Iirc, the big instance declaring immediately that it would defederate with them was one that’s very well known for being strict with moderation and had firm rules about anti-trans instances. Because the BBC has a history of being anti-trans, they defederated.
That’s quite a revelation to me, it has more of a reputation of being extremely liberal and indeed any even remotely right winger here usually whinges and moans about how “woke” it is 🤷🏻♂️
Do you know what in particular triggered their stance that they believed the BBC anti-trans?
They don’t have a liberal stance. They will cover some issues of importance to liberals, but they’ve always tried to being in conflict with the party of government. The last time they got into conflict - and this wasn’t “being liberal” so much as wanting to show a diverse set of opinions - was during the Thatcher administration, and they had conservatives like Rees Mogg appointed to their board as a result.
On top of which, British “liberalism” is pretty sick at the moment when it comes to LGBT rights. Even the Guardian, which was a liberal newspaper at one point, has no problem posting transphobic material from their regular columnists or overblowing anti-trans “scandals”. They’ve had trouble keeping staff (one example) because they didn’t want to be associated with the transphobia of the UK part of the group.
Sadly in UK transphobia seems to be pretty common in liberals and liberal institutions. I think that is because in UK the idea to connect transphobia with “womens rights” was really successful and this results in otherwise really liberal / left leaning / feminist individuals & groups to be actively anti-trans. As far as i know even otherwise trust worthy news papers like the guardian plattform anti trans talking points.
That’s a total misunderstanding of what the BBC is. As a public broadcaster representing the whole of the UK, it has a duty to represent all views. While I personally disagree with them, gender critical or TERF views are extant in the UK at present and the public conversation on where this will all land legally is still ongoing, therefore they have an obligation to hear from all sides, no matter how unpalatable one of them may be to some.
Because by and large society has decided that racism is a bad and unacceptable thing. There’s pockets of it about but no one is taking that seriously. The current discussion around gender and how society moves to accommodate peoples exploration of their identity in the modern world is still very much ongoing.
I don’t agree with the gender critical or “TERF” arguments, I’m very much of the belief that everyone should be allowed to identify and live as their chosen gender with access to the rights and services that dictates. However some people don’t, for various reasons.
We can call them bigots and attempt to shun them and hide them away, but it’s not going to stop smaller news outlets that are actually bigoted like GBNews or Talk TV having them on without the pro-Trans counterpoint that the BBC would have.
Better to shine a light on these people and force them to justify their beliefs in a neutral environment than spred then in one that’s already in agreement with them no?
Still not really relevant. The BBC’s role is to report objectively and impartially. Posting a “Trans are perving on lesbians” thing as if it’s a giant problem that lesbians are facing when there’s no serious problem with trans people harassing lesbians and when your source is a self-admitted rapist isn’t being objective or impartial. It’s taking a side.
No, you don’t get a pass for effectively lying to the public because a higher proportion of the public wants to hear “Trans people are sexual harassers” than want to hear that Black people are.
They’re not showing transphobes to tear them down. Transphobes are being allowed to make the programming.
I’m not in favor of defedding the BBC, but let’s not pretend they have some legitimate right to punch down on a harmless, vulnerable, minority, be it trans people, Jews, or anyone else.
Iirc, the big instance declaring immediately that it would defederate with them was one that’s very well known for being strict with moderation and had firm rules about anti-trans instances. Because the BBC has a history of being anti-trans, they defederated.
The BBC has a history of being antitrans?
That’s quite a revelation to me, it has more of a reputation of being extremely liberal and indeed any even remotely right winger here usually whinges and moans about how “woke” it is 🤷🏻♂️
Do you know what in particular triggered their stance that they believed the BBC anti-trans?
There is a series by Shaun (a Youtuber) about anti trans stuff at the BBC and one article in particular.
First of 4 Videos is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4buJMMiwcg
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=b4buJMMiwcg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Thank you for that, most interesting.
It’s odd given their usually quite liberal stance… I wonder if there some old conservatism creeping in with the Tories being in power for so long…?
They don’t have a liberal stance. They will cover some issues of importance to liberals, but they’ve always tried to being in conflict with the party of government. The last time they got into conflict - and this wasn’t “being liberal” so much as wanting to show a diverse set of opinions - was during the Thatcher administration, and they had conservatives like Rees Mogg appointed to their board as a result.
On top of which, British “liberalism” is pretty sick at the moment when it comes to LGBT rights. Even the Guardian, which was a liberal newspaper at one point, has no problem posting transphobic material from their regular columnists or overblowing anti-trans “scandals”. They’ve had trouble keeping staff (one example) because they didn’t want to be associated with the transphobia of the UK part of the group.
Sadly in UK transphobia seems to be pretty common in liberals and liberal institutions. I think that is because in UK the idea to connect transphobia with “womens rights” was really successful and this results in otherwise really liberal / left leaning / feminist individuals & groups to be actively anti-trans. As far as i know even otherwise trust worthy news papers like the guardian plattform anti trans talking points.
deleted by creator
It’s the official broadcaster of TERF island. Even their foremost left wing newspaper is transphobia central.
It still makes me so sad to see what’s become of the Guardian.
That’s a total misunderstanding of what the BBC is. As a public broadcaster representing the whole of the UK, it has a duty to represent all views. While I personally disagree with them, gender critical or TERF views are extant in the UK at present and the public conversation on where this will all land legally is still ongoing, therefore they have an obligation to hear from all sides, no matter how unpalatable one of them may be to some.
Lol no, because as far as i can tell they dont do it with other forms of bigotry like racism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/impartiality-and-racism
Because by and large society has decided that racism is a bad and unacceptable thing. There’s pockets of it about but no one is taking that seriously. The current discussion around gender and how society moves to accommodate peoples exploration of their identity in the modern world is still very much ongoing.
I don’t agree with the gender critical or “TERF” arguments, I’m very much of the belief that everyone should be allowed to identify and live as their chosen gender with access to the rights and services that dictates. However some people don’t, for various reasons.
We can call them bigots and attempt to shun them and hide them away, but it’s not going to stop smaller news outlets that are actually bigoted like GBNews or Talk TV having them on without the pro-Trans counterpoint that the BBC would have.
Better to shine a light on these people and force them to justify their beliefs in a neutral environment than spred then in one that’s already in agreement with them no?
Still not really relevant. The BBC’s role is to report objectively and impartially. Posting a “Trans are perving on lesbians” thing as if it’s a giant problem that lesbians are facing when there’s no serious problem with trans people harassing lesbians and when your source is a self-admitted rapist isn’t being objective or impartial. It’s taking a side.
No, you don’t get a pass for effectively lying to the public because a higher proportion of the public wants to hear “Trans people are sexual harassers” than want to hear that Black people are.
They’re not showing transphobes to tear them down. Transphobes are being allowed to make the programming.
I’m not in favor of defedding the BBC, but let’s not pretend they have some legitimate right to punch down on a harmless, vulnerable, minority, be it trans people, Jews, or anyone else.
I had no role in the instance’s decision; don’t try to argue against their decision with me. I’ve got no say in it.
It’s a difficult design but generally speaking I don’t think news has an obligation to provide both sides.
A. They should not run editorials
B. If they do run editorials presenting both sides is equal to endorsement.
This isn’t the 1960s where the only way to be heard is via letters to the editor.
“Both sides” is BS
Whether you or I may think that, if it’s in their remit, then that’s their job.
Different presenters can have different positions on issues no?