Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Thread gallery
41
ArabellaSaurus · 16/11/2025 12:53

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 16/11/2025 10:43

The BBC said: “We are reviewing the style guide in light of the Supreme Court ruling and the expected new guidance from the EHRC [Equalities and Human Rights Commission]. We are not prejudging that at this stage.”

The BBC is waiting for guidance from the EHRC? What guidance would that be? There was nothing in there about pronouns or news reporting.

Yep, thats fucking mental.

The EHRC guidance is for service providers, not broadcasters/media.

ArabellaSaurus · 16/11/2025 12:54

'A presenter said: “Everybody in the building sees that: it has a galvanising effect. The next step is to identify correctly men who murder or rape women and pretend to be a woman — that’s a huge deal online and is damaging to the BBC’s reputation.”

One persistent flashpoint is the BBC’s style guide, which still instructs journalists to use an individual’s preferred pronouns — in effect accepting self-identification — meaning the broadcaster uses “she” for convicted male rapists who identify as women'

Rapist hill, again.

TempestTost · 16/11/2025 13:00

I've thought many times that the attempts to broaden hiring by following very strict scripts and having people write massive tests is ineffective and in fact backwards.

The organisation I work for is small, so we can't afford and don't need mass testing or anything like that. But they have moved to a "level playing field" approach with prescribed scripts you work from that are identical for all, and a points based system.

In no way does it make it easier for differernt people to be considered. In fact if you want to prevent certain kinds of people from being hired, you just don't give them points, that's easy enough.

But there is very little scope to learn about people in the interview, have a discussion, maybe draw them out a bit if they are shy or not spectacular at interviewing, or if they say something that reveals an interesting thread.

The result is that the people who do well are typically middle class, have been to a university, and are confident and a little extroverted.

Also liars and sociopaths.

DustyWindowsills · 16/11/2025 13:03

And if we're discussing TV shows and popular culture, here's a rather OT recommendation (via a Guardian review). It's Pluribus, a new sci-fi drama from Vince Gilligan. The main character — a middle-aged lesbian misanthrope — is one of a handful of people on earth who is immune to a bio-engineered virus that has turned most of humanity into an idiotically serene hive mind. I watched the first three episodes last night. It's weirdly cathartic.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/nov/07/pluribus-review-breaking-bad-creators-tv-show-apple-tv

Pluribus review – the audacity of the Breaking Bad creator’s new TV show is incredible

It takes some chutzpah to make television like this. Better Call Saul star Rhea Seehorn is the only US citizen immune from an alien virus that makes everyone in the world supremely happy – and it’s a bleak, blackly comic watch

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/nov/07/pluribus-review-breaking-bad-creators-tv-show-apple-tv

TempestTost · 16/11/2025 13:04

This took hold particularly after the publication of the 2018 LGBT Progression Review, which said that the BBC’s culture was “heteronormative” and noted: “There was a general feeling that News & Current Affairs output often presents balanced debates on LGBT issues, which were at odds with the BBC’s corporate stance on LGBT inclusion.”

Is it just me, or is this nuts?

There seems to be a fundamental problem with the idea of inclusion, or the way it's being used. Maybe it is that we aren't giving enough thought to what groups need to be considered, maybe the underlying thinking on disadvantage is somehow flawed?

I'm not sure but this seems to reveal a basic problem.

PachacutisBadAuntie · 16/11/2025 13:46

TempestTost · 16/11/2025 13:04

This took hold particularly after the publication of the 2018 LGBT Progression Review, which said that the BBC’s culture was “heteronormative” and noted: “There was a general feeling that News & Current Affairs output often presents balanced debates on LGBT issues, which were at odds with the BBC’s corporate stance on LGBT inclusion.”

Is it just me, or is this nuts?

There seems to be a fundamental problem with the idea of inclusion, or the way it's being used. Maybe it is that we aren't giving enough thought to what groups need to be considered, maybe the underlying thinking on disadvantage is somehow flawed?

I'm not sure but this seems to reveal a basic problem.

Is heteronormative automatically bad? To me it sounds like it would be the default position of the majority of the UK population.

RedToothBrush · 16/11/2025 13:46

EsmaCannonball · 16/11/2025 12:51

I can remember around the time of the Brexit referendum John Harris of the Guardian saying that journalists were surprised by the result because they never bothered to truly talk to people or find out what was going on. Their editor would give them an angle, they'd write the story in their head and then they'd go out and seek the evidence that corroborated it. The story would be 'this is a Labour voting, multicultural constituency with trade-dependent manufacturing jobs and EU-funded social projects therefore, despite a few Tommy Robinson types whom we will interview in a pub, these people will not want to rock the boat.'

John Harris was brilliant about it. Really opened my eyes.

I think there was one maybe two journalists doing similar during Brexit. Notably Northerners.

It came down to getting out and seeing the rain and not taking your own prejudices and actually LISTENING to the substance of what people were saying, not necessarily taking what they initially said.

I personally had a few conversations like this. We actually agreed on more than we disagreed on, when it came to the stuff we were both actually observing. The difference was what we attributed to (and this is basically how it gets politically spun) and what we saw as solutions. But once you opened up the conversation about what was happening, you could actually have a productive discussion about how to deal with the issue.

It was a life lesson to me to understand that someone uneducated might be trying to articulate the same thing, but with words that aren't as polished / politically correct but this doesn't mean they don't have a valid point.

It means you need to listen harder and don't assume the worst in people eg that they are racist.

Assume that they are good people articulating something badly as your starting point - it changes your perception massively.

Assume they might have a valid point but don't understand the system. Be open to the idea that the system is a sausage factory that isn't recognising the needs of actual humans (it's a system written by middle class people for middle class lives and problems with no understanding of the problems of large sections of people outside their bubble). Once you shift these perceptions it changes your attitude to what they are saying. They might be trying to tell you that the system is broken and doesn't recognise the barriers they face or the complaints they have.

The best example of this by far is how communities can see how and why girls have been failed by authorities and this led to the grooming scandals.

The problem with a 'woke agenda' is it starts from the premise of good people and bad people. If you don't repeat the 'correct thing' you are a 'bad person's or morally flawed. The other assumption is that people who are articulate and educated are always right. This is fundamentally flawed and is pure arrogance and privilege.

This is positively Victorian in attitude. It's massively regressive on so many levels. It's on a par with ideas of moral and social degenerates (eg how pit lasses working above ground in coal mines were viewed by the middle classes because of how they dressed - in trousers because of the conditions and type of work they were doing meaning this was the most practical attire. They were women doing tough work just for survival).

SinnerBoy · 16/11/2025 13:55

GallantKumquat · 09/11/2025 19:02

Good for the BBC governing board and good for Davies. When is the last time we've seen high level leadership take responsibility and resign? It's amazing to see someone show a degree of contrition for mal governance. No doubt GC views added to the chorus, but there should be no doubt that the BBC going after the head of state of the UK's first and foremost ally, and a highly litigious one at that, is the overriding factor.

The BBC is now front and center of an international crisis of its own making, and Trump will be after blood and will be demanding considerable concessions (as he did with CBS which was similarly over a barrel). Davies' situation was untenable, and there will be considerable pain in store for BBC IMO.

CBS would almost certainly have won their case, but Trump was allowed to blackmail them into conceding, by threatening to veto their acquisition of another company.

RedToothBrush · 16/11/2025 13:56

TempestTost · 16/11/2025 13:00

I've thought many times that the attempts to broaden hiring by following very strict scripts and having people write massive tests is ineffective and in fact backwards.

The organisation I work for is small, so we can't afford and don't need mass testing or anything like that. But they have moved to a "level playing field" approach with prescribed scripts you work from that are identical for all, and a points based system.

In no way does it make it easier for differernt people to be considered. In fact if you want to prevent certain kinds of people from being hired, you just don't give them points, that's easy enough.

But there is very little scope to learn about people in the interview, have a discussion, maybe draw them out a bit if they are shy or not spectacular at interviewing, or if they say something that reveals an interesting thread.

The result is that the people who do well are typically middle class, have been to a university, and are confident and a little extroverted.

Also liars and sociopaths.

I find it enormously frustrating. I fall foul of it.

My example of applying for the BBC highlights the point. DH wanted me to fill in the form based on what answers he thought they wanted rather than hiring real people. It drives to conformity and group think. It drives to fitting in. It's stifling.

I'm middle class but most definitely a proud member of The Awkward Squad. I'm lucky to be where I am and to be able to articulate this but even I struggle with some of these system fail barriers.

The whole thing is throughout the current education system. It's driving a generation who are unable to take the iniative - we are actually recognising this problem but aren't really figuring out why.

It's leading to huge levels of disengagement amongst those who recognise they aren't ever going to be able to fit in - for whatever reason.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/11/2025 13:58

TempestTost · 16/11/2025 13:04

This took hold particularly after the publication of the 2018 LGBT Progression Review, which said that the BBC’s culture was “heteronormative” and noted: “There was a general feeling that News & Current Affairs output often presents balanced debates on LGBT issues, which were at odds with the BBC’s corporate stance on LGBT inclusion.”

Is it just me, or is this nuts?

There seems to be a fundamental problem with the idea of inclusion, or the way it's being used. Maybe it is that we aren't giving enough thought to what groups need to be considered, maybe the underlying thinking on disadvantage is somehow flawed?

I'm not sure but this seems to reveal a basic problem.

This happily coincided with the government’s consultation on reform of the GRA to include self ID, something that should have been debated much more in the media.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 16/11/2025 13:59

If you remember the crappy Woman’s Hour “debates” literally as the survey was about to close.

RedToothBrush · 16/11/2025 14:50

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5445074-john-humphrys-and-the-bbc?reply=148573392

This thread needs linking in as it ties in directly with what's being discussed at this point of the thread.

It's interesting to see the dismissal of John Humphrys by another poster who hasn't bothered to read the article and take note of the sources quoted on this thread.

John Humphrys and the BBC | Mumsnet

from tweet: [[https://x.com/ronninicole1/status/1989870667479879782?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA https://x.com/ronninicole1/status/19898706674798...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5445074-john-humphrys-and-the-bbc?reply=148573392

SionnachRuadh · 16/11/2025 15:09

John Humphrys, because he's old, can remember when people from humble backgrounds got into the BBC. In the news sphere, part of that came from journalism in the past mostly being a non-graduate profession where bright working class kids would start on local papers, move up to the nationals, then they might get to move to the BBC, though the BBC was always snooty about the tabloids. That career pathway has closed now. AFAIK the BBC's high prestige reporters (politics, foreign affairs etc) are almost all graduates and a huge proportion of them are privately educated and/or Oxbridge. (And then we wonder why political reporters who get sent to somewhere like Mansfield act as though they're on Mars)

Drama: I'm a bit of a Dennis Potter aficionado. His story, of being a talented young writer from a humble background who got to break into BBC drama because he was talented, is unimaginable these days unless the writer and their story was sold with an explicit diversity angle.

Comedy: Don't even start me on the Cambridge Footlights closed shop, where Nish Kumar (a mere Durham graduate) counts as a proletarian everyman. I'm convinced one reason Glinner was so easy to cancel is that he never went to university.

Light entertainment: Nepo babies. Nepo babies all the way down.

Etc. You can see it in most departments.

RedToothBrush · 16/11/2025 15:32

SionnachRuadh · 16/11/2025 15:09

John Humphrys, because he's old, can remember when people from humble backgrounds got into the BBC. In the news sphere, part of that came from journalism in the past mostly being a non-graduate profession where bright working class kids would start on local papers, move up to the nationals, then they might get to move to the BBC, though the BBC was always snooty about the tabloids. That career pathway has closed now. AFAIK the BBC's high prestige reporters (politics, foreign affairs etc) are almost all graduates and a huge proportion of them are privately educated and/or Oxbridge. (And then we wonder why political reporters who get sent to somewhere like Mansfield act as though they're on Mars)

Drama: I'm a bit of a Dennis Potter aficionado. His story, of being a talented young writer from a humble background who got to break into BBC drama because he was talented, is unimaginable these days unless the writer and their story was sold with an explicit diversity angle.

Comedy: Don't even start me on the Cambridge Footlights closed shop, where Nish Kumar (a mere Durham graduate) counts as a proletarian everyman. I'm convinced one reason Glinner was so easy to cancel is that he never went to university.

Light entertainment: Nepo babies. Nepo babies all the way down.

Etc. You can see it in most departments.

My media course was eye-opening.

Full of people from London or whose Mummy or Daddy worked in the media. Usually both.

I think there was only a couple of us that didn't fit this model.

It was one of the things that put me off trying just after uni as financially London wasn't an option and I couldn't compete with their contacts.

This was before the Beeb moved north and now it would be easier for me.

My point being I think the closed shop really had already started by the mid 90s.

EdithStourton · 16/11/2025 18:05

What @RedToothBrush says about the southern bias of the BBC is also true of its urban bias. I frequently feel that the media in general has no conception of what life is like outside big towns, and the BBC seems in general completely clueless.

Countryfile is a joke in the countryside, nicknamed Towniefile and widely mocked.

I don't even live in real serious many-miles-to-nearest-big-city countryside (I can get to a B&Q in about 25 minutes), and find their limited coverage of rural affairs to be terrible.

TempestTost · 16/11/2025 19:38

RedToothBrush · 16/11/2025 13:46

John Harris was brilliant about it. Really opened my eyes.

I think there was one maybe two journalists doing similar during Brexit. Notably Northerners.

It came down to getting out and seeing the rain and not taking your own prejudices and actually LISTENING to the substance of what people were saying, not necessarily taking what they initially said.

I personally had a few conversations like this. We actually agreed on more than we disagreed on, when it came to the stuff we were both actually observing. The difference was what we attributed to (and this is basically how it gets politically spun) and what we saw as solutions. But once you opened up the conversation about what was happening, you could actually have a productive discussion about how to deal with the issue.

It was a life lesson to me to understand that someone uneducated might be trying to articulate the same thing, but with words that aren't as polished / politically correct but this doesn't mean they don't have a valid point.

It means you need to listen harder and don't assume the worst in people eg that they are racist.

Assume that they are good people articulating something badly as your starting point - it changes your perception massively.

Assume they might have a valid point but don't understand the system. Be open to the idea that the system is a sausage factory that isn't recognising the needs of actual humans (it's a system written by middle class people for middle class lives and problems with no understanding of the problems of large sections of people outside their bubble). Once you shift these perceptions it changes your attitude to what they are saying. They might be trying to tell you that the system is broken and doesn't recognise the barriers they face or the complaints they have.

The best example of this by far is how communities can see how and why girls have been failed by authorities and this led to the grooming scandals.

The problem with a 'woke agenda' is it starts from the premise of good people and bad people. If you don't repeat the 'correct thing' you are a 'bad person's or morally flawed. The other assumption is that people who are articulate and educated are always right. This is fundamentally flawed and is pure arrogance and privilege.

This is positively Victorian in attitude. It's massively regressive on so many levels. It's on a par with ideas of moral and social degenerates (eg how pit lasses working above ground in coal mines were viewed by the middle classes because of how they dressed - in trousers because of the conditions and type of work they were doing meaning this was the most practical attire. They were women doing tough work just for survival).

Yes, understanding that other people might be saying something worthwhile, important, or insightful, even if the language isn't something you recognise, is so important. In all kinds of situations. I don't think the tendency to be so prescriptive about language has helped at all with this, it really is almost like it's used as a way to weed out certain people's contributions.

I would go farther though than saying, assume they have a valid point but may not understand the systems. It may be that they understand the systems just fine, and it's our own understanding that's lacking. Just because we have some fancy words does not mean we actually know what we are talking about in a deep way.

nicepotoftea · 16/11/2025 19:44

TempestTost · 16/11/2025 13:04

This took hold particularly after the publication of the 2018 LGBT Progression Review, which said that the BBC’s culture was “heteronormative” and noted: “There was a general feeling that News & Current Affairs output often presents balanced debates on LGBT issues, which were at odds with the BBC’s corporate stance on LGBT inclusion.”

Is it just me, or is this nuts?

There seems to be a fundamental problem with the idea of inclusion, or the way it's being used. Maybe it is that we aren't giving enough thought to what groups need to be considered, maybe the underlying thinking on disadvantage is somehow flawed?

I'm not sure but this seems to reveal a basic problem.

LGBT Progression Review, which said that the BBC’s culture was “heteronormative”

I understand the importance of representation, but what is the BBC supposed to be aspiring to? Given that we are a species that reproduces sexually, I would assume that heterosexuality will always be more common?

TempestTost · 16/11/2025 19:49

I think the ide is essentially that even if in fact most people are heterosexual, society should treat , and think about differernt sexualities, or differernt types of sexual expression, as if they are entirely interchangeable, all equally important or requiring of support, all on the same level playing field.

The idea that reproductive sexuality is in any unique way important is seen as regressive.

TempestTost · 16/11/2025 19:51

But the part I find particularly concerning is that the human resources policies of the BBC administrators should some how impact their news coverage.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread