BBC really knows how to pick 'em

[Bramblethorn]

A few days ago the BBC ran an article claiming that trans women are pressuring lesbians into sex (based on a very small non-random survey run by an anti-trans group, which still only managed to get 56% agreement with that claim). Not gonna link to the BBC piece, but here's some analysis of it:

https://medium.com/@notCursedE/bbc-anti-trans-propaganda-explained-d85ac4b6c691

As part of that, they sympathetically interviewed cis lesbian porn actress Lily Cade, who talked about feeling guilty for refusing to do a scene with a trans woman.

What they neglected to mention is that Lily Cade has a self-acknowledged history of sexually assaulting other women... sometimes in bathrooms, the way trans women are constantly accused of doing. Even the most basic of background checks would have shown this up.

And now she's gone off the deep end altogether, calling for trans women to be "lynched":

https://www.newsweek.com/anti-transgender-activist-quoted-bbc-calls-trans-women-lynched-1645231

If any more evidence was needed that transphobia isn't about "protecting" women.

 

[cubbyfire04]

Yeah... Do better BBC. They chose Cade BECAUSE of her vitriolic hate speech towards the Trans Community. Surely they are smart enough to know her feelings don't even reflect the majority of those toeing the transphobic line.

It's ok not to want to do a scene with a penis. Just say so and move on. If she's been assaulted, Cade should pursue more judicious means of retribution. Shame on her. But more importantly, shame on the BBC for making her relevant.

 

[stickygirl]

Yup - BBC standard of 'balance' is to do pieces on the extremes and give no opportunity for an opposing view. Too much of their content is contracted out and it makes you wonder if anyone actually previewed the show before it aired. Another reason for scrapping the tv license we're obliged to pay.

Cis media... same same with Netflix support of Dave Chapelle ~link to Transadvocate article.

Thanks for posting Brambles. It's not a great time to be trans

 

[coati]

The Newsweek article is the most shocking thing I have read recently.

Why would the BBC feel compelled to provide a platform for someone like Cade? Hell, if even Facebook and Twitter had the sense to ban Trump's incitement, why is the BBC headed into the journalistic toilet?

 

[stickygirl]

The Newsweek article is the most shocking think I have read recently.

Why would the BBC feel compelled to provide a platform for someone like Cade? Hell, if even Facebook and Twitter had the sense to ban Trump's incitement, why is the BBC headed into the journalistic toilet?

Because the management think being "creatively edgy" wins awards? Fucking London twats... or possibly Manchester

 

[coati]

Because the management think being "creatively edgy" wins awards? Fucking London twats... or possibly Manchester

Hope they catch plenty of hell for giving Cade a megaphone.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The Newsweek article is the most shocking thing I have read recently.

Why would the BBC feel compelled to provide a platform for someone like Cade? Hell, if even Facebook and Twitter had the sense to ban Trump's incitement, why is the BBC headed into the journalistic toilet?

As I understand it the "lynching" rant came after her BBC appearance, but just the fact that she was well known to be a serial rapist ought to have been enough. There's a reason so many of my friends have taken to calling the UK "TERF Island" :-(

 

[coati]

As I understand it the "lynching" rant came after her BBC appearance, but just the fact that she was well known to be a serial rapist ought to have been enough. There's a reason so many of my friends have taken to calling the UK "TERF Island" :-(

Sure, I understood the sequence of events. And I also agree that BBC should have known better than to feed a fire in Cade that obviously burned with alarming intensity before, during, and after the BBC story.

As a journalist, you have an obligation to vet the subjects of a story. It is not responsible to run a story after you recognize the shaky basis of the allegations, no matter how many clicks or bucks you might be able to harvest.

BBC has a lot to regret in this situation. If they do not admit their grave mistake, they're headed toward the same yellow journalism gutter as the Fox Network.

 

[stickygirl]

Update
The BBC has acknowledged "inappropriate behavior" by anti-transgender activist Lily Cade and removed her contribution to a controversial article published last week which many have labeled transphobic and dangerous.

Pressure is continuing to mount on the broadcaster to issue an apology for the October 26 piece titled, "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women."

However, having removed Cade's contribution to the piece, the broadcaster maintained that is an "important piece of journalism."

The BBC admits
"We have updated this article, published last week, to remove a contribution from one individual in light of comments she has published on blog posts in recent days, which we have now been able to verify," they continued.

"We acknowledge that an admission of inappropriate behavior by the same contributor should have been included in the original article."

'In the days following the publication of the article, Cade published a blog post that advocated for violence against trans women and called them "evil, rapists," and "predators."

Impartial, informed, balanced journalism.... that's the BBC. The BBC claims it was unaware of Cade's inappropriate behaviour ( rape ) but one fucking Google would have done it. What fucking planet are they not on?

From Pink News
"Despite the fact that the almost 4,000-word story does not contain a single interview with anyone that disagrees that lesbians are being coerced into sex by trans women, the BBC doggedly insists that it abides by its own impartiality rules and was subject to a “rigorous editorial process”

FFS

 

[Bramblethorn]

The BBC admits
"We have updated this article, published last week, to remove a contribution from one individual in light of comments she has published on blog posts in recent days, which we have now been able to verify," they continued.

Love how they needed to do due diligence on LC before removing her contribution, but not before including it in the first place.

"inappropriate behaviour", huh. Not "pressuring women into sex"?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Something happier:

Australian footballer Joshua Cavallo recently came out as gay - apparently the only currently out player in the code at professional level?

"LGB Alliance" (UK-based group purporting to be pro gay/lesbian/bi rights, but much more interested in anti-trans) tried to co-opt him. He wasn't having it:

https://twitter.com/JoshuaCavallo/status/1457306501899448320

 

[coati]

This topic about demonizing trans people is mind-boggling to me. I just read about the "LGB Alliance" in the UK, and about some of its spin-offs in other countries. I really had no idea about the degree of resentment held by some lesbians toward trans women.

As a science nerd who has been observing the spectrum of gender expression in both plant and animal species for all of my adult life, I guess I had become complacent about the lengths humans will go to in order to dismiss the reality faced by other humans. I thought it mainly applied to political philosophies and racism, but this is yet another area where humans find an excuse for scapegoating other humans.

 

[stickygirl]

In my own experience I have rarely heard any anti-trans sentiment from lesbians per se ... maybe some ill-informed chat... In the UK we've inherited ( or home grown ) a pearl-clutching knee-jerk from wimen who want wimen-only spaces for wimen and to that extent I'm not keen on catching an eye-full of hairy bollocks in the changing room either, but what changing room are we even talking about because they're all stalls?! These 'lesbians' should simply self-ID as Terfs and we'd all know where we are.

As for the BBC and it's high standards and integrity? I've seen better shit stuck to porcelain. Every few years we get a debate about tv license fees ( to pay for the BBC ). I used to support the idea, like the Royalty, but have changed my mind on both now. They're so 20th century

 

[coati]

In my own experience I have rarely heard any anti-trans sentiment from lesbians per se ... maybe some ill-informed chat... In the UK we've inherited ( or home grown ) a pearl-clutching knee-jerk from wimen who want wimen-only spaces for wimen and to that extent I'm not keen on catching an eye-full of hairy bollocks in the changing room either, but what changing room are we even talking about because they're all stalls?! These 'lesbians' should simply self-ID as Terfs and we'd all know where we are.

Interesting that these TERFs are involved in turf wars.

I learn something new about scapegoating every year.

 

[Bramblethorn]

This topic about demonizing trans people is mind-boggling to me. I just read about the "LGB Alliance" in the UK, and about some of its spin-offs in other countries. I really had no idea about the degree of resentment held by some lesbians toward trans women.

Sadly there are lesbians and gay men who hold those attitudes, but that's not all that's going on here. Those people are being played as useful idiots by the Religious Right and other homophobes.

Going back to at least 2017, anti-LGBT groups have been exploring divide-and-conquer tactics. Here's some reporting on a conference where they explicitly discussed playing off transgender people against other disadvantaged groups.

“Trans and gender identity are a tough sell, so focus on gender identity to divide and conquer... If we separate the T from the alphabet soup we’ll have more success... Explain that gender identity rights only come at the expense of others: women, sexual assault survivors, female athletes forced to compete against men and boys, ethnic minorities who culturally value modesty, economically challenged children who face many barriers to educational success and don’t need another level of chaos in their lives, children with anxiety disorders and the list goes on and on and on.”

Two years later, LGB Alliance popped up with a suspiciously similar set of talking points, and some curious associations with right-wing anti-LGBT organisations like the Heritage Foundation and the Witherspoon Institute.

Despite the name, LGBA don't even do a very good job of being pro-gay/lesbian/bi. Several of LGBA's prominent supporters have a record of biphobia and at one point they tweeted in defence of people who opposed the right for same-gender couples to marry.

 

[coati]

Sadly there are lesbians and gay men who hold those attitudes, but that's not all that's going on here. Those people are being played as useful idiots by the Religious Right and other homophobes.

Going back to at least 2017, anti-LGBT groups have been exploring divide-and-conquer tactics. Here's some reporting on a conference where they explicitly discussed playing off transgender people against other disadvantaged groups.

“Trans and gender identity are a tough sell, so focus on gender identity to divide and conquer... If we separate the T from the alphabet soup we’ll have more success... Explain that gender identity rights only come at the expense of others: women, sexual assault survivors, female athletes forced to compete against men and boys, ethnic minorities who culturally value modesty, economically challenged children who face many barriers to educational success and don’t need another level of chaos in their lives, children with anxiety disorders and the list goes on and on and on.”

Two years later, LGB Alliance popped up with a suspiciously similar set of talking points, and some curious associations with right-wing anti-LGBT organisations like the Heritage Foundation and the Witherspoon Institute.

Despite the name, LGBA don't even do a very good job of being pro-gay/lesbian/bi. Several of LGBA's prominent supporters have a record of biphobia and at one point they tweeted in defence of people who opposed the right for same-gender couples to marry.

Wow. That situation is scapegoating on steroids.

And mostly, it's devised to promote culture wars and solidify a grip on power by rich people who can only win elections with divide-and-conquer tactics. This cynical vision for society has real consequences on real people every day.

 

[stickygirl]

Something happier:

Australian footballer Joshua Cavallo recently came out as gay - apparently the only currently out player in the code at professional level?

"LGB Alliance" (UK-based group purporting to be pro gay/lesbian/bi rights, but much more interested in anti-trans) tried to co-opt him. He wasn't having it:

https://twitter.com/JoshuaCavallo/status/1457306501899448320

More happier

The LGB Alliance's charitable status is being challenged by my friends Mermaids. I had this in my mail today

"Update on Appeal “LGB Alliance’s” charity status

LGB Alliance’s trustees have now submitted a formal response to the appeal.
In addition to our grounds of appeal, we have now submitted two replies - one to the Charity Commission, and now one to LGB Alliance.
As explained in previous updates, we have argued that LGB Alliance’s real purpose is not the protection of LGB rights - it is the denigration of trans people and the destruction of organisations that support them.
Its trustees deny that. As our reply explains, we think their response is confused. But their arguments do illustrate just how many knots LGB Alliance has to tie itself in to try to justify its charitable status.
The trustees are trying to make sure none of these threads are pulled on. They have asked the Tribunal to hold a separate, preliminary hearing to determine whether or not Mermaids has legal standing to bring the claim, in the hope being that they can win on a technicality before having to properly explain themselves. Both we and the Charity Commission agree that the question of standing instead needs to be considered at a full hearing along with the substantive issues. We expect a decision from the Tribunal about how it intends to proceed shortly after 19 November.
We are hugely grateful for your support so far."

In other news

It is Trans Awareness Week 13-19 and the Trans Day of Remembrance on 20 November.

 

[stickygirl]

Thanks GC - those are startling links and extraordinary that the management defend themselves by saying they've had lots of favourable comment - as though that made it okay.

I wonder if that's why Andrew Marr left recently?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Here is the response that I personally received (unimportant beginning and ending of email snipped out):

"As the article states, a number of high-profile commentators on this issue were contacted but declined to contribute. The definition of ‘high profile’ is clearly open to debate but the journalist considered it appropriately reflected the wider public profile of those she contacted and their track record in discussing transgender issues.​

Huh. Wonder why high-profile trans people might be unwilling to contribute to an anti-trans hit piece. Truly a mystery.​

 

[stickygirl]

Strange how 'declined to be interviewed' is used to imply 'has something to hide' or 'is obviously guilty'