the waiting lists for "gender affirming care" in the days and weeks that followed the release of the Cass Report. There's no hyperbole or obfuscation. It's.... actual, factual news without bias.

It seems a shame that there has to be a specific new brand within its news team (and a guest writer) to deliver this quality of journalism but it's still great to see it out there. Well done BBC.

Why anyone still pays for their licence fee is beyond me - I know if you are elderly and technophobic, or if you have a live-sport addict in the house you might need it but the rest of us can cancel our licences and watch non BBC stuff on catch-up. It makes a useful saving each month.

If you are desperate to watch BBC drama it does come round on Netflix or you can subscribe to ITV+ (Britbox as - was) which has loads of BBC drama and other programmes and you can watch that without a TV licence. The cost of ITV+ is about half the TV licence.

You can watch all the non-BBC channels on catch up without a TV licence. You can't wacth Sky live or Amazon prime Live without a licence even though you are paying for them (which is a complete scam).

You can of course listen to the radio still live, even the BBC. And you can still read the BBC website written news which includes correspondents', like Chris Mason, TV words in full usually. You don't need to miss anything.

The BBC won't stop behaving as they do while we keep paying them to do it.

@ChristinaXYZ you're right. If people want the BBC to notice then that's how to do it

Adding a couple of bits to this useful thread of BBC bat-shittery from another thread:

1. It started out so well..... comment from me on Green Party thread today:

I wonder if it's a case of "when the US sneezes, the UK catches a cold".
The wording in both the "...Restoring biological truth to the federal government" and "Protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation" EOs is pretty sobering when it comes to public institutions thinking about how they handle belief. We have the Nolan Principles (and also Teaching Standards in schools) for this and I think it's dawning on the leaders in the Green Party and others that perhaps they haven't quite got this right.
It's possible that the BBC might be waking up too, although that still remains to be seen:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5265037-keira-bell-launches-bid-to-ban-cross-sex-hormones-for-under-18s?reply=141854036&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

2. and yet..... the championing of gender identity belief as factually true when it comes to healthcare was off in full swing again earlier today.... Response from Chersfrozenface:

It's possible that the BBC might be waking up too, although that still remains to be seen:
Hm.
Today on BBC News main page.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c704pngr33yo
"Wah, doctors won't lop my breasts off!"
"I can't access trans-friendly underwear!"
On that second point, there are loads. Modibodi has an entire range.
I suppose it's possible that this shows the BBC getting desperate to elicit sympathy for the most oppressed evah.

-------------

As per the thread title.... BBC, WTF?!

That BBC article is a hot mess of incoherence and repetitions. I'm not going to critique it as I suspect one of the individuals is very vulnerable but if this is the best the BBC can come out with ..... 🙄

Edited to add, not the article about Keira - the babbling one about binders, packers etc...

Yes, it really does show the vulnerability of the individual who they've written about 😢

Its rah-rah championing of "gender" and how it supposedly relates to the physical body is indeed completely incoherent. Well, it's a believer's charter. It only makes sense if you believe that we all have a gender identity and that it's really important for everyone's physical body to match theirs for their well-being.

‘They said a lot of trans and non-binary people feel a constant "hypervigilance of 'am I safe here?'" whenever they "meet a new person, start a new job, degree course, or come out to family".’

I’ve said this many times before, but if you are a doctor (or therapist) promoting a treatment that actually leaves your patients more paranoid than they were before, then maybe the entire protocol needs to be explored from the bottom up, as it is so obviously failing.

I commented on the latest Trump EO teacher thread about being uneasy about the speed with which things are unfolding in the US and reading this thread about the BBC relates to that feeling.

I have people in my life, who still have full faith in the BBC and they are also 100% thinking if Trump as a baddie, and everything he is doing is straightforwardly wrong.

I’ve felt for a long time that there are two narratives here that cannot be reconciled. One has to lose so the other can win and they cannot exist side by side. I’m not having an “are we the baddies?” moment, as such, but it is incredibly uncomfortable to conscientiously believe Trump is doing the right things and the BBC is not remotely trustworthy. I know my parents would not be able to believe that version of events, however many facts were laid before them. My family is split down the middle over this stupid issue and I really, really want it to stop.

Interesting article. I’m assuming that the entrepreneur and chief exec of the Not A Phase charity is a transwoman, i.e. male. Which then means the article is about a woman giving a very concerning account of her mental vulnerability and a man who is cashing in on these vulnerabilities and giving it all a bit of a social justice sheen. Nice.

I thought the same. There's always a grift, isn't there? But it's the American way, after all: there's no activity on God's green earth that can't be monetised for profit.

The government funded report by ZOAH that the BBC article is reporting on is also a hot mess of incoherence and repetition although I did take two points from it,

1. The ONS census data is useless

2. Trans masculine people seem to live in constant fear. There is a perceived threat everywhere, at work, in education, when accessing healthcare or even just using a loo.

What a surprise. Female people who are terrified and male people who aren’t. It’s almost as if reality reasserts itself in every situation.

Here's the Not a Phase founder. Yes a transwoman:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/gender-neutral-toilets-school-supportive-20850183

With her Catholic school offering a unisex uniform and gender neutral toilets, Dani was lucky enough to have a school experience free of bullying.
“I mean to have gender neutral toilet and a unisex uniform in a Catholic school in South Wales in 2002, what a privilege,” she explained.
“That probably prevented me from having a bullying experience. I didn't, I'd never felt threatened. I felt celebrated, if anything.
“I didn't live in fear. I heard of people that had gone to different secondary schools that lived in fear and got beaten up. And I remember being horrified at that because it was so unlike my own experience.”

This seems like a fair bit of retconning, given it's from pre-transition days. We're supposed to believe that gay teenagers will feel safer with unisex school uniforms and unisex toilets. Erm.

But yes, it would appear that there are Female people who are terrified and male people who aren’t.

I’m not having an “are we the baddies?” moment, as such, but it is incredibly uncomfortable to conscientiously believe Trump is doing the right things and the BBC is not remotely trustworthy. I know my parents would not be able to believe that version of events, however many facts were laid before them. My family is split down the middle over this stupid issue and I really, really want it to stop.

I fully empathise as I'm in a similar situation with my own wider family. I openly agree with them that Trump is hideous and that I wouldn't normally find myself agreeing with things that he says. That he is the person leading the charge in the US on removing gender identity belief from federal institutions does make the conversation difficult, especially so when the BBC is seen as our national, trusted broadcaster and holder of truth by so many. However, it is widely known that they have form on failing in the safeguarding of children. Jimmy Savile and others that were investigated under Operation Yew Tree were hiding in plain sight on the BBC's watch. Worse, we now know that the BBC was one of the institutions that facilitated them having access to vulnerable children in some cases.

Child safeguarding at its most basic level means protecting children from harm, so as a start point, I would invite any Trump sceptic on this subject to read the wording of the "Protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation" EO and point out which bits they disagree with (with thoughts of the BBC's previous failures in child safeguarding helping them to keep an open mind on the subject).