The BBC is running stories sympathetic to transexuals on a virtually daily basis.
“When lifelong Republican Jennifer Williams arrived at the party’s National Convention in Cleveland this summer, she felt nervous. Although she was excited to be an honorary delegate for New Jersey, she was worried about how others would respond to her.
She had attended many political events before this, including both of President George W Bush’s inaugurations, but this was to be her first party convention – and one of the first political gatherings she would attend as Jennifer.
As the sole transgender delegate at the event, so far as she could tell, she knew there was a possibility some would not welcome her with open arms.
“I was wary of my surroundings” she says. “But I did allow myself extra time to find a less crowded bathroom whenever I could and always made sure to confidently smile and chat.”
This elevation of these poor mentally conflicted people is now a daily part of the BBC agenda.
Quite amazing how much coverage George Soros’s money will buy, isn’t it?
Victoria Derbyshire is obsessed with promoting everything transexual on her morning shows (BBC 9:15 am)
Her obsession with it is nauseating!
Victoria Derbyshire is the eptiome of so much that is wrong with the BBC. She appeared out of nowhere and despite having no obvious abilities was one of those people on whom the BBC’s star seemed to shine (so much so that you have to wonder whose wing she was under and why). We have seen this before with BBC favourites like the atrocious Jo Brand, Jonathan Ross, Fiona Bruce and others. None of them had any outstanding qualities and all of them were given opportunity after opportunity to the point when they were being stuffed down our throats.
Despite being an almost complete talent vacuum, Derbyshire has been pushed and polished and promoted until she is has become major figure in broadcasting. Other than that she is reliably on the far Left on any given subject you have to ask one question – why?
She’s about as talented as those hard left, off-the-planet Guardian contributors we sometimes read about, GC.
Oh, I think I just answered your question.
Vesnadog.
Maybe VD is ‘itself’, transgender?
Men get breast cancer too, after all.
Unlikely? Perhaps, but a logical possibility to explain the observed behaviour you mention.
Sluff.
She is a female as she supports my own town football club, Bolton Wanderers! She was born female but possibly had a change then decided to change back again! As we know, anything goes these days!
Her daily show usually promotes transgenderism or a aggressive kind of feminism or when gay men form pacts/agendas to either donate their sperm for gay couples to have their own children etc.
This morning she is promoting a Muslim couple were the wife is in prison in Iran! A spokesperson (female of course) from amnesty international is on her show explaining to her what they are doing to get this wife back to the UK.
Now if it was a Christian/Jewish couple…
Sluff,
And may I add: If it was an Atheist couple…
Her relationship with senior editor Mark Sandell will certainly have helped her career in the BBC, as was the case with Fi Glover, to whom Sandell was married for two years before he left her and set up home with Victoria Derbyshire some time ago.
I don’t know how the BBC cesspit works; it may be that someone like Sandell can push a particular ‘protegee’ so far but, presumably, others have to decide who actually gets to host a show. What is almost certain is that Sandell, with over a quarter of a century at the Beeb, can tell VD what senior people in the BBC want to hear at any given moment (e.g. lots on ethnic minorities, transgender issues, post-Referendum ‘racism’, etc.)
VD, as a moderately intelligent Arts graduate – English Lit. [what else?] at Liverpool University, then journalism studies – can then do the necessary cut-and-paste work to further her career by giving the bosses what they want to hear. Standard careerism, where intellectual and moral integrity are a handicap and conformism is richly rewarded.
And thus a few of the pieces fall into place. Thank you for that!
I honestly can’t watch the woman.
Nor can I.
She has been pushed – But in fairness, she’s on when everyone else is watching other daytime TV shows, despite the constant plugging of her show, her audience is extremely limited / segmented. In fact at one time her show had an official audience level of zero.
I seem to recall, also that she does have another connection within the BBC; husband / partner / boyfriend??? So that might be the answer to your question.
Fiona Bruce has one outstanding ability – have you ever noticed how she can speak and simultaneously wag her head from side to side like the Churchill insurance bulldog ?
Yep, one for the ‘how do you do, fellow conservatives’ file.’She’ is a life-long Republican but now she’s worrying about the sudden turn towards the hardcore social conservatism of….. Donald Trump?
Meanwhile, in so far as the article includes such classic examples of question-begging loaded words as ‘her assigned gender at birth was male’ and ‘But the pressure of suppressing her true identity steadily mounted.’ can the BBC at least stop claiming that calling the guy machine gunning shoppers a ‘terrorist’ is a unwarranted value judgement?
There are so many lies wrapped up in this story that it is hard to know where to start. Not the least of them is that Trump is regarded as socially liberal!
As I’ve said before, the BBC has crossed the Rubicon with its coverage of this election. It is now no more reliable a source of accurate news reporting than radio Pyongyang. It’s not that it lies as much – it is just that you can no longer believe anything it says without checking elsewhere.
You are right, Trump is a New Yorker, and socially liberal. He has no trouble with gays, and I am sure he would have been happy to welcome this person to the Convention.
Likewise, he is not in the least racist, yet the BBC is determined to portray him as if he were an Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. In fact Hillary Clinton was closer to the KKK than Trump, as many of the senior Democrats from the Old South were members. She was a good friend of Robert Byrd, a Senator and ex Klan organiser. Not that you’d ever know it if you listen to the BBC.
Talking about Obama’s achievements while in office:
May 14, 2016 One news report discusses Obama and his vision for American schools here:
“The Obama administration told U.S. public schools on Friday that transgender students must be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice, upsetting Republicans and raising the likelihood of fights over federal funding and legal authority.
Conservatives pushed back against the administration’s non-binding guidance to schools, the latest battleground in the issue of rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the guidance “must be challenged.” “If President Obama thinks he can bully Texas schools into allowing men to have open access to girls in bathrooms, he better prepare for yet another legal fight,” Paxton, a Tea Party champion, said in a statement.
Other Republican-led states joined calls to disregard the White House’s directive and accused the administration of overstepping its role. In North Carolina, Governor Pat McCrory labeled the move a “massive executive branch overreach” and called on federal courts and the U.S. Congress to intercede, while Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson said it was “offensive, intrusive and totally lacking in common sense.”
The U.S. Education and Justice Departments, in a letter, told school districts nationwide that while the guidance carries no legal weight, they must not discriminate against students, including based on their gender identity. The guidance contained an implicit threat that school districts defying the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or be deprived of federal aid”.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-idUSKCN0Y403J
In response Franklin Graham said this:
“Who does President Barack Obama think he is? The sultan of Washington? Does he think he can just make a “decree” and we will bow down and simply obey? The decree he released today says that all schools across the country have to allow students to choose the restrooms and locker rooms according to “their internal sense of gender.” If schools don’t comply, he threatens loss of funding and lawsuits from the federal government. What about the privacy and protection of all the other students? Isn’t this discrimination against all of them? This opens up bathrooms to sexual predators and perverts. A decree does not carry the force of law–that’s the job of Congress. The president obviously must have no fear of God, who made us and created us male and female. I hope that school districts across this nation will defy President Obama and his administration’s radical progressive agenda to promote and advance the sin of homosexuality and the LGBT agenda”.
Bill Muelenberg, CultureWatch,
I was with that Muelenberg commentary until he called homosexuality a ‘sin’.
Actually, Franklin Graham said it.
Is it possible that the government is giving the bbc enough rope to hang itself? I’m probably just fantasising but it would be great if it was true.
Perhaps David you would enlighten us with your extensive qualifications in psychiatry and how it is that the extensive work of Dr Milton Diamond into the sexually dimorphic nucleus in humans, is incorrect ?
If you can’t of course then you just make yourself look like a bigotted idiot who is incapable of accepting scientific fact.
We Know for a FACT that trans sexuality is NOT a mental condition we know what causes it, and we can reproduce it in laboratory rats.
Yet again we see a man with deeply held but completely wrong beliefs attacking victims because he HATES them so much. Why on earth he cannot stick to the sites title and attack the people who use them instead of people suffering from a medical condition through no fault of their own, and who never asked for the BBC & their leftie mates to use them so cruelly.
Thoughtful… it’s a shame you aren’t!
Well said, Thoughtful.
Thoughtful, I don’t know if you have any medical qualifications but if you do you will know that the following is simply untrue: “We Know for a FACT that trans sexuality is NOT a mental condition ”
This is a very vexed and contentious area and it isn’t made any less so by people making things up in an effort to mitigate their own personal opinions and issues.
No it isn’t! The world over it is recognised as a valid medical condition, even in backward thinking countries like Iran! Odd that you would ever want to be in a position the wrong side of a country like that!
The US DSM V latest psychiatric publication classifies it as a ‘disorder’ NOT a mental condition.
http://www.ifge.org/302.85_Gender_Identity_Disorder_in_Adolescents_or_Adults
If you ever get a chance to watch “The boy who was turned into a girl” I suggest you do. The tale is a sad one of a boy whose botched circumcision meant that some foolish doctor thought he could be brought up as a girl as the human psyche is based on nurture. Needless to say the experiment failed – tragically, and led to Milton Diamonds work.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/boyturnedgirl_transcript.shtml
This isn’t just ‘settled’ science, this is peer reviewed fact, and whether you like it or not the condition is proven to exist whether you like it or not.
I agree that people shouldn’t make things up which is exactly what David Vance has done on this occasion.
As I have said before, the DSM is not holy writ and indeed its writ runs no further than the USA. Even within the USA not all practitioners agree with its conclusions which are, as is always the case, determined by current opinion among those who can be bothered to take part in the political shenanigans that lead to its compilation.
Let me remind you that it isn’t so very long ago that the prevailing psychiatric opinion in the USA (and the UK for that matter) was that homosexuality was a psychopathological condition. Homosexuality didn’t change but the DSM did, as the wind blew.
Transsexualism is still a much debated and little understood condition. Trying to pretend otherwise is mischievous. What is beyond doubt is that it has been hijacked by cultural Marxists for their own ends and that a lot of children are likely to be very badly damaged by well meaning idiots who fall prey to the ill-informed propaganda being pumped out by Left wing media.
GC, The only thing I ask on these pages is that we attack the ‘cultural Marxists’ (although that is now a dying descriptor) and not those people who never asked them to get involved. It is victim blaming of the worst kind.
Homosexuality was indeed thought of as a mental illness, now we believe it to be caused by a hormone imbalance in the first few weeks of pregnancy, again it can be reproduced in the lab.
If we go back a little further though people thought illness was caused by either demonic possession or witchcraft, we now know better.
Science moves on and we gain better understanding,this has indeed been the case in this area. I don’t agree it is little understood I believe now it almost fully understood (in terms of the causes) not necessarily the presentation.
I’m sorry, Thoughtful, that sort of reductionist argument isn’t an accurate reflection of current scientific thinking about either transsexualism or homosexuality. There is no agreed clear-cut ’cause’ of either condition and the debate, both among scientists and LGBT activists themselves, is as furious as ever.
“Transsexualism is still a much debated and little understood condition. Trying to pretend otherwise is mischievous.”
And that’s why people like the original post writer, who asserts that all transgender people must be subject to some sort of mental health issue, should be challenged.
He’s making assertions that aren’t backed up by peer reviewed research.
And, sadly, the ‘peer reviewed research’ is both hotly disputed and very thin on the ground.
It is hard to see how transsexuality cannot have a large psychological component. Whether it is primary or secondary may be open to debate (I have no opinion, personally) but the very presence of the condition in the DSM gives you at least some kind of hint as to the generally accepted medical view.
Whether you agree with DV’s turn of phrase or not, there can be no doubt that the Left has hijacked this issue for its own ends. The result of that will be increased suffering, not some golden, tolerant, future paradise.
‘Peer review’ means nothing these days, as Climategate conclusively proved.
Quite right, the DSM is not holy writ & many disorders are merely added to please certain groups such as feminists & the drug companies. Many states which were not considered illnesses before have been medicalised by this publication & others removed to suit certain political agendas. I have a copy of DSM IV & the subtitle is ‘Diagnostic & statistical manual of mental DISORDERS’. It does not specifically say ‘Illnesses’. I think that the distinction between a ‘disorder’ & an ‘illness’ is somewhat fuzzy in any case. In the DSM you have descriptions of e.g. schizophrenia & affective disorders which are regarded as ‘illnesses’ alongside descriptions of personality disorders which are considered as ‘disorders’. In the cases of schizophrenia & affective disorders no one has yet put forward a solid theory of the brain mechanics involved in both problems, the monoamine hypothesis of depression is so full of holes that most psychiatrists treat it with scepticism. I have no doubt however that seeing as how these problems can be influenced by drugs that there will one day be found a biochemical-mechanical theory to explain them, so that they then fall into the same ‘explained’ area as transgenderism, but they will still be regarded as illnesses, so why should transgenderism not be regarded as an illness just because someone has explained it? To have the physical body of one sex & believe that one is the opposite is clearly deluded & delusions are symptoms of psychosis, i.e. mental illness. I wish that these people, if they can’t do anything about the way they would stay in the closet instead of trumpeting their problem. Why should one regard them as victims? I suffer from essential tremor but I don’t regard myself as a victim of anything, no-one is to blame.
Thoughtful, there probably aren’t many people who would deny that transsexuals do in fact exist, and that it’s a physiological condition rather than mental illness, but are you sure, and I mean genuinely sure, that this is true for all cases? The point that you’re missing is that the daily promotion of transgender stories will undoubtedly lead some teenagers to question their own gender when no questioning is necessary. For some, the teenage years can be very confusing in terms of coming to terms with their sexuality, but this doesn’t mean they are transsexual. For example, let’s say a guy is finding himself attracted to other guys, rather than simply question his sexuality, he might start to erroneously question his gender. The endless BBC trans-gender stories are undoubtedly adding to this confusion and attempting to normalise something that manifestly isn’t normal. I consider this to be very dangerous and potentially damaging to our youngsters.
I have no beef with trans-gender, bi-sexual or gay people as individuals, none whatsoever. However, I (and I suspect most others) do have a problem with pressure groups that demand special treatment for these or any other minority groups. And I’m sorry, but special treatment includes having to modify our language in order to accommodate people’s sensitivities. Over the past few years, the BBC has clearly morphed into a pressure group and is aggressively promoting it’s pet minority groups, which appear to be almost every group except white heterosexual men. The BBC’s endless promotion of trans-gender stories is almost certainly counter-productive. Whereas most folk would simply not give a second thought to trans-gender people, I suspect it’s now the case that a lot of people are actively hostile to them because we are getting it rammed down our throats, as David says, on a daily basis.
Neil, you have written here more or less the same points I wished to make.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of kids who do ‘question’ their gender grow up to live normal lives their own skin.
This is why the NHS doesn’t treat them with hormones until they reach puberty. The fact that the left are prepared to irreversibly damage these kids simply for their own twisted ends is unconscionable.
I look at this woman in question and I see a woman – not some kind of odd hybrid thing. I cannot imagine why you think you are being forced to ‘modify’ your language in any way. If you had met someone like April Ashley and hadn’t known, would you have suddenly changed the pronoun if you did find out?
I’m sure David Vance would, and I’m sure he would have simply stood aside had some crazed loon, not much further along the spectrum than himself decided to kill her.
GCooper tells us that the issue is disputed, however even in that argument there is the space for the condition to be very real. Giving someone the correct pronoun even as a courtesy costs nothing.
And on that note here’s a list of words I expect people like David Vance use in everyday life – all could be said to be accurate:
Mong
Spaz
Tard
Raspberry ripple
And there are many more.
I’m sure that David Vance would not be so offensive as to call someone an incorrect (whatever you think it is!) across a table face to face, so what makes it right here?
I’m equally sure that he would not use derogatory language about coloured people, in fact I’ve seen him with Mo Ansar and never once did he call him a P**i or a Sand N***er. So it’s just this one group which makes it all the more puzzling.
Worse than that he played right in the hands of the very people he claims to be complaining about. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, David Vance blew his entire leg off!
You see what happens if you go outside this environment and do that. The discussion you want to have about the BBC will be entirely lost as the Fascist left pulls you apart over your ‘transphobia’, bigotry, and hate filled rhetoric.
You have two choices – you can either attack the BBC on their own ground, or you can attack the victims of the BBC, but you cannot do both. As soon as you attack the victims their false friends will leap to their defence claiming proof of hate and any discussion of the BBC won’t even happen.
Even in this environment this has happened, so goodness knows what would happen in a public environment.
‘I’m sure David Vance would, and I’m sure he would have simply stood aside had some crazed loon, not much further along the spectrum than himself decided to kill her.’
What diabolical thing to say.
Agreed. Completely uncalled for.
Suggesting I would be complicit in a murder of a person is beyond the pale. You may hold a different view than I do, which is fine. But to then go on to suggest “people like me” use the slang terms you deploy is a further insult to my character. I have NEVER used such and how dare you imply otherwise. I write about WHAT I want, when I want. All can differ but I will be damned if i allow you to come to my website and accuse me of such vile things.
So, let me get this right. It’s OK to be as offensive as it’s possible to be to Trans people, but its off limits to offend the disabled?
Perhaps you could explain that?
Or maybe how it is that you accuse the trans people of having some kind of mental illness – tantamount to a disability but that disability is OK to name call!
We are all born either male or female, chromosomes dictate which sex we are ( I refuse to use the term ‘gender’ as it plays into the lefts hands ).
Anything else aside from male or female is a mental health issue, we are not ‘born’ into the wrong bodies as much as the BBC like to promote it, indeed like race baiting in America the BBC are doing great harm to many vulnerable people.
It really is time to close it down, it is totally beyond reform.
Are you seriously suggesting that the BBC has a bent towards transgender ?
And disproportionately reports on it.
Where’s your evidence ?
Oh OK here’s a Google search of JUST news featuring transgender on the BBC THIS WEEK
Last week
2 weeks ago
What’s the context here ?
Trans stats seem so small that there is no official government number
just Trans Data Position Paper from 2007, putting the trans operative at 1,550 to 6,200
– The number including cross dressers is subject to wild guess of 65K to 300K
Well northern towns like Doncaster and Stockport have a population or about 300K but the BBC web-news (except for football) mentions them only 1 or 2 times each average week
However we can see transgender is covered 3 or 4 times more frequently than that.
The BBC demonstrates terrific lack of self awareness.
Hey lurkers from BBC staff, will you pay us sometime, for doing your quality control work?
They achieved gay marriage so they had to find another “wedge issue” to promote.
Yep there is someone in an NGO office , looking for an issue to work on, otherwise their funding will get taken away.
So it the reporting originates from a kind of funding bias.
Spot on! Homosexuality ceased to have any social-justice-warrior cachet so they have to find some new ‘controversy’ to generate concern, column inches and funding.
It reminds me of that episode of ‘Only Fools and Horses’ where Del Boy bought a job lot of ‘Free Nelson Mandela’ t-shirts just before Mandela was freed. So he got the t-shirts altered to read ‘He’s Free: Nelson Mandela.’
For two weeks now the crap shoot that is Laurie Taylors “Reel around the Fountain-Thinking Allowed(apparently) has been pushing ITS attempts to carry Marxian agitprop forward for Corbyn and Clinton.
Last week was some lesbian birdie researching her name on Google-oh dear, others have her name and so she`s less of a person now.
Also -blokes she met would like to take their girlfriends names but are not allowed too-poor women have long suffered this-why not blokes too.
Laurie liked this.
Then followed some shit about being shy…oh dear… poor Orville and his song seemingly not enough now.
THIS week was hungry students in the USA, England and Italy…not Sweden though where a migrant prof urged us all to give students a basic free income…and Clinton will surely act on this for her.Serial unadulterated Alinsky bottom wipes-as Laurie fearlessly “bites the hand that feeds him”.What a rebel-how long has this corduroy plimsoll beg pimped at the states vinegar paps…at our expense?
Fuck off Taylor you lefty cunt…I`m off to the sin bin now chewing on a Lifeboy…but feel better for that outburst…so thanks…just hate bleeding Laurie Taylor…no crime yet is it?
PS-am telling the lefty oafs at work about Froctober-where they will have to come in dressed as their wives for a month and give their salaries to the NHS sex change/reconditioned geezerbird cliniques…think SOME of the metrosex foppies are checking hat sizes…
Not ‘biting the hand that feeds you’ is basically fitting in with the ‘peer review’ system, a system designed to protect magazine editors working with papers outside their field of expertise, not a hallmark of research quality.
Laurie’s guests are always good for a laugh – today’s gem being that universities weren’t about competition – that’ll be two first class honours degrees then that the blighters owe me!
As to all this ‘gender’ rubbish this is just business as usual for the BBC, constantly trying to create division and to maintain the superiority of their own ‘U’ group against the rest of us ‘non-U’ plebs, (to use an old analogy). In their brave new world everything is ‘normal’ except the normal, which is to be despised.
She-may be a woman or a man
May be a grandad or a gran
May have a willy or may not…and that`s grand.
She may be a geezer or a bird
May be a man, a boy a girl
No matter how bizarre, absurd
You`d better not be seen or heard
Making fun of baldy beards
Who think they`re now Rears Of The Years
Because we`re all we wanna be…
In bass profundo, it is…she….
The media love stories about women identifying as men and vice versa, however they are not interested in men that identify as men and women that identify as women, for the simple reason the latter are normal and in a civilized society normality should be taken as the standard bearer. All other deviations from that norm should receive less attention and no promotion there is nothing to be gained from promoting abnormal behaviour.
Keep it in the closet where it belongs.
Jerry.
I show the following statement in case you didn’t see it last time .
“GLAAD Has A Problem With Men Playing Transgender Women
Just let the [following] headline sink in a minute:
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has a problem with Hollywood using men to portray transgender women in films. GLAAD’s Director of Programs Nick Adams said that Hollywood needs to get over the idea “that putting a male actor in a dress, wig and makeup is an accurate portrayal of a transgender woman.”
Let that sink in for another minute.
You see, while Adams is happy that Hollywood has successfully put transgender individuals at the front and center of various TV shows and projects– like TLC’s I Am Jazz and E!’s I Am Cait– he doesn’t understand why Hollywood thinks it’s OK to use men to play transgender women. I mean, you can’t just put a man in a dress and wig and call him a woman, am I right?
There’s so much unintentional irony in this.”
http://www.chicksontheright.com/glaad-problem-men-playing-transgender-women/?utm_source=YC&utm_medium=YC&utm_campaign=YC
vesnadog
Not only did I let it sink in, I had to read it twice before I could let it sink in such is the minefield of alleged ‘sexual orientation’.
I remember the good old days when a man was a man and a woman was a woman.
In fact those good old days still hold true as nature is nature and doesn’t change.
I look at Eddie Izzard and see a tranny with a mental illness, proof of his illness is that he is a socialist and pink beret’s don’t really suit a bloke.
Spot on!
Vesnadog, something similar happened in the 80s when it turned out that a white, middle class Anglican clergyman called, I think, Tobias Forward, had created a nom-de-plume of a radical leftist Muslim woman and had had novels published under her name which were feted by the leftist media. When they found out ‘she’ was actually a white, middle class Christian male, they were horrified and his books were accused of being ‘inauthentic’. He argued that he was merely filling a gap in the market by writing in a certain style, but his publishers (the lefty feminist Virago) weren’t having it and I believe his books were pulped.
I can’t remember that case? Most likely because I was living overseas during the 80s!
Still, New Zealand TV even then was awash with all things BBC yet I never saw any reports re your case.
I suspect some lobbying NGO is behind pushing for Transgender stories.
The main story above is written by a trainee journalist who is not obviously transgender or connected to an an NGO, but it seems to originate out of a bbcWS interview with BBC’s James Coomarasamy from Sept 13th
…and in Robin Lustig’s Twitter Timeline I see this
BTW how would anyone know ? Who is responsible for that count ? Seems like a made up stat
They ran the story on their Facebook page also but no one was interested
The wording they used is a kind of Stop Trump advert
Does the actual quote say that ? No \\”My jury is still out,” she says.// That seems in the middle rather than the negative the BBC implies
The essence of drama is conflict, and the essence of modern journalism is fairly similar. I have seen first hand how a journalist will work up a conflict out of nothing. Yes, some NGO probably is driving much of the ‘trans’ stories but you can be sure a lot of journalists are jumping on the bandwagon because they sense conflict like a shark smells blood. There’s no longer any real conflict over homosexual lifestyles so ‘trans’ has rushed into the vacuum.
Very good @Cranmer
“The essence of drama is conflict so journalists look for that”
So a lot of journalists are jumping on the trans bandwagon.
A journalist can work up a conflict out of nothing.”
..Yes some craft the news instead of report the news
“The Democrats have more transgender convention delegates ”
Do Michael Obama and H. Roddy Clinton count?
NEW : Times columnist complains to BBC about promoting transgender ideology Christian Concern-5 hours ago
My younger sister was a right tom boy growing up, preferred to dress in boy’s clothes and claimed she ‘wanted to be a boy’ too, not uncommon then and now. However, she’s now a happily married mother of three who enjoys putting on a dress and make up on those rare occasions she gets to go out, and I’m quite certain has no ‘gender doubts’ at all. Point is, leave those kids alone, and let nature take its course, it usually works itself out in the end.
Transgenderism, what ever the cause, is such a minority subject it hardly warrants regular news space. Must be very difficult for those who struggle with their born gender, I’m sympathetic, but honestly, the BBC has much more important things to report on.
I’d like to suggest that anyone who doubts the existence of powerful and exceptionally well-funded organisations promoting the current wave of ‘transgender’ coverage in the media, reads the following.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/11/george-soros-the-money-behind-the-transgender-move/
There have been numerous other revelations on this subject and ten minutes with Google will reveal them.
To add a small comment to Cranmer’s explanation of how journalism works, I would add that most journalists today are on the Left of politics and so are well predisposed towards any ‘issues’ in which a minority can be claimed to be at a disadvantage in Western society.
It isn’t that buff envelopes full of dollars change hands. What happens is that they are already leaning in the desired direction and a little bit of help from an NGO or other advocacy group sets them off. Think of an angry dog. It never needs much encouragement to attack.
Much the same is true of the ‘Green’ movement, which is constantly feeding false stories to a journalists who are only too happy to hear what they are already disposed to believe.