Hi, Terven. The last two parter update was meant to be my last update of 2023 but so much has poured in since then that I am having to slot in another one before the New Year!! Then I will definitely shut up until either next Monday or Tuesday 😎
This is a long one - maybe take it in stages!! 😎
I am going to be on a bit of a Brando roll re film clips as I mentioned in the last updates but I will intersperse with something else here. I am a bit of a country music fan. Whilst I was watching two of the grandchildren play chess over the Christmas break, I was, at the same time, playing around with the words of Tammy Wynette’s classic, Stand By Your Man. I was trying to turn it gender critical 😂 However I only managed to get to:
Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman, Especially if you are actually a man.
I think it would need Mr Menno to achieve the end result!
However I have long thought that a feminist could write a great critique of the song, perhaps entitled Is Stand By Your Man A Feminist Anthem? 😎
Some of the lines often sound to me like double entendres. Take, for example:
Even though he’s hard to understand. Why is he hard to understand? Because he’s a misogynist idiot? Or maybe just a plain old idiot? Or he doesn’t speak English!?
Or:
‘cos after all he’s just a man ( my emphasis 😊).
I think the video below backs me up:
The guy who introduces Tammy seems to say: “In the gender part of the show, Mrs Hipknicker, Tammy Wynette”. I’m sure it is Hipknicker!!
The bloke sitting down at the slide guitar, as the song progresses, seems from his expressions to be realising that this is actually an anti-man song!
Who on earth is the creepy, sniggering bloke in the cowboy hat at the end!!?? He definitely need a D-I-V-O-R-C-E!!
Discuss. 😎😎😎
HAPPY NEW YEAR FROM MY ASSISTANT 😎
OK, that’s the main article over with😊 Now on to the minor stuff…
The Equality Act
I have used a number of useful pieces from Epoch Times but I am very disappointed in this piece from them. I will go through my points at the end of the article.
Owen Evans ( IN-DEPTH: Legal Victories Against Cancel Culture Could Backfire on Common Law Free Speech 25 October - this appears to have only just been re-published on Epoch Times because I have only just come across it) reports:
One by one, people who lost their jobs for criticising "white privilege," for saying that trans women are not women, or for challenging other progressive shibboleths have had their cases overturned in court in a series of key tribunal rulings.
But these apparent victories against cancel culture might actually be damaging free speech, according to some legal experts.
Why the concern? Because, in order to win their cases, these people are having to claim that their once run-of-the-mill views are "protected beliefs," equivalent in law to a religious belief.
So although these cases have won freedom for individuals, some experts believe they are undermining the centuries-old common law assumption that all speech is inherently free. Though some argue that such times require carving out as much liberty out of the legal system as possible.
Gender-critical beliefs, that biological sex is "real, important, and immutable," is now a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010, legislation.
More recently, the right to hold and express views which are critical of Critical Race Theory (CRT) has been also protected under the same banner.
Last month, an employment Tribunal ruled that a worker, supported by the Free Speech Union, was expressing a legitimate philosophical belief when he asserted Martin Luther King Jr.'s "colourblind' approach to racism in opposition to "divisive" critical race theory.
To qualify as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act, the belief must satisfy five criteria set out at Grainger criteria, some of which include that the belief must be "genuinely held "and "not simply be an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available."
The belief must be proved a core and consistent part of a person's life. Some protected beliefs include humanism, atheism and spiritualism and even veganism.
However, some warn that normalising this approach, meaning that all speech that is protected has to fall into a religion-like belief system, is "paving the way for a kind of secular theocracy."
'Heretical View'
Anna Loutfi
Anna Loutfi, barrister and head of legal at the Bad Law Project told The Epoch Times that protected belief free speech wins could result in short-term gains.
An example of one of the Bad Law Project's cases is that of Amy Gallagher, who was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for questioning critical race theory, and who, as a Christian, was forced to attend anti-racism training where she was told that Christianity was linked to racism.
Miss Loutfi explained that in a society that genuinely assumes that the world is round, freedom of expression at common law would protect the idea that people can say it's flat.
"And that could be described by a judge as a heretical view, but one that is nonetheless protected," she said.
"But gender ideology thing has exposed something else going on," she said, adding that there no protections for opinions in the Equality Act.
Ms. Loutfi noted the case of Maya Forstater, who lost her job at a thinktank after tweeting that transgender women could not change their biological sex. Ms. Forstater consequently won in the employment tribunal, alleging direct discrimination and harassment because of her “gender-critical” beliefs.
"If you go through the Equality Law route, which is what people are now doing, very few people rely on common law of freedom of expression . They rely on the idea that their view whatever they've expressed, is actually a belief system," said Ms. Loutfi.
"It's a belief, and therefore it's protected, so religion becomes a way of assessing whether something that someone expresses is worthy of protection," she said, meaning one has to prove their belief system is as important as, for example, a Muslim worldview.
She that that [ Dusty - typo here - maybe ‘says that’] if all speech that is protected has to fall into a belief system that is like religion, that will pave the way for "a kind of secular theocracy."
She also said that "now we've got a culture that is totally dominated by the concept of anti-discrimination, equality and inclusion, which is policy everywhere in the public and private sectors."
"It's just moved the conversation to a framework where legislation and policy that deals with equality, inclusion and anti-discrimination has become the framework for understanding speech," she added.
"If you move to a codified system, you can do what the law tells you can do, there's no presumption of liberty," she warned.
She said that the view that "sex is is immutable and you can't change sex happens to be the consensus view in society."
But she added that gender, which trump's sex as a fluid idea in someone's head, is the "fringe view."
"It is what we might call an eccentric view, we might call it an offensive view," she said.
"And I would say that under common law, people who argue for transgenderism as a concept and trans rights should be protected at common law, because even they with their heretical, marginal, strange views have a right to be heard," she added.
Though she said that because those who believe in two sexes are now protected as a belief system, what's been left unsaid is the transgender belief, has now "by the back door" been implied as the "common sense consensus."
Free Speech Union
Bryn Harris, chief legal counsel at the Free Speech Union told The Epoch Times that traditionally with basic liberties in this country, "it was presumed that you were free to do it unless the law said otherwise."
Mr. Harris said that while some employers will have a legitimate business need to control what their employees say, he believed that Equality Act should be limited to simply protecting ie not dismissing someone or treating someone less favourably on the basis of the beliefs they hold.
“But when it comes to manifestation, better expression, that should be dealt with by a new law, " he said, adding that that could be tricky but "not impossible" for Parliament to come up with the right test.
However, he added that there's a danger that we could end up with "powerful gatekeepers" at work tribunals, which are quite junior courts compared to the higher Court, who will determine when we deserve the right to free speech.
He added that the main problem, where the control over speech is, is the level of HR.
“And that's because the Equality Act incentivises, and makes it almost necessary, for employers to police closely what their employees say. And the reason for that is because the employer will be liable,” he said.
For example, talk amongst workers in a canteen may just be "banter" to some, but if the wrong thing is said, then employers are liable and they can be sued.
“We're going to continue to have very close intrusion into basic interactions between employees, and that, for me, is a major intrusion into day-to-day liberty," he said.
However, Mr. Harris said that he doesn't think the law should regulate every aspect of our lives.
"I don't think the law is competent to do that. I don't think courts are very good at assessing a canteen conversation that took place three years ago. So that's what I worry about, I do worry that possibility will continue or even worsen,” he said.
'Conflicts Between Two Sets of Freedom of Speech'
Peter Daley, employment lawyer of high-profile cases such as Ms. Forstater, LGB Alliance and Allison Bailey, told The Epoch Times while legal issues can drive culture, it is the root cause of free speech that must be fundamentally addressed.
“Maya [Forstater] explicitly said from the outset that although she was gender critical, people who are on the polar opposite side of the debate, are also protected,” he said.
But he said that the issue with having statutory freedom of speech protections and blanket ones is “that you will then run into straightforward conflicts between two sets of freedom of speech.”
“If you get to a point where you’re basically putting a suit of armour on two different sides of the same debate, you are going to have to have big mechanisms in place to ensure that those two great big armoured rhinos don't just take chunks out of each other,” he said.
“Which fundamentally, I don't think anybody really wants,” he added.
“The social benefit is in allowing room for a productive debate to take place, ideally with a view to some kind of social resolution through the exchange of ideas. There’s no obvious benefit in simply turbo-charging existing levels of toxicity.”
Mr. Daley said that when it comes to cancel culture and freedom of speech there is a “kind of perversion, even weaponisation of morals,” which means that people can be treated in “really unconscionable ways.”
“Once you identify your opponent as not just wrong but as morally evil, you are then given self-granted licence to treat them in a way which would otherwise be unacceptable. That is at the root of the extremes of language and conduct that we see.”
Ultimately he said while it’s possible to legislate, the issue comes from culture.
“Of course, legal issues can drive culture, but I think you've got to fundamentally address the root cause of it. You've got to have legal redress for people who are treated unlawfully. But all that is is a route to a remedy when something's gone wrong,” he added.
“But that legal mechanism doesn’t—in and of itself—stop the wrong happening in the first place. That’s a question of cultural, rather than solely legal, factors,” he said.
'Anti-Woke'
Eric Kaufmann
Leading researcher into cancel culture, Eric Kaufmann told The Epoch Times that we are "best off using the tools in the Equality Act to carve out as much speech protection as we can."
In a recent article for the Critic with lawyer and academic James Murray, Mr. Kaufmann, explored if being "anti-woke" could count as a protected philosophical belief.
"We believe that an individual may hold a sincere philosophical belief in “cultural liberalism” (anti-wokeness) worthy of protection, as distinct from and inherently preferable to “cultural socialism” (wokeness)," they wrote.
"This is about the perfect being the enemy of the good," Mr. Kaufmann told The Epoch Times.
He said that unless we can repeal all protected categories, which is not feasible in the current political climate, if we opt to not expand protected categories, or not to use the Equality Act for philosophical belief, "we get the worst of all worlds, that is, progressive categories are protected while conservative ones are not."
"And so, we are best off using the tools in the Equality Act to carve out as much speech protection as we can, trying to push it towards what would be under Common Law. And the more the conservative categories are protected the more those who push equality law might start to rethink their aggressive campaign against speech," he said.
Mr. Kaufmann added that unless we can repeal all equality law and "truly mean it," then the next best option is to expand protected categories and protected speech.
"Gender critical views will not be viewed as fringe, here I don’t think the law will shape cultural understandings. Rather there will be a contest of views and we must keep making the legal case that GC views are protected and are actually the mainstream of public opinion," he said.
With all due deference to the expert lawyers, here are my points:
Taking the quote: “…these apparent victories against cancel culture might actually be damaging free speech, according to some legal experts.” I don’t see this at all. Let’s have a look at some of the main cases (only two of which are quoted in the article):
Maya Forstater v CGD;
Denise Fahmy v The Arts Council;
Allison Bailey v Garden Court Chambers;
Harry Miller v The College of Policing.
In all of these cases, detrimental action ( including dismissal) was taken against the claimant for exercising his or her right to express gender critical views in his or her spare time. So these cases were, effectively, defending free speech as opposed to damaging it!?
The Equality Act 2010 says you must not be discriminated against because: you are (or are not) of a particular religion; you hold (or do not hold) a particular philosophical belief; someone thinks you are of a particular religion or hold a particular belief (this is known as discrimination by perception).
With regard to the assertion that:
“However, some warn that normalising this approach, meaning that all speech that is protected has to fall into a religion-like belief system, is ‘paving the way for a kind of secular theocracy.’”
I don’t see how belief in a gender critical viewpoint ( we would probably say belief in the truth or in reality but we have to use the phrasing of the Act) can be equated with religion or a kind of ‘secular theocracy’!? I think it is the trans rights activists who are acting like members of a cult as many people often point out!
With regard to the quote by Bryn Harris:
“…the Equality Act incentivises, and makes it almost necessary, for employers to police closely what their employees say. And the reason for that is because the employer will be liable…”
Some examples of what Bryn means here would be useful. I don’t believe it really is quite as onerous on employers as Bryn suggests.
I maintain that the Equality Act remains the best way of prosecuting cases where someone has had detrimental action taken against them because of their exercise of free speech. I am afraid that, with all due respect, this article is unhelpful and muddled.
All thoughts gratefully received, of course.
‘Gender Affirming Care’ for Children
Thanks to a wonderful reader for these two FFS pieces. Shocking that children as young as 3 and 4 were referred to GIDS!!?? Even more shocking that Mermaids want the practice to continue!!
Martin Beckford in The Mail Online (Dozens of under-5s have been referred to the controversial NHS transgender service as officials consider introducing a minimum age for referrals 26 December) reports:
More than 70 children aged three and four have been sent to the controversial NHS transgender clinic, it can be revealed.
The pre-schoolers were among 382 youngsters aged six and under referred to the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) over the past decade, official figures show.
Campaigners say they never should have been put forward by doctors or parents for psychological assessment at such a young age.
Health Service bosses are now considering introducing a minimum age of seven for future patients on the grounds that younger children are unable to communicate meaningfully with medics about wanting to identify as the opposite sex.
A new consultation by NHS England also acknowledges that little boys showing an interest in girls' clothes or toys, or vice versa, is 'reasonably common' and 'usually not indicative of gender incongruence'.
It comes ahead of a long-awaited final report by consultant paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass, which is expected to make further far-reaching recommendations about transgender services for young people after her interim study led to GIDS being ordered to shut down.
The Government is also trying to stop the spread of contentious gender identity ideology in schools, with equalities minister Kemi Badenoch declaring that teaching children they can be born in the wrong body is harmful.
The GIDS clinic, run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in north London since 1989, had no lower age limit on referrals – but not all were accepted or led to treatment being provided.
Statistics produced by the trust show the astonishing growth in numbers of young people seen there over the past decade, from 136 in 2010-11 to 3,585 in 2021-22.
Further details show that 12 three-year-olds were referred to the clinic over that period, along with 61 four-year-olds, 140 five-year-olds and 169 six-year-olds.
The NHS trust that runs GIDS stressed no three-year-olds would have received 'treatment', with staff normally holding a 'one-off discussion' with parents or carers to provide support and advice.
But former health minister Jackie Doyle-Price hit out at the clinic last night, saying: 'They should never have been seeing three-year-olds.
'There needs to be a clear message that goes out to let kids be kids. Let them play and use their imaginations. We shouldn't be medicalising something which is just growing up.'
She said part of the problem with GIDS was that activist groups were referring children, rather than only doctors.
'There should only be a medical pathway for referrals in future,' she said.
Stephanie Davies-Arai of campaign group Transgender Trend said: 'Children really don't need gender clinics. Unfortunately, some parents are now worried that their gender non-conforming child may have been 'born in the wrong body' and need professional help. This has been pushed by transgender activists who have no understanding of perfectly normal childhood developmental stages.'
She said the new minimum age of seven may seem like an improvement but warned: 'The problem is that by that age, the parent may have 'socially transitioned' their child for years so the child arrives at the clinic fully convinced they are really the opposite sex.
'What's really needed is sensible training for all NHS health professionals who can advise parents on ways to support their child to be happy as they are, without the need for future hormones or surgery.'
The full report is here:
Connor Stringer and Martin Beckford in The Mail Online ( Trans charity Mermaids insists under-7s should still be referred to the NHS gender clinic after dozens of children are waitlisted for the controversial service 27 December) report:
A controversial trans charity has argued that under-sevens should continue to be referred to the NHS transgender clinic.
More than 70 children aged three and four have been sent to the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) over the past decade, the Daily Mail revealed yesterday.
NHS England is now considering introducing a minimum age of seven for future patients on the grounds that younger children are unable to communicate meaningfully with medical staff about wanting to identify as the opposite sex.
But Mermaids, a transgender youth support charity, says 'there is no justification for limiting a referral to those aged over seven'.
It also suggests that teachers and social workers should be allowed to refer children to NHS gender clinics.
Stephanie Davies-Arai
Later in the article it is stated:
Stephanie Davies-Arai, of the campaign group Transgender Trend, said: 'Mermaids knows that children need to be on the Tavistock waiting list at an early age to be certain of being seen at the age they can be prescribed puberty blockers.
'No child understands what it means to be a man or a woman until they have gone through puberty and become adults.
'Mermaids has no understanding of child and adolescent development and their influence at the Tavistock led to a service that was deemed unsafe and is due to be closed down this year.'
Mermaids has been mired in controversy in recent years and is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission after identifying concerns about its 'governance and management'.
When on earth is this long overdue investigation into this awful and malevolent group going to conclude?
The full article is here:
Feminist Legal Clinic
Shout out as ever to FLC and two pieces from them; the first a real FFS report from Julie Bindel; the second an indication that debate on so called ‘gender ideology’ is well under way now in New Zealand.
Gender ideology and child abuse apologism: the undeniable links | Julie Bindel (28 December)
News recently out of the Gender Clinic at the Tavistock that the number of children put on puberty blockers has doubled over the last year to 100 is clearly a major cause for concern regarding the protection and safety of our children. Even more worrying is the evidence, emerging pro-paedophile groups are also involved in campaigning to normalise gender reassignment for children. The starkest example is that of a German sociologist and gay rights advocate, Rüdiger Lautmann, who has argued that children from the age of seven should be able to live as the opposite sex without parental knowledge or consent. He has also written a notorious book, which advocates for paedophilia to be recognised as a “sexual orientation like any other”.
And most shockingly of all, until last year, he was involved in creating a number of day care centres for children in Berlin as part of a “queer education” project. Following a public outcry, he was kicked out of the organisation, but it seems clear that Lautmann is not the only individual that advocates for the transgendering of children who is also a paedophile apologist.
For those that think the bad old days of the Paedophile Information Exchange, the vile lobby group that infiltrated the National Council for Civil Liberties in the 1970s are over, think again.
Just look at Jacob Breslow, a former trustee at Mermaids, the organisation that campaigns for access to puberty blockers for ‘gender dysphoric’ kids. Breslow resigned from his position at Mermaids and took a leave of absence from his academic post when it was discovered he was a sympathetic advocate for paedophiles.
Lautmann has been calling for an end to the age of consent since 1979. One of his close associates is Helmut Kentler, a paedophile and sexologist. He claimed that paedophiles’ “lust for children” leads them to have a strong desire to take care of them. Wanting to see whether they would make good foster parents, he ran a project that actually placed foster children with paedophiles, in order to test out his theory.
It seems that those who support ‘transitioning’ children often work hand-in-hand with those wishing to gain sexual access to children.
Anyone protesting extreme transgender ideology and paedophilia apologism is accused of being bigoted and on the extreme right.
Although Lautmann denies that he is a paedophile apologist, he was a member of the board of trustees of a Human Sexuality Working Group, which, at that time took the position that children can consent to sex with adults. The evidence speaks for itself. Protecting children from transgender ideology could well protect them from sexual abuse.
Source: Gender ideology and child abuse apologism: the undeniable links
Sex, gender, and listening rather than insulting each other | Waikato Times ( 28 December)
This piece is by Sue Middleton, a Professor of Education at Waikato University, and is about New Zealand’s ‘Relationships and Sexuality Education’ guidelines.
Winston Peters was no doubt aware that ‘gender ideology’ had become contentious across a wide political spectrum and surmised that targeting it could potentially attract votes from two very different constituencies, who were usually at opposite ends of the political spectrum: conservative voters (including lobby groups such as Family First); and ‘historically left’, but politically disaffected, ‘gender critical’ feminists (including researchers, health professionals and parents). Albeit resting on different political and ethical foundations, both factions had produced critiques of the guidelines’ definitions of, and conflation between sex, gender, and related terminology. Written in dictionary format, the guidelines’ glossary implies consensus on the meaning of key terms, but concepts such as ‘gender’ and ‘gender identity’ remain objects of dispute. Why?
‘Gender critical’ feminist researchers have critiqued (and opposed aspects of) recent changes to legislation, data gathering, and regulations in which ‘objective’ biological sex categories – male, female, or (rarely) intersex – are being replaced with ‘gender’ categories into which one self-identifies. This, they argue, undermines women’s hard-won sex-based rights and protections – including single-sex sports, spaces to undress, health services, and access to accurate statistical data on sex. It is possible to protect the health, rights, freedoms, and safety of gender non-conformists, they argue, – including those identifying as trans – without diluting these sex-based rights and protections.
In the guidelines, ‘sex’ is defined conventionally as biological – male, female, or intersex. In contrast, ‘gender’ is “an individual identity related to a continuum of masculinities and femininities. A person’s gender is not fixed or immutable.” It is psychological; a characteristic of an individual’s personality or behaviour. Until recently, this psychological notion of ‘gender identity’ was virtually unknown beyond the medical context in which it was ‘invented.’ In the 1950s medical scientists performed non-consensual surgeries to reconfigure ambivalent infant bodies according to binary norms. They imported the word ‘gender’ from linguistics to name a condition in which a person’s ‘psychological sex’ – their feeling of being masculine or feminine – did not conform to the category to which doctors had assigned them. Amongst biologically ‘normal’ infants, such psychological gender incongruence was rare and seen mainly in boys. Today this is known as gender dysphoria.
Until around a decade ago, ‘gender’ was commonly understood as a sociological, not a psychological, category. As Dr Rachel Dixon, quoted in your article, explains, it refers to the stereotyped roles, expectations, behaviours and personal qualities expected of men and women. These vary historically and culturally. During the 1970s-90s, ‘second wave’ feminists worked to abolish ‘gender stereotypes.’ It was fine for girls (females) to present as ‘masculine’, and boys (males) as ‘feminine.’ Homosexuality meant same sex attraction. But the guidelines redefine a homosexual person as ‘sexually attracted to people of the other binary gender,’ thus overturning the meaning of ‘same sex’ attraction. Lesbians (female attracted females) report being vilified for rejecting self-identified ‘lesbian’ but biologically male sexual partners.
From around 2010, there was growing international concern that young people, especially teenage girls, who did not conform to (outdated) gender stereotypes – and who often exhibited an array of other complex psychological conditions – were increasingly rejecting, and seeking (irreversible) medical transitioning of, their ‘wrong bodies.’
Unless they follow international research, the New Zealand public have been largely deprived of information they need to engage with controversies around the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones with gender distressed youth.
As the lead writer of the guidelines, Professor Katie Fitzpatrick, expressed it, “the more we talk about this and open this up for discussions and understanding, it’s actually better than trying to shut down the conversation.
Source: Sex, gender, and listening rather than insulting each other | Waikato Times
World Health Organisation
The WHO have announced that they will be drafting guidelines on ‘transgender health care’. Garry Ross on the Glinner Update looks at a certain…how can I put this?… nasty creep calling himself Florence Ashley who they have included on their advisory group for the guidelines! You couldn’t make this stuff up.
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-fix-is-in-again
I wonder how many of the other appointees will be on a par with Mr Ashley? The other interesting question is: why are WHO doing this? Are WPATH actually about to collapse!? I had heard that WHO may take on some of the WPATH nutters? Where are the WPATH files that Michael Shellenberger promised? We need them ASAP!!
My new name for the WHO is the WOO WHO 😊
Julie Bindel
More Julie! She has written an excellent article in The Daily Mail.
JULIE BINDEL: This gender ideology is nothing less than a crime against a generation (27 December)
When I was a child in the 1960s and 70s, I wanted to be a boy. I could see from a very early age that boys were given very much more freedom than girls.
They didn't have to wear uncomfortable tights and dresses, they got better toys and, best of all, they didn't have to play within sight of their parents because of 'stranger danger'.
My brother, meanwhile, wanted to be a dinosaur and even used to tell people he was one. No one seemed to mind because everybody knows children have rich interior lives – which is why the fantasy worlds created by the likes of Roald Dahl and JK Rowling have attracted such massive followings.
This is all healthy and good as long as the children concerned are happy, loved and supported.
But I know from four decades of campaigning to end child abuse and hearing heart breaking individual stories that children who are unhappy often try to run away from their pain by divorcing themselves from reality.
Julie Bindel
Such behaviour is often observed in girls who are being sexually abused. Others do it simply because they feel they don't fit in. If they have been picked on for being more interested in football than Barbie, they might convince themselves that all their problems would be solved if only they became a boy.
Similarly, many boys are not interested in the physical and stereotypically male world of rugby or climbing trees and might prefer being at home cooking or crocheting.
It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them, or even that these kids will grow up gay or lesbian, just that they think differently.
Over the last generation, our society has thankfully moved away from compelling children to be 'proper' boys and girls. But now all that has changed in a very disturbing way.
The full article is here:
The British Woocasting Corporation!
Richard Ashmore in The Daily Express ( BBC backlash over feeding viewers a 'diet of bias' in major breach of impartiality rules 27 December) reports:
The BBC has been accused of confronting viewers with a diet of "woke bias" after new research suggested the corporation was failing to uphold its impartiality plan.
The survey looked at the licence fee-funded broadcaster's drama and news output and campaigners claim it showed bias when covering issues around race and gender.
On the news website an average of one story a week was found to have been published on the slave trade, and in the children's series Doctor Who it was implied the time traveller could be gay and it was debated if an alien should have gendered pronouns.
In February Radio 4's PM programme issued an apology after branding celebrated author JK Rowling transphobic without any discussion of an opposing view.
The full article is here:
Women’s Sport
Three pieces here and thanks to the same wonderful reader for one of these.
The first one (from Reuters!!) is a very useful ( and encouraging) summary of where we have got to with women’s sports.
Lori Ewing at Reuters ( Sport-Pendulum swings towards tighter measures against transgender athletes 27 December) reports:
New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard's appearance at the 2020 Tokyo Games as the first openly transgender woman to compete at the Olympics received mixed reviews in one of the most contentious areas in sport.
In the end, Hubbard retired after an inauspicious performance in Tokyo where she [ Dusty - HE!!] failed to record a valid lift.
Fast forward to 2023 and she would find herself ineligible for next year's Paris Games after the International Weightlifting Federation tightened its eligibility rules.
Heading into 2024, there has been a seismic shift in the sporting landscape for trans athletes with the pendulum swinging back towards tighter measures on a divisive issue that has virtually no grey area.
In March, World Athletics banned transgender women who had gone through male puberty from elite female competitions - a decision federation president Sebastian Coe said was based "on the overarching need to protect the female category".
Athletics followed a similar move made by World Aquatics in 2022 and more sport organisations have followed suit.
The full article is here:
And then an excellent piece written by Daley Thompson in The Daily Mail coming out on our side of the argument which is marvellous news! Go, Daley!
If trans athletes can compete in female events, then women's sport is finished, writes Olympic gold medallist DALEY THOMPSON (29 December)
Competing in the decathlon – at which I won the gold medal at the 1980 and 1984 Olympic Games – I've seen performances by some inspirational women.
But the truth is, no matter how hard they trained, they could never have matched my times (other than the 1,500 metre run, where some women could beat me).
My physique was too different – too male. It would have been grossly unfair for me to compete against them. My victory would have been a travesty.
So when I see trans women like American swimmer Lia Thomas or Canadian cyclist Veronica Ivy (formerly known as Rachel McKinnon) on the podium, I know they are biologically male and physical advantage has helped them to win.
All my sporting instincts rebel against that. For sport to mean anything, it must be fair.
That's why we need clarity – such as that offered by Boris Johnson, who said: 'I don't think biological males should be competing in female sporting events. Maybe that's a controversial thing to say, but it just seems to me to be sensible.
'I also happen to think that women should have spaces – whether it's in hospitals, prison or changing rooms – which are dedicated to women.'
I, too, strongly oppose allowing trans women to take part in female sports. I don't consider this controversial, nor political. It's about fairness.
The full article is here:
In the next article Daley joins with our sporting heroes Sharron Davies and Martina Navratilova in backing a very important report on women’s sport from the think tank The Policy Exchange.
Stuart Ballard on GB News ( Transgender athletes accused of 'stealing medals' in women's sport as bitter row rages on 28 December) reports:
Sharron Davies
British swimming icon Sharron Davies has accused transgender athletes of "stealing medals" from women and girls with a fresh plea for national bodies to step in and make changes.
Davies joined fellow Olympian Daley Thompson and tennis legend Martina Navratilova in backing a report from the Policy Exchange think tank that argued transgender inclusion in women's sports threatens "the entirety of female sport".
The report has called for the Government to withdraw funding from any governing body that refuses "to update their policies to ensure there is a protected female single‑sex category".
Davies has been outspoken about the inclusion of transgender athletes in female sport and hailed the decision from World Athletics earlier this year to ban biological males from competing in female international events.
The full article is here:
You can find the Policy Exchange report Levelling the playing field here:
https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/levelling-the-playing-field/
Glinner
In case you miss it, great interview with Glinner by the Triggernometry Boys:
Comedians’ Review of the Year
And more from the Triggernometry boys interviewing Andrew Doyle and Geoff Norcott. The discussion of gender is between about 36 mins to one hour starting with the hilarious Nicola Sturgeon TV interview about the double rapist! Also see Geoff Norcott peak in real time 😊
Endpiece
On the subject of women’s sport, over to Francis Aaron 😎
Have a lovely terfy new year, TT.
Excellent update, Dusty; will X it to @pittparents & others as usual. Thanks & a terfy new year to you & yours.