Here’s a little story about what it’s like to go on @BBCWomansHour. I’m afraid it’s not a happy one. I’ve come away with a poor impression of the integrity of everyone involved in the show. But there’s still time for them to redeem themselves… 1/9
Sacha replied that what I had said was wrong. That the Supreme Court ruling had related only to the Equality Act, and not to other laws or “gender” in society more widely. But THAT IS WHAT I HAD SAID! 4/9
Anyone listening to my interview would understand that my claims about the judgment related to the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act. But anyone who had not, and who listened on Friday, would get the false impression that I had misrepresented the judgment. 6/9
But I fear that what will be said or implied is that I WAS UNCLEAR, when I wasn’t. What happened is that I WAS MISREPRESENTED. What’s needed isn’t a CLARIFICATION, it’s a CORRECTION, and it’s not of my words, it’s of Anita’s and Sacha’s. I also think I'm owed an APOLOGY 8/9
And of course that’s exactly what happened. Nuala McGovern said, in an irritable rushed grudging voice, that Helen wanted a clarification, when in fact Helen required a correction of the FALSEHOOD and an apology.
It’s amazing just how entirely trans activism relies upon lies and deception. In for a penny, in for a pound. At this point, they’ve lost all benefit of the doubt; it’s not “accidental”, or a “mistake.”
At this point, they’ve lost all benefit of the doubt
Years ago. Once again the ”good intentions” excuse can only get you off the hook for so long. If you’re that willing to let others pay the price (any price!) for your ideological crusade, you better have made a serious effort to make sure you’re right. There are no brownie points for doing the right thing ”as you see it”, if the way you see it is wrong and you made no honest effort to find out. And, just to be clear, selectively seeking out information that confirms what you’re already determined to believe and dismissing any possible counterargument in advance does not count as an ”honest effort”. Ignorance is no excuse if it’s the willfull kind. If actions speak louder than words (as they do), these people (just like the MAGA crowd) might as well be shouting at the top of their lungs:
I don’t give a shit if this is true or not! I intend to talk and act as if it were true anyway, and if that means taking a sledgehammer to other people’s rights, that’s their problem! Just push these buttons, and I will do your dirty work for you, repeat whatever lies you tell me to repeat, and destroy whomever you tell me to destroy, and all the facts and logic in the universe are not going to stop me. No reasons are too lousy, or dishonest, or wrong for me to attack and vilify others, try to get them fired from their jobs, go out of my way to destroy their lives. Indeed I wouldn’t consider not doing so for any reason ever!
As always William Clifford’s On the Ethics of Belief is essential reading.
Tweets 2 and 9 of the nine are missing thanks to the magical mysteries of twitter’s quote tweet threads system. Here is the thread with the missing ones bolded:
Here’s a little story about what it’s like to go on @BBCWomansHour
. I’m afraid it’s not a happy one. I’ve come away with a poor impression of the integrity of everyone involved in the show. But there’s still time for them to redeem themselves… 1/9
Last Wednesday, I was interviewed by Nuala McGovern @bbcnuala
. She started by asking me about the Supreme Court judgment in FWS. I explained that what the court had ruled was that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, trans women are men. 2/9
Two days later, Anita Rani @itsanitarani
interviewed Sacha Deshmukh of Amnesty. She put it to him that I had said the Supreme Court ruled that trans women are men. 3/9
Sacha replied that what I had said was wrong. That the Supreme Court ruling had related only to the Equality Act, and not to other laws or “gender” in society more widely. But THAT IS WHAT I HAD SAID! 4/9
Anita returned to the question of what I had said a little later, and again Sacha claimed that I had misrepresented the judgment by saying it was about laws beyond the Equality Act, and about society more broadly. AGAIN, MISREPRESENTING ME. 5/9
Anyone listening to my interview would understand that my claims about the judgment related to the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act. But anyone who had not, and who listened on Friday, would get the false impression that I had misrepresented the judgment. 6/9
I have been in communication with the producer of Woman’s Hour since, who at first was unwilling to accept that there was anything to see here. After some back and forth, there will apparently be a “clarification” during today’s programme. 7/9
But I fear that what will be said or implied is that I WAS UNCLEAR, when I wasn’t. What happened is that I WAS MISREPRESENTED. What’s needed isn’t a CLARIFICATION, it’s a CORRECTION, and it’s not of my words, it’s of Anita’s and Sacha’s. I also think I’m owed an APOLOGY 8/9
So tune in at 10am – Baroness Kishwer Falkner is on, apparently – and listen for what they say. If they don’t admit to misrepresenting me – or worse, if they misrepresent me again – I will be making a formal complaint. 9/9
And since the ‘correction’ was itself misleading, I look forward to #9 swinging into action and BBC getting another dose of humble pie.
It’s amazing just how entirely trans activism relies upon lies and deception. In for a penny, in for a pound. At this point, they’ve lost all benefit of the doubt; it’s not “accidental”, or a “mistake.”
Years ago. Once again the ”good intentions” excuse can only get you off the hook for so long. If you’re that willing to let others pay the price (any price!) for your ideological crusade, you better have made a serious effort to make sure you’re right. There are no brownie points for doing the right thing ”as you see it”, if the way you see it is wrong and you made no honest effort to find out. And, just to be clear, selectively seeking out information that confirms what you’re already determined to believe and dismissing any possible counterargument in advance does not count as an ”honest effort”. Ignorance is no excuse if it’s the willfull kind. If actions speak louder than words (as they do), these people (just like the MAGA crowd) might as well be shouting at the top of their lungs:
As always William Clifford’s On the Ethics of Belief is essential reading.
Tweets 2 and 9 of the nine are missing thanks to the magical mysteries of twitter’s quote tweet threads system. Here is the thread with the missing ones bolded:
And since the ‘correction’ was itself misleading, I look forward to #9 swinging into action and BBC getting another dose of humble pie.