After bowing to pressure from groups like the LGB Alliance who, despite having done nothing for LGB people besides allow those who hate trans folk to coalesce together, the BBC have left the stonewall diversity champions scheme. Now the BBC has released a 10 part podcast trying to dig into the “extreme gender ideology” which has “captured” stonewall. It’s regular guests are Rosie Duffield, a labour MP who seems more concerned with becoming the acceptable face of anti trans rhetoric, and several anti trans academics. I’d like to ask the BBC is neutrality is really the course to take when it comes to human rights, and representation of LGBTQIA people, especially in the face of their newest anti-trans scrawling.
Neutrality is important when it comes to investigative journalism. Being led by facts allows you to be unbiased in your approach, to further honesty and to offer a platform to the right of the situation.
The evidence should guide you to your conclusion- we are all human of course, and tend to err on the side of things that agree with how we think- which is a sad side effect of human nature. We don’t like to be told we’re wrong or indeed, proven wrong. But part of journalism which seems to flake further off into the distance every week in the UK, is the integrity which comes with remaining led by facts rather than assumptions, or as in this case, by the relentless campaign of the gender critical bigots whose mission is nothing to do with the protection of children, the enshrinement of “sex based rights” or any of the other scurrilous garbage they insist on hewing out to continue their attacks.
So far in the stonewall exclusive podcast, they’ve basically intimated that Stonewall offers heavily inclusive suggestions to those in its scheme to follow diversity rules. One can be forgiven if their eyebrows don’t exactly leap up to their hairline at the news that a nonprofit whose goal is to further equality is pushing the idea that neutrality or “both sides” is not actually the way forward- when both sides is a person wishing to transition to female and the other side is a person wishing to roll back that person’s enshrined rights.
It’s also been argued in the press by the BBC as they departed from the scheme that they want to approach LGBTQ+ issues “impartially”.
Shall we dive into what the BBC’s classic ideas of impartial reporting were?
Remember when Elton John first presented his child to the world, and was on the BBC to do so? For the sake of “impartiality, balance and fairness” the BBC interviewed a man who believed gay people should be killed.
When gay marriage was under debate in parliament, the BBC “have your say” website put out a poll, asking whether gay people should face the death penalty- as you can imagine it was heavily responded to by those who are deeply confident in the idea that gay people not only don’t deserve equity, but should face actual death because the idea of two men being in love makes people feel uncomfortable enough to call for their deaths.
I’d like to flip this for a moment- it may take some mental alacrity on your part, reader, to picture this but- imagine those events in the inverse; say a prominent female pop singer gave birth and the BBC interviewed, for the sake of balance, a man who thought all women should be put to death. Would that be acceptable?
Shall we perhaps open up a poll about whether all straight people should be put to death? I feel like, if it’s time to play balance maybe the time is right to start questioning straight rights too- all in the sake of fairness of course.
Impartiality is a disgraceful choice when faced with the moral standpoints of supporting- or denying your support- to groups of people who simply exist: whose actions do not harm people around them, whose private lives do not affect you other than those so sensitive amongst us that simply thinking of gay sex makes them ill- to those people I ask whether you don’t think you’re a bit too sensitive to exist in the modern world – viruses killing people in the hundreds in the UK each day, war and famine, drowning refugees on the coast- but two men kiss and you’re at your limit. Perhaps your priorities are misdirected- and to those who think like this I give this simple advice- if gay, trans etc people bother you whenever you think about us, stop thinking about us. If we bother you in the street- ignore us as we do you. If you’re scared of sharing “spaces” with us either don’t go to those spaces or act like an adult and keep yourself to yourself.
It’s also, in my view, impossible to be impartial when it comes to LGBTQ+ issues. If one side says “we want to live, love, marry, access healthcare, be treated the same as everyone by having our safeties and identities respected in a democratic society” and the other side says “imprison them, kill them, stop them from having the same rights and protections as me” or who say “their mere existence takes away from MY rights” when this is demonstrably, laughably false, it seems quite plain that NOT taking a stand for those whose protections are under threat is at best abetting those who do wish to do harm.
The BBC, in fact most UK media can continue it’s transphobic tirade, bylines proudly on show- I look forward to the day in the future where these articles are presented, in pristine snippets of books about landmark equality movements, to people on talk shows who discuss how the trans panic was morally confected by the cis white men in charge to divert them from accountability for their own actions and too many reactionaries jumped on board to enable that. I look forward to uncomfortable interviews with journalists reviled for their disgusting anti trans views, begging for forgiveness from a tired community who weathered their nonsense. And most of all I have a deep and profound hope that those who stand against the LGBTQIA community will continue to fade and wither into irrelevance, kicking and screaming as they go.
It’s already past pastiche how often the LGB Alliance claim that they are a pro LGB group- every time I ask the angry gender critical people “what have they actually done to further LGB rights” suddenly I’m blocked, muted, told to go away, shut up, sit down… because there is no answer. The closest I’ve had to an answer is “they’ve lobbied for us”- but lobbying for anti trans standpoints does not do anything “for” the community – it’s patently obvious that lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex and asexual people all face the same pigeonholing, ignorance and, yes, violence, for our mere existence- it matters not whether you as an LGB person “want” trans people in our community- we are in a community together out of necessity, because all anti LGBT+ sentiment comes from the same people, and all are altered versions of the same bigotry.
Invoking the name of Joanne Rowling to these people also seems to summon a certain amount of ire but my question is simple, as the LGB alliance today are claiming that she’s done “so much” for LGB people: what is it that Rowling has done to help LGB people?
She runs a charity with a woman (Baroness Nicholson) who actively opposes gay marriage and has run very close to calling all LGB people perverts online a number of times. She created a character who she labelled as gay but never once gave anything but subtext to- this character also never had a partner, never had sex, but of course did fall in love with a heterosexual who has strong parallels to nazism and convinced said wonderful gay archetype to join his Nazi fan group as well… good job voldemort didn’t have a nose and keep his lustrous hair and good looks, or we might have seen Dumbledore helping him eh.
The LGB alliance lionise people like Rowling, Stock, Joyce, Linehan- with no hint of irony that their continuation of bigotry could easily be flipped back on the entire community, and without realising that in fact the likely link between a huge uptick of anti LGBT+ sentiment leading to a huge increase in hate crimes against us, is likely because they continue to stir up sentiment against us- and in fact, seeing the growing discord within the community has given those who hate us more platforms to jump from. As a cohesive community we can move mountains – split as we are, we face a resurgence of the same numb-brained non-talking points we’ve faced our whole lives.
Whether we view trans women as women (they are) or not, homophobes see things quite differently. Any deviation from STRAIGHT MAN or STRAIGHT WOMAN is wrong and must be punished, and this goes for gender identity, sexuality- whatever. Pushing the rhetoric that there’s a right way to be gay/trans/bi is exactly the reason this nonsense continues and keeps worsening. So far from “achieving great things for us” these people are actively endangering us by stirring up sentiment against a group that’s stuck together through hell and high water for 50 years.
Nothing I say will change the minds of gender critical people but I do find it endlessly confusing that all of the issues they claim to worry about go back to cis men almost every single time- nobody is denying that there can be dangerous people in the trans community – but the existence of one dangerous trans person does not by default mean that every trans person is a danger- any more than the existence of a heterosexual rapist means that all heterosexual people are rapists.
And today’s little penned missive from the BBC which prominently features interviews from those with strong links to LGB Alliance and Get the L Out of course rehashes more internet nonsense- I’ve no doubt that it’s easy for those who don’t think to misinterpret people’s words- not wanting to date a trans person because you have a genital preference is likely not something a trans person is going to push on you- trans people just want to be accepted as they are and if you don’t want them as they are it’s unlikely they’d try to push that point- and again, those that do are not representative of an entire community who have quite explicitly said the same over and over.
They don’t want men breaking into their bathrooms and refuges and prisons. Not all trans women like women, not all trans women have penises, and on and on and on- these arguments have gone round in circles for 2 years with no change. My advice is if someone in a bathroom makes you uncomfortable, leave- their gender irrespective. Should you have to? Probably not- but fighting to minimise the rights of a minority because it might make you uncomfortable seems… well, stupid.
I note that the latest BBC piece has also made strong reference to stickers and a saying which is a transphobic saying oft repeated- “genital preferences are transphobic”- when all- without exception to my knowledge- trans people disagree with this statement. A genital preference is a preference for genitals, and not an enablement of transphobia.
A blunt fact for transphobes and non transphobes alike: anyone who commits sexual assault should be kept in isolation for their entire stay in prison- because rapists don’t deserve human decency. They choose sexual gratification over bodily autonomy and frankly I wake up on the daily wondering who thinks the punishment for rape is proportional to the crime. If it were my choice, rapists would be housed somewhere else entirely and their sentences would last so long that by the time a rapist left prison their immediate concern would be which burial plot they would go in. Rapists are scum, regardless of gender identity.
Conflation of trans people with dangerous predators, with untrustworthy people etc is nonsense. To a reductive mind I’m sure it makes sense- it doesn’t mean it’s correct.
And when it comes to national broadcasters deciding to return to the days of asking people who want to behead gay people for their views on gay adoption, if you don’t see that as a loss for LGB, and T people then you should really question why you’ve allowed your hate to override your sensibilities. Standing together as a group is not just common sensical, because the hatred towards us does- whether you like it or not- come from the same place. But even if you disagree, to countenance oppression for others just because they’re not like you is – frankly – foolish.
We have so many enemies in this world. Dividing a community and allowing a broadcaster who is duty bound to fairly represent us is just another step backwards our community has to take- but looking to past icons of LGBT+ liberation, it’s not a move we’ll take lying down for long. The continued provocation of the anti trans crowd, the homophobes, the people who continually spout their garbage about simple gay life being shown on tv being “propaganda” will not be left unanswered by a community who enjoyed (here) a brief lull in hatred, who enjoyed that silence- and who have nothing to lose to get back to it.
If you so wish to support the LGB Alliance and it’s other nonsense patrons, just know that you’re slitting your own throat too.