We wrote in more
The Guardian media editor on the BBC and That article:
The BBC has rejected complaints that it published a transphobic article and has instead given a commitment to covering different viewpoints in the name of impartiality.
The corporation has faced protests outside some of its regional newsrooms, petitions from trans campaign groups and disquiet among many LGBTQ+ staff members over a piece published online last week entitled “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women”.
On Monday the BBC said it stood by the article about the experience of some lesbians, adding it had been subject to a rigorous editing process, and that it met its editorial guidelines.
…
One BBC source said the broadcaster has received 4,819 complaints about the article but a further 5,520 people wrote in to note their approval of the piece.
Ha! I was one, and I bet some of you were also.
The Guardian understands the article had been the subject of debate for some time before it was published and was subject to extensive back-and-forth editing. Bosses were acutely aware of the likely reaction to it on social media – and among the BBC’s own staff, who are often deeply split on the issue of trans rights.
Please stop talking about “trans rights” without spelling out what you mean by the phrase. We controversial gender critics don’t want to take any human rights away from trans people, but we don’t consider it a “right” for men to claim to be women and then take everything set aside for women for themselves.
You’d better believe I wrote in to praise them for publishing it. And if you took Graham Linehan’s substack advice on how to complain so your support was actually noted you also followed my advice, as I was the reader who suggested it to him and wrote the brief guide on how to do so.
I was quite pessimistic in the guide in terms of what I actually wrote, but in my actual response I did praise the piece, the journalist and the decision to publish. I just have some very pointed questions to ask about BBC management as to what the actual heck is going on around there. And I don’t think publishing that piece makes those questions non-existent.
But to be fair, they have finally decided not to sit on their hands and do nothing, and for that I will give them some praise.
Was I ever.
Thanks CCCC, I was thinking of writing a little guide too after I’d written, but then I saw you’d already done it. Greatly appreciated.
Under 10,000 responses? For an international news source? And one that used “sex” in the title, for pity’s sake? That’s actually very small–it suggests the whole debate is relatively obscure.
You wrote that guide? Many thanks! I was one of the 5K who responded, and I did so using the guide.
Sorry have only just checked back on this thread I must have forgotten to tick ’email me about future commments’.
I am listening to the Nolan Stonewall podcast and thought about this thread again.
I am glad at least two people wrote in responses, I hope Glinnner boosting my opinion brought in many more people than that to make clear that there are two sides to this debate. Great job @sackbut and @latsot, and anyone else who wrote in.
At the very least dissenters are getting more of a hearing.
Indeed ophelia. I thought at the time that organised write-in campaigns would win for the opposition. But you signal booosted Glinner’s very kind decision to endorse me. And it worked out. and think it prompted the BBC to leave stonewall and become a much more active voice. and I like that too.
CCCC:
That box doesn’t work (at least, not reliably). Subscribing to the comments RSS feed does work, but there’s sometimes a delay. It’s just WordPress being annoying.