Gaps in the reporting
Interesting. If I’m reading this correctly the BBC is not reporting on the gender police v Kemi Badenoch.
Josh Parry is the BBC’s “LGBT & Identity” producer. (Who knew they had one? Who knew there is such a thing?)
Tip Jar
Interesting. If I’m reading this correctly the BBC is not reporting on the gender police v Kemi Badenoch.
Josh Parry is the BBC’s “LGBT & Identity” producer. (Who knew they had one? Who knew there is such a thing?)
“There was no lie.” There were false statements that Osborne believed to be true.
Did she though?
The definition of “epidemic” includes several meanings. The first does involve the spread of disease. The second is “ 2. : an outbreak or product of sudden rapid spread, growth, or development.” I think it’s usually used negatively (“an epidemic of substandard housing”) or ironically (“an epidemic of good cheer.”)
Is using this word to describe the rising numbers of trans-identification among children “inflammatory?” No more than referring to children “coming out” as trans. Both cases use vocabulary to support a particular view of an issue. Since a “hate crime” against a trans child is saying or even suggesting that their internal view of themselves doesn’t outweigh their biology and they can’t necessarily do what they want, the term “hate crime” could also be considered inflammatory.
The minister is quite correct when she points out that this exchange is why it is so difficult to discuss this subject; the other side consistently take the worst possible interpretation of what has been said, and then replace the words with emotive, wrong ones.
An epidemic of referrals is NOT likening those referred to a disease, in any fair understanding. It’s a twisting of the minister’s words to accuse her of saying that. There’s the insistence that ‘epidemic means disease’, when it patently doesn’t (even in the dictionary!), which is a lie about definitions, and then the insistence that the minister likened the children to a disease, which she didn’t, which together make the accusation of lying a fair one.
Osborne was not merely mistaken in what she heard – she was quite deliberately lying about it (for cult points?), or she would have apologised for misunderstanding when it was pointed out to her, instead of repeating the lie emphatically.
The incorrect statements that I think she believes are true are that there is a great deal of evidence in favor of the efficacy of “gender-affirming care” and no evidence in favor of “transing the gay away” or similar. I didn’t catch the comments about “epidemic”, my apologies. If she does in fact think “gender-affirming care” is not supported by evidence, then she is deliberately advocating exposing children to what she knows to be harm.