' I was not leaving, contrary to popular rumour, as a result of ageism on the part of the BBC. I made the decision a year ago when it became clear to me that it was time to move on and be free of the leash which, in recent years, had caused me to be what I can only describe as ‘cancelled’.
First came the furore concerning an article I had written in which I acknowledged that I was entering the most controversial and, at times, vicious, vulgar and threatening debate of our day.
I made clear that I was not transphobic or anti-trans. Indeed, I emphasised my belief that everyone — whether transgender or those of us who hold to the sex assigned to us at birth — should be treated with respect and protected from the bullying and violence that so many like me have suffered.
I merely asked the trans activists to acknowledge the difference between sex and gender, a trans woman and a woman, respect our right to safe single-sex spaces and abandon the nonsensical idea that we should be known as ‘cis women’.
We are women. No need for further definition. I begged trans activists to understand feminism and the struggle we had experienced in fighting for our right to be viewed as equals to men.
I reminded them that feminism had fought against sexual stereotyping, and that it was ridiculous to assume a girl who liked cars and trousers really wanted to be a boy, or a boy who loved dolls was ‘born in the wrong body’ and needed to be a girl.
Of course, I was branded a TERF — a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist — on social media and threatened with all kinds of violence. But what shocked me most was the BBC’s response.
I was roundly ticked off publicly and informed that I would not be allowed to chair any discussions on the trans question or the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. I had lots of emails and tweets asking me why I had not been involved in this debate, as it was so important to Woman’s Hour listeners. You have the answer.'
I too have been very disappointed by the BBC chair's reaction to the whole sex and gender issue - he simply said
"On the review of sex and gender identity, the EGSE noted that much of the coverage met the BBC's standards of impartiality and accuracy".
So that's all right then - nothing to look at here!
I don't think he realises that he is demonstrating just how institutionally biased the BBC coverage is on sex and gender.... like all the stories that are suppressed, or only "positive", it is so frustrating.
Hearing that you wrote complaints about autogynephilia, and I wrote complaints about autogynephilia, it really feels less negligent, and more conspiracy.
The complaints team apparently had their own view, and they were not going to allow anyone else threaten that.
The complaints team justified not covering autogynephilia based on not having enough space on paragraphs 18,32 here:
They never answer why had enough space to cover "non-binary" which isn't in the DSM-5 connected to "Gender dysphoria" or otherwise. "Non-binary" is complete nonsense, made up by teenagers on Tumblr.
I really resent the BBC so much for its role in aggressively foisting its ideology onto society and children. They couldn't justify this ideology using evidence -- so they just omitted the evidence.
It's all there in the DSM-5 definition of "Gender dysphoria", however this didn't fit into their feel-good "liberated from being born in the wrong body" narrative.
Agree, and there was no reporting about the WPATH files.
I also wrote complaints about autogynephilia.
I think there are probably cross-dressers and also , disproportionately large numbers of parents of transidentifying children amongst the BBC - and only one such person in a room can have enormous power of veto over discussion.
Fascinating discussion. I'm an ex-staffer in tv news and current affairs and I'm both heartbroken and incensed at what the BBC has become. Like you, I'm convinced trans lunacy would never had reached the height (depths) it has, had the BBC allowed its non-captured journalists to do their job: reporting facts in a clear and accessible way. I believe it's only a question of time now until the trans bubble bursts. Had Davie, Turness or a.n.o. had the courage to wield the pin, they'd be remembered as heroes not villains in the trans horror story. Thank you for all you do in lifting the lid and letting in the light.
At the end you ask who manages the LGBTQ activists. I am becoming convinced that across many many public and private institutions that these activists are the most difficult, the most vexatious, the most odd, demanding and needy and therefore a nightmare to manage. Managers don't know how to manage them, so they don't - they just acquiesce.
Watching the BBC News at 10pm last night, there was a feature on the nurses in Darlington who had to put up with a man (identifying as a woman) sharing their changing space, and who are now suing their NHS trust as a result. We watch the BBC News every day and I don’t recall seeing anything on there at any point about this case, which has been public for a considerable time, and which I was well aware of from other sources. Made me wonder if they just decided to report on it now because of the accusations that gender-critical stories have been suppressed by the BBC in the past.
Brilliant. As I listened I felt like a nodding dog agreeing with every comment each of you made. I am an optimist and although it may seem like impasse, it may be the opportunity for a complete change. Perhaps the public furore has frightened the BBC sufficiently for it to appoint a DG who will call out and swiftly eject bad faith actors, TQ activists and those who refuse to abandon biased views. In other words someone who will do the job that no-one in the BBC has been prepared to do, hence the mess it is in.
A brilliant post. I listened and felt like a nodding dog in response to almost every comment made by each of you. Although it may feel like impasse at the moment, I have some hope that it is maybe a hiatus and the BBC has had enough of a fright to ensure the appointment of someone who will call out and swiftly eject the bad faith actors, the TQ activists and those who wish to stick to their biased views. Someone who will do what no-one else in the BBC has been prepared to do, hence the mess it is in.
Thank you Jenni Murray on her departure from BBC
' I was not leaving, contrary to popular rumour, as a result of ageism on the part of the BBC. I made the decision a year ago when it became clear to me that it was time to move on and be free of the leash which, in recent years, had caused me to be what I can only describe as ‘cancelled’.
First came the furore concerning an article I had written in which I acknowledged that I was entering the most controversial and, at times, vicious, vulgar and threatening debate of our day.
I made clear that I was not transphobic or anti-trans. Indeed, I emphasised my belief that everyone — whether transgender or those of us who hold to the sex assigned to us at birth — should be treated with respect and protected from the bullying and violence that so many like me have suffered.
I merely asked the trans activists to acknowledge the difference between sex and gender, a trans woman and a woman, respect our right to safe single-sex spaces and abandon the nonsensical idea that we should be known as ‘cis women’.
We are women. No need for further definition. I begged trans activists to understand feminism and the struggle we had experienced in fighting for our right to be viewed as equals to men.
I reminded them that feminism had fought against sexual stereotyping, and that it was ridiculous to assume a girl who liked cars and trousers really wanted to be a boy, or a boy who loved dolls was ‘born in the wrong body’ and needed to be a girl.
Of course, I was branded a TERF — a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist — on social media and threatened with all kinds of violence. But what shocked me most was the BBC’s response.
I was roundly ticked off publicly and informed that I would not be allowed to chair any discussions on the trans question or the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act. I had lots of emails and tweets asking me why I had not been involved in this debate, as it was so important to Woman’s Hour listeners. You have the answer.'
Where was that published? Thanks for posting.
I think it's from this piece in the Mail: https://archive.ph/CSOAm
Thanks Jez
Brilliant and depressing.
I too have been very disappointed by the BBC chair's reaction to the whole sex and gender issue - he simply said
"On the review of sex and gender identity, the EGSE noted that much of the coverage met the BBC's standards of impartiality and accuracy".
So that's all right then - nothing to look at here!
I don't think he realises that he is demonstrating just how institutionally biased the BBC coverage is on sex and gender.... like all the stories that are suppressed, or only "positive", it is so frustrating.
I don't know how you break through that..
Thanks for all your efforts over the years..it’s been awful!!
Hearing that you wrote complaints about autogynephilia, and I wrote complaints about autogynephilia, it really feels less negligent, and more conspiracy.
The complaints team apparently had their own view, and they were not going to allow anyone else threaten that.
The complaints team justified not covering autogynephilia based on not having enough space on paragraphs 18,32 here:
https://transpolicy.substack.com/p/complaint-to-ofcom-regarding-bbcs
They never answer why had enough space to cover "non-binary" which isn't in the DSM-5 connected to "Gender dysphoria" or otherwise. "Non-binary" is complete nonsense, made up by teenagers on Tumblr.
I really resent the BBC so much for its role in aggressively foisting its ideology onto society and children. They couldn't justify this ideology using evidence -- so they just omitted the evidence.
It's all there in the DSM-5 definition of "Gender dysphoria", however this didn't fit into their feel-good "liberated from being born in the wrong body" narrative.
Ofcom just nod along.
Agree, and there was no reporting about the WPATH files.
I also wrote complaints about autogynephilia.
I think there are probably cross-dressers and also , disproportionately large numbers of parents of transidentifying children amongst the BBC - and only one such person in a room can have enormous power of veto over discussion.
Fascinating discussion. I'm an ex-staffer in tv news and current affairs and I'm both heartbroken and incensed at what the BBC has become. Like you, I'm convinced trans lunacy would never had reached the height (depths) it has, had the BBC allowed its non-captured journalists to do their job: reporting facts in a clear and accessible way. I believe it's only a question of time now until the trans bubble bursts. Had Davie, Turness or a.n.o. had the courage to wield the pin, they'd be remembered as heroes not villains in the trans horror story. Thank you for all you do in lifting the lid and letting in the light.
Thank you. Really interesting listening.
At the end you ask who manages the LGBTQ activists. I am becoming convinced that across many many public and private institutions that these activists are the most difficult, the most vexatious, the most odd, demanding and needy and therefore a nightmare to manage. Managers don't know how to manage them, so they don't - they just acquiesce.
Watching the BBC News at 10pm last night, there was a feature on the nurses in Darlington who had to put up with a man (identifying as a woman) sharing their changing space, and who are now suing their NHS trust as a result. We watch the BBC News every day and I don’t recall seeing anything on there at any point about this case, which has been public for a considerable time, and which I was well aware of from other sources. Made me wonder if they just decided to report on it now because of the accusations that gender-critical stories have been suppressed by the BBC in the past.
Lost me with their gender grist putting girls and women at risk…
No list of links to sources this time? I've read the Prescott memo but haven't seen the Grossman reports that it is based on.
Anyway, another fascinating episode - very many thanks.
Brilliant. As I listened I felt like a nodding dog agreeing with every comment each of you made. I am an optimist and although it may seem like impasse, it may be the opportunity for a complete change. Perhaps the public furore has frightened the BBC sufficiently for it to appoint a DG who will call out and swiftly eject bad faith actors, TQ activists and those who refuse to abandon biased views. In other words someone who will do the job that no-one in the BBC has been prepared to do, hence the mess it is in.
Thanks, Cath, great interview.
I still want them defunded!
Have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-fly-2
Dusty
A brilliant post. I listened and felt like a nodding dog in response to almost every comment made by each of you. Although it may feel like impasse at the moment, I have some hope that it is maybe a hiatus and the BBC has had enough of a fright to ensure the appointment of someone who will call out and swiftly eject the bad faith actors, the TQ activists and those who wish to stick to their biased views. Someone who will do what no-one else in the BBC has been prepared to do, hence the mess it is in.