The gender ideology thread

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

I’m pleased that you helped expose the lack of credibility in the BBC’s internal complaints process.

Croxall was ambushed on-air with a script that used the ludicrous phrase ‘pregnant people’. Self-evidently, only women can become pregnant. This is not a personal opinion, it is science. She quite correctly substituted the scientifically correct term. The term ‘pregnant people’ is so bone-jarringly, brain-achingly stupid, her very brief eye-roll was really rather restrained. Certainly not worth the time and money of an internal investigation. Definitely not worth your time to report, though complaining about people does seem to be a hobby of yours.

Given that her conviction for facecrime comes less than 24 hours after a damning internal memo was leaked, laying bare the extent to which the BBC has developed a nasty habit of censoring coverage of issues like transgenderism and Palestine unless they conform to activist-approved lines, one has to wonder whether the BBC has gone looking for a squirrel to misdirect critical attention from its failings.

Telegraph, paywall-free link:

https://archive.ph/wWdMS

My salient complaint was about a newsreaders taking it upon herself to change the script that she had been given to read and making her views known on the news. You all seem to be focusing on what she said/did, whilst it's the fact that she did it, regardless of the subject matter, that is the issue.

It would have been the same if the script had of said 'women' and she had changed it to 'pregnant people' and rolled her eyes.

Even typists are trained not to change things, but to type what's put in front of them. If you wrote a piece for a newspaper, I don't think you'd be happy if what you had written had been changed because the inputter wanted to put forward their own viewpoint.

BBC impartiality is extremely important, and yes, the Trump incident was wrong too.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Paul

You complained that someone stated a fact ?

I think he complained as she changed the script to voice her own opinion. That is not what news readers do. They simply read what they are told to leaving their personal feelings at home.

Originally Posted by Stephen

I think he complained as she changed the script to voice her own opinion. That is not what news readers do. They simply read what they are told to leaving their personal feelings at home.

Again, ‘pregnant women’ is not an opinion. It is settled scientific fact.

‘Pregnant people’, on the other hand, is the language of highly contentious social theory. The unwelcome opinion in this case has come from the activist scriptwriter who put ‘people’ into the script, when even the report being referred to did not use that term.

Top-level news anchors like Martine Croxall are paid to notice factual errors even on the fly and manage them appropriately. This is what she did. The fact that her face betrayed exasperation at having to do so is understandable given the unnecessary, fish-brained use of the term in her script.

It’s also worth adding that at no point was Jeremy Paxman reprimanded for eye-rolling whilst famously making a career out of it for years whilst hosting Newsnight. Apparently it’s only women standing up against genderwoo that get persecuted.

[Stephen]

She reads the autocue she doesn't write it. Her personal opinion doesnt come in to it. If she doesn't read what is scripted then she is voicing her own thoughts and the BBC have to be impartial.

[nomadking]

So if a newsreader spots a mistake, they can't correct it?

Originally Posted by Stephen

She reads the autocue she doesn't write it. Her personal opinion doesnt come in to it. If she doesn't read what is scripted then she is voicing her own thoughts and the BBC have to be impartial.

Again, not an opinion, a factual inaccuracy which she is paid to spot and correct. It absolutely is part of a news anchor’s job to deviate from the script on the autocue when it is apparent that reading it as written would be misleading or obviously unclear. It doesn’t happen often because these are professional operations and the scripts are usually watertight. This one was not. The document that was subject of this report did not use the activist term ‘pregnant people’ and the term is not in the BBC style guide. Its use was inaccurate and unnecessary. She was well within her professional remit to correct it on the fly.

---------- Post added at 22:56 ---------- Previous post was at 22:55 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

So if a newsreader spots a mistake, they can't correct it?

They can.
They should.
They do.

[Stephen]

Activist term lol.

Simply saying pregnant people is not an activist term. Simply covering that women who transition to be identified as male. At the end of the day it causes no harm using that term. People after all we are all people.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Activist term lol.

Simply saying pregnant people is not an activist term. Simply covering that women who transition to be identified as male. At the end of the day it causes no harm using that term. People after all we are all people.

If a woman self identifies (or whatever crap it's called) as a male, then falls pregnant, she/he is hardly going to get away with being called a pregnant bloke, she's a pregnant woman. If a woman has the op (transition ? ) to a male, pregnancy is highly doubtful . . . no matter how many wise men bring gifts to the stable.

Using the words 'pregnant people' and believing it's somehow the correct terminology implies you're* probably one of the brainwashed loons causing all the 'politically correct' mischief going around.

*you're as in 3rd person, not aimed specifically at Stephen

Originally Posted by Stephen

Simply saying pregnant people is not an activist term.

Of course it is.
"People" do not get pregnant, women do, simple fact.

Can't help thinking that this is a pointless discussion/argument..

Originally Posted by Stephen

Activist term lol.

Simply saying pregnant people is not an activist term. Simply covering that women who transition to be identified as male. At the end of the day it causes no harm using that term. People after all we are all people.

You’ve just demonstrated why it causes immense harm.

See how easily you use ‘man’ and ‘male’ as synonyms? You do so, of course, because in our everyday speech we assume they are, which is fair enough as far as it goes. However, because you’ve swallowed activist lines about trans ‘women’ being actual women (and vice versa), you have quickly arrived at a point where you no longer have the language necessary to easily express the basic truth that no matter what identity someone thinks they have, there is still a basic, binary, biological division in the human race, which is male-female. Minimising the importance of, and then destroying understanding of, the importance of biology to embodied human existence is a primary aim of gender ideology. Going along with it is not ‘kind’;* it allows downstream consequences like men in dresses running rape crisis centres and re-traumatising women. It allows men to steal women’s prizes in sports. It causes outrages against the dignity of women in single-sex spaces. It allows male sex offenders to be locked up in women’s prisons. All of these things have happened, around the world. They’ve all happened recently, publicly, here in Scotland, population under 6 million. The ideologically lobotomized Scottish Government is still trying to get legal approval to let men into women’s prisons as long as they use the magic words ‘I identify as a woman’.

‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are common terms used in reference to humans, while ‘male’ and ‘female’ are not exactly synonymous - they are biological and not species specific. Even if you absolutely insist on using ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in gender ideologue approved ways you ought to be able to maintain the linguistic distinction with regards to male and female. But you’ve proven how hard that is, and of course that is the entire point. The distinction is important if we are to maintain the truth that someone’s personal sense of identity does not override their immutable biological sex. It is a distinction gender ideology cannot tolerate, because it continues to permit conditions in which males and females are treated differently and therefore undermines their whole ridiculous idea that a so-called ‘transwoman’ is actually a woman.

You can identify as a TV cabinet for all I care - it’s your life. But you don’t have the right to insist I believe you and you don’t have the right to insist we modify language to accommodate you. ‘Pregnant people’ is absolutely activist language and goodness only knows why you’re denying it because even activists say so - its an example of what they call ‘inclusive’* language. it is deliberately chosen to minimise the inconvenient and immutable biological truth of human existence which is that only females - women - get pregnant, and any pregnant human is immutably, undeniably, a woman.

* terms like ‘kind’ and ‘inclusive’ are also activist tactics - they rely on the weaponisation of empathy, as nobody wants to be seen to be unkind or exclusive. The necessary trick here is to refuse to accept a gender ideologue’s claims around what constitutes kindness and inclusion. The destruction of provisions intended to preserve the safety and dignity of women is not kind. The erosion of female sport is not inclusive, because the female category is in its very foundation and inclusive measure, allowing women to compete without being overrun by men. Permitting men to enter their category is the antithesis of inclusion. No trans-identifying individual is barred from sports - they must simply compete in the class created for them.

[RichardCoulter]

It's not the first time this has happened, she also breached impartiality rules three years ago:

Martine Croxall: BBC News presenter breached impartiality rules, corporation says - BBC News https://share.google/WSV4JyH6T7jEmGa0Z

Going on to joke about breaching due impartiality rules shows what scant regard she has for them.

Someone has said that she might be a union rep, I wonder if this has afforded her greater protection than other staff?

When I worked in local government I was asked to consider becoming a union rep and it was said to me that, unless I did something like murder a colleague, I would be unofficially exempt from any form of disciplinary action. I assumed that this was because the council wouldn't want to risk any industrial unrest because the union would view this as an inflammatory act by council management.

Perhaps it's the same with the BBC and Croxall is fully aware of this??

The first time I would have expected her to receive a verbal warning, the second time a written warning and, if she does it again, she should be dismissed.

As we come up to charter renewal and the BBC is under unprecedented attack for accusations of bias and the TVL method of funding, they need someone like her like a hole in the head.

At the moment, the way the BBC is shutting down culturally inconvenient topics and persecuting those who don’t toe the ideological line is the best argument for aboloishing the TV licence. Croxall is doing all of us an immense service in exposing the BBC’s institutional rot.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

<SNIP>

As we come up to charter renewal and the BBC is under unprecedented attack for accusations of bias and the TVL method of funding, they need someone like her like a hole in the head.

... And there lies the flaw in your argument. The accusations of bias are valid and factually provable. So, of course they don't need someone standing up to them "like a hole in the head". But we. the people, do.

Persons who bring the BBC's bias into the open (and who correct editorial bias when reading the news) are not to be criticised, especially in the context of the BBC Charter Renewal.

Why should the Charter be renewed for such a biased, rotten organisation? There needs to be a clear-out of the bias elements, the LGBTQ+ desk, the top management who have done nothing about this; the prosecution on public office grounds of those bustards who falsified the Trump footage. The BBC is institutionally rotten as it stands

As a footnote, it doesn't help that Boris, Mr Honesty himself (!), should be a torch leader in fighting the BBC.



---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

At the moment, the way the BBC is shutting down culturally inconvenient topics and persecuting those who don’t toe the ideological line is the best argument for aboloishing the TV licence. Croxall is doing all of us an immense service in exposing the BBC’s institutional rot.

Quite right. I couldn't find mention of this huge story on the BBC News web site. Kuenssberg sort of mentioned it in her programme today when interviewing Lisa Nandy - who said she had complete confidence in the BBC Chairman and the BBC DG in getting this matter sorted.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Can't help thinking that this is a pointless discussion/argument..

Quite agree Maggy, however the incident that started it is a reminder that there are still (in this day and age) people out there who's purpose in life is to point a finger and shout 'witch' and then dance around the flames of the burning