Is it just me or do the BBC keep describing the consequences of the ruling wrongly?

[MixTapeMel]

Ok so I keep seeing things like this on the BBC online (this is in an item about new guidance from the scottish government)

"The UK's highest court last week ruled the definition of a woman in the 2010 Equality Act is based on biology in a move that will have major implications for single-sex spaces and services such as public toilets and changing rooms.
It means means transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces for women if "proportionate"."

Is it not the case that it is the justification for a single-sex space that has to be 'proportionate', and that TW are excluded on the basis they are men?

Is this just the BBC refusing to say that transwomen are biological men? In which case it's misleading as no 'extra' justification is needed, they are simply not allowed in a female single-sex space.

Am i correct in my thinking? The BBC are really doing my head in on this. I am going right off them.

I just did

Yes, the proportionality/legitimacy test for creating a women’s space has already been met for it to be a women’s space.

This misinformation has got to stop. It is beyond frustrating that respected media like the BBC and the Guardian are muddying the waters when everything should now be crystal clear.

I'm very confused. What do they mean by "transgender women". Is it a MtF or a FtM?

They mean a man who identifies as a woman.

Depending on the author it’s been used both ways.
It’s genuinely purposeful and Arendt wrote about it as an authoritarian/totalitarian tactic.

I think they are possibly using the term deliberately and narrowly correctly and based on sex when they want people to assume the opposite, that some men who identify as women are still allowed in women’s spaces.

At a guess they got an intern to do the research.

No, it's deliberate. As an example the PM programme got Lord Sumption on to give his view. There's no evidence that he has any special knowledge about this area of law and, in fact, he didn't actually know the correct name for the Equality Act. He then gave a muddled and misleading view.

Because this was more in the direction of what the BBC would like the law to be rather than what it actually is, Evan Davis lapped it up and Sumption's version ended up being referred to all over social media.

I think there are factions in the BBC. The decision came out on Wednesday and so deep was the shock, it took the genderists there two days to rally before pushing out their own narrative.

That peculiar advice to schools doc yesterday was trying it on too. It's clinging to the idea that women can only say no to men in very particular circumstances and some men can still go into single sex spaces.

They can't.

I just posted a comment that was made in the HoL yesterday on the HoL thread thread where Baroness Levitt (who has a trans child) said a similar thing (the text of the exchange is on the other thread). Thankfully it was swiftly corrected by the Baroness Smith of Malvern, but it’s so frustrating that this is everywhere.

I’m hopeful that this will change once the statutory guidance comes out, but I wonder if part of the issue is that most law firms are so captured by Stonewall (and the culture lingers on even for the ones who’ve officially cut ties) that they don’t want to say anything definitive as most are currently being very wishy washy and deliberately obtuse, pretending they can’t understand the judgment.

Clarity seems to be Enemy #1 to TRAs and their allies in the media.

That's why the SC ruling has caused such uproar and panicky reactions - it says 'woman' means 'biological woman' and 'single sex spaces' are single sex spaces'. It couldn't be clearer.

If the media/academia [some of it anyway] and other elements of the establishment are so hell-bent on still insisting that some men are women, or that some men really really need to be considered as women or they'll be really really sad, I can't help wondering what they think a Supreme Court is actually for?

It's the highest court in your land, eejits, and it is paid to make clear and definitive rulings. It just did. It's a Supreme Court, not a takeaway, and its rulings are not a menu that you can pick and choose from.

50%+ of the population had reason to be heartened and relieved by the ruling, as it re-affirmed their rights which had been encroached on.

5%? of the population had their rights re-affirmed, but because they had encroached on other people's rights, they are now furious because they 'only' have their rights.

This sums it up with the clarity that TRAs and their allies seem to loathe:

To women: their rights and no less.
To transpeople: their rights and no more.

It's not just the BBC, the i newspaper also got it wrong this morning again reporting on Wes Streeting's comments about treating trans people in private rooms. Repeated the line "trans people can be excluded from single-sex spaces if deemed proportionate" - wrong.

There are NO cases where trans people can be included in single sex spaces which do not align with their biological sex. If they are, it is no longer a single sex space.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/b37f03e41e432ec8

The BBC is to hold a listening session for transgender staff following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the definition of a woman.An internal memo from senior figures at the cooperation invited transgender and non-binary staff members to a “dedicated in-person listening session”.It acknowledged that “the last few days have been difficult for many of you” after Britain’s highest court ruled that transgender women are not legally women.
The BBC is facing questions about why the same support was not offered to female employees who have felt isolated by the broadcaster’s position on sex and gender.

I've just written to the i to complain as well - if anyone wants to crib my email:

Dear i news,

I am writing about an inaccurate statement in the following article:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wes-streeting-health-secretary-keir-starmer-lbc-supreme-court-b2738879.html

This contained the following statement:

"Wes Streeting told LBC radio the NHS is still updating its guidance after the Supreme Court ruled the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act “refer to a biological woman and biological sex”.

This means transgender women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if “proportionate”."

This is in fact incorrect. What the court found is that transgender women with a GRC are excluded from women's single-sex spaces, because they are not female. If they are included in those spaces, it by definition ceases to be single sex. The proportionality test does not apply and there are no circumstances in which single sex spaces can include a trans person of the opposite sex.

The proportionality test applies to the creation of single-sex spaces in the first place, which are needed in many circumstances for the safety, privacy and dignity of both men and women."

I'm sorry, but this did really make me laugh

I don't think they've been considered trusted media by a lot of people for about 15 years. Then again, we're probably the sort of people who are labelled in all kinds of ways.

It does genuinely surprise me to see them referred to as "trusted media" though.

Yup, the most vulnerable group in society ever is not just undermining women's rights but they are happy to take national sovereignty with it.

"Laws? What laws? I interprete them however I like and you'll have to wait 7 years each time for redress."

The arms of government need to wake up and give the baby its dummy. Or a time out. But actual parenting not pandering now sorely required.

Perhaps that kindergarten teacher who does the comedy sketches online about responding to burglars etc in the kindergarten way could help?

Yes, it's hard when you feel very sad that your friends won't do as you tell them. But your friends are allowed to have boundaries. Do you need a nap? I think you need a nap. Your choices are.... no, destroying the country, government, sovereignty and extensive plastic surgery are not one of your choices. Excuse me, my ears only work for inside voices.

To clarify, I don’t trust them. Not anymore. I used to though, wholeheartedly, and I know many people still do. Some people only get their news from those sources - they don’t trust other media (particularly anything right of centre) to tell the truth. That’s why it’s so frustrating the BBC and Guardian are peddling misinformation.

FFS!! Does the pandering to the most special and vulnerable ever never end??

why are the BBC so afraid of this group of staff?? I assume it’s because they dread the tantruming and grievances. Why do they find it so impossible to manage their trans staff in the same way they would any other members of staff?

The BBC have form for institutional lying on this subject. Surely no-one is suprised they're carrying on.

The Radio 4 programme AntiSocial, to be broadcast just after midday, is to discuss the impact of the judgment on the NHS.

AntiSocial positions itself very much in the anti-misinformation space and, as is normal in the BBC, this means that they like to push trans-friendly narratives as The Truth.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002b76x

I get that they probably wanted to emphasise that they won’t necessarily act on the comments trans staff will make, but calling it a “listening session” makes it sound like a Victorian seance.

I’ll save my blood pressure on this occasion I think but please update when you’ve listened!

I've had a response from the managing editor of the i newspaper who I don't think fully understands - in his response he referenced para 221 of the Supreme Court judgement which talks about proportionality tests, but has completely misunderstood that that paragraph doesn't refer to a test to include males in female single-sex spaces, but in fact the reverse - that it can be proportionate to exclude females who identify as male, ie. trans men, from female single-sex spaces.

I finished my response with the final line: "The original article implied that there could be some circumstances where it could be proportionate to include biological males in a female single-sex space, perhaps on a case by case basis. In fact, there are none."

It also turns out that the article I referenced, which appeared both in the Independent and the i newspaper, was written by staff at neither paper but in fact by an agency called "PA Media" (https://pa.media/) and reprinted in full. I've now directed my comment to them as well, and if I manage to engage with them that will hopefully improve the accuracy of coverage in many more media outlets.

Quite!

Confusion and the blurring of the boundaries of reality is what transgenderism needs to sustain itself.

Clarity and sunlight expose it for what it is.