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.