What a disgrace the BBC has become. Why don’t they just release a list of AGPs of the year and be done with it? They obviously have zero respect for women. When our national broadcaster is so fully on board with the ‘queering of society’ then we really have reached the sewer in terms of the acceptance of fetish normalisation.
Thanks JL. Another great piece of evidence for the battle we are in.
Clearly the 100 Women List is wrongly named. It ought to be "The 98-99 Women List (plus one or two male sexual fetishists / men with mental health problems)".
Then we couldn't complain: except about why such a bizarre mixture? Why not have TWO lists?
The "98-99 Women Lisr": because the BBC couldn't be arsed to find one or two more sufficiently distinguished women from a choice of 3.905 billion.
And the Other List, a BBC Exclusive "One or Two (fetishistic) Men List". For the most outrageous and/or revolting of all the drag queens, AGPs etc with bared double G plastic boobs, naked women tattoos, and the most extreme parodies of "femaleness" the male mind can dream up to indulge in.
BBC List choosers clearly have very poor taste, muddled thinking and defective vision: to be able to mix up these two wildly differing groups -- way beyond the fact that they are not even the same sex.
I no longer think they are just misguided in these choices Ms Gabriel. Something much more sinister is going on which goes to the heart of this society.
Well yes: like all other hapless subjects of internationally organised transactivist indoctrination, cashing in on the LGB movement having achieved eg same sex marriage & in need of new objectives & new FUNDING, the alleged cabal of younger BBC staff under the required illusion that "trans rights" are a "human rights" issue, are in no position to query the evidence of their own senses -- set against the hugely superior power of Trans International Gaslighting Inc. Any such dissenting staff would stand to be instantly cancelled and probably fired. As Glinner can testify.
The State Broadcaster, there to tell us how and what to think, but whose obedient audience is declining rapidly. I wonder why... The BBC is apparently happy to allow previously successful programmes like Sports Personality of the Year to be overshadowed and tarnished by their relentless pushing of gender ideology. It simply wouldn't do to have separate trans categories, would it? I suspect what the BBC and their Lords and masters want above all is a fractured society arguing till the end of time about "identity" though, along with "misinformation" ie censorship, there's certainly a helluva lot of money in gender insanity.
Thank you JL (I am 'hearting' your work, not the content just as Woke Apostate writes).
I often mull on learning and knowledge. It's usual to be introduced to concepts, then build on that, at school, year after year, hopefully building on and deepening that understanding and knowledge. You can then apply that and change tack but it becomes more about not only the core bank of facts, but how to view, how to think and your critical analysis. Sometimes you go on with further study and into professions or to academia.
So it's odd to open your updates as often it's the same again and again, year after year. There is a sense of ennui. But the value in that is that you bring a new twist, you keep bang up to date, yet also show the really grindingly familiar and known aspects to this that too many act surprised and shocked about. What we have to put up with day in day out. Some parts chauvinism, some parts sexism and misogyny. A lot of ignorance and abuse.
The BBC is not just reviled by the 'far right' or 'fascists' or certain parts of the press or political world. By those they feel happy to label who disagree with them. I stopped my licence or watching their output years ago because of this. But I feel so distanced, so unable to comprehend how it does this and how it gets this wrong, and so grotesquely and insultingly wrong year after year and time after time. In news reports, in content, in their choices of what or who to push to the fore. I've been listening to the Reith lectures (always worth a listen) and can't compute how those now sit within the rest of their empty, posturing propaganda. And I am furious with how they are funded to do this. How many work diligently to produce all this total vacuous but damaging shite. They had a key role in normalising this fetish. Many have been chipping away at their deluded output for a while, but they are still happily at it, still obviously with gender zealots still embedded right at the top and in every layer. To show him next to the brave Gisèle Pelicot, the woman at the heart of one of the most egregiously shocking cases ever that has convulsed France and forced it to look deep within its culture's rotten core and how we all value women and girls. The images of that man standing to the doorway I assume to his office are vile. The porno look, with the too tight and obviously fetish nature skimpy too small dress barely covering the lumps he had bolted to his chest, to deliberately not fit him, so exposes the bra and his flesh additions. Then the length. To again, deliberately break rules and expose his genital area. To make anyone nearby worry they'll get an eyeful of his bits. To show he can. Rules made by men are only for women to follow. No senior woman, no woman at all let alone a woman in her 60s would dream of doing this or be allowed to. We would never be employed, never promoted and would be sacked. He oozes and reeks of male privilege, male fetish, male power. That he is so ugly is the point. To have featured him on a list of women is violently offensive and the BBC know it. Shame on them and anyone associated with their totally corrupt organisation. How can anyone not see this? They openly mock us.
TSBBL that is why you have to question who is doing this and why. Are they trying to undermine our society by bringing the BBC and the UK down. Is this a better way of destroying the west than flying planes into buildings or bombing railways. Why are these people not on our screens justifying these choices if they feel they have a good reason for doing so?
I think that we'd all agree that the BBC, along with practically every other major organisation or concern in the UK, is utterly captured by the Gender ID nonsense and this informs its output. There are people throughout the organisation who are utterly committed to the nonsense and are able to get away with producing this rubbish by possibly out of touch people in charge who either can't see that they're being manipulated or who are so desperate to be seen as 'progressive' that they'll agree to absolutely anything being published. This output or whatever it is is obviously way more dangerous and insidious than any in-your-face, blatant terrorist acts like planting bombs. It's indoctrination by stealth by a (once) respected broadcaster. And, of course, any challenge as to why this male horror has been included on a list of women will be met by a fit of the vapours and the usual accusations which I guess everyone of us would recognise and I don't need to spell out.
Even if this ludicrous choice is made by crackpots in the DEI department it surely has to be signed off by a senior officer who in turn would know in advance the kind of choice likely to be made. So what are they getting from this. We all hate it and are enraged. The intelligent press lambasts them but still they do it. Why? The person who gave me those names at the head of the BBC seemed to think if I read up about them I would understand what is going on but despite vigorous googling I don’t feel I know anything useful.
The senior people will go along with this nonsense for a number of reasons. Being 'kind'? Ignorance of what is actually at stake? The mistaken idea that they're being progressive (whatever that really means) and on the right side of history? Plain ordinary stupidity? That latter idea may be close to the truth when you look at the quality of people at the top of the tree in any organisation in the UK. I get the awful feeling when you look in their eyes that you can truly see the back of their heads.
I would love to see an analysis of those who are in the BBC's LGBTQ WTF LOL department. I'll eat my hat if there are not a few cultural Marxists there who hate the West. I often end up back with the Frankfurt School!
Oh I do question it. I've gone slightly mad questioning it. That just leaves me with questions. We know who pays and who benefits. It's those who excuse, who ignore and who let that unfold that leaves me scratching my head. It is unlike anything I have known in my whole adult life though and nothing has prepared me for the total and global (in every sense) capture. I'm not naive and I'm educated and aware. It is totalitarian in ways I only know from text books and my studies. All those I know who lived under Communist rule tend to have a wry smile when we discuss this. They grew up and lived or worked under it. Families and lives were shattered and that leaves a scar on that culture and in folk memory for generations. Most left if they could and relished the freedom of 'the West'. It was a place of safety for many and from wars. To now have my culture and everything about my society some lifetime later and several generations tilted to propagate this crap (some 'theories' of which I 'studied' at Uni 20+ years ago) chills my blood. It's the antithesis of everything good, has nihilistic pap at its core and yet it's got a grip on everything. Too many did and do look the other way. Lawfare has been one remaining way to counter this as when it faces any kind of logic or actual scrutiny it melts. But that's a hard way to fight this. I don't want to get too end of days or conspiratorial.
I think that speaking out (like Let Women Speak) and legal cases are major ways to fightback. The capture of much of the Western MSM is a major problem of course leaving us citizen journalists as voices crying in the wilderness!!
But...onwards..I think the giant ship is slowly turning around - it will take some time😃
It's weird to me that whole populations: USSR, China et al, with no access to news from the wider world, or even a neighbouring province, were indoctrinated into a set of thoughts and values they believed in, except for the brave contrarians. Yet here we are 25-30 years after instant mass communication was rolled out worldwide and we see indoctrination again in sections of society that frankly should know better. Is it something deep in our lizard brain that we have to have something to believe in, as I think Dawkins says?
This is when I start to believe in a conspiracy theory, with the WEF worthies (ha ha) discussing how to undermine society in every country by the use of new theories: critical, social justice, race, gender. It's distracting for us - makes us take our eye off how appallingly we are being governed. The revenue streams that come in! Medical, social, literary, establishment groupthink, on it goes. The BBC are notorious for ignoring the hoi polloi; (I have no doubt that Mr Lineker just decided to retire). It is deeply embedded with seeds planted years ago by the likes of the frankly evil Stonewall, as in all the other arenas around the world.
Utterly disgraceful. No matter a man's "identity", he objectively remains a man. Giving anything that belongs to women, whether it is our rights, or awards, to a man, is a clear expression of contempt for women. If the BBC wants to give trans identified people an award, they are free to do so. They could create such an award. But, the fact is, they don't want to do this. They deliberately give men a women's award proving they want to send the clear message a man deserves to take what belongs to women. That an institution that can make such good dramas, comedies, docos, can betray the intentions of its founders, is tragic. I hope this is not a sign of the BBC's self destruction lead by young, irrational postmodernists. The universities preach utterly irrational queer ideology and then the graduates go out and cause obscene damage to our culture.
As a frequent BBC Radio 4 listener, I have to disagree with you about its comedies. Most of them are IMHO awful -- tediously unfunny: except to whom? (Only the satire remains excellent: Dead Ringers especially.) As licence fee funding has been progressively cut & otherwise threatened by Tory governments, the BBC has become ever more conscious of audience size and ratings in deciding which programmes (on R4 at least) to cut. These include even popular ones, to judge from howls of protest on "Feedback" as long established favourites face the chop. So it's not audience preferences that the BBC is motivated by in its policy dedication to gender cult ideology. Its staff's brainwashed status as a Stonewall Diversity Champion appears to be responsible for that.
Totally agree re R4. I listen to the World Service in the early hours and it is often brilliant. I like Inside Health and Inside Science and yes I like Dead Ringers. The comedies at 6.30 pm are usually utterly boring or even cringe making. Edgy they are not. If you don’t have freedom to speak the truth then it is like a dead hand on creativity.
I agree that the BBC is being controlled by internal ideological staff, not by the actual audience. I suspect that those staff members are even in a minority, but have acquired a disproportionate amount of power. A big problem too is that they tend to be younger and hence might be there "for the duration". I listen to BBC 4 too, but not current affairs, more history programs. Trans et all ideology can creep in everywhere though. I hope that it becomes so clear that the majority of society is not onboard with DEI stuff that the silent majority of BBC staff push back against the overly powerful ideologues. And, as a gay person, and a feminist, the fact even I think DEI has become manipulative and dangerous, is telling. The BBC returning to "service as normal" depends upon rather a lot of positives falling in to place.
I sound like a broken record, but JL, you have done us all a huge favor--not just your readers, but everyone. You have collected and compiled the receipts. You have made it possible for historians to write truthfully and comprehensively about this time period. THANK YOU.
One of the problems with some of the men the BBC has put on this list is that they have obviously scraped the bottom of the barrel to find them. How are they inspirational when hardly anyone has ever heard of them? The disrespect is therefore intensified when (a rather ugly) model, gender activists, and drag queens are on the list, who wouldn’t be on there but for their trans identification, are rubbing shoulders with some high achieving, highly respected women.
Yes. For some reason (let me think) very ordinary men obviously lacking in talent and skill have found this way to escape. Escape reality. Escape standards. Escape logic. And it's become codified. This magical transformation turns them into something special when the glow of trans is bestowed upon their soul. How fortunate! They are automatically accorded this new aura of most vulnerable, most valued, most in need of celebration. They didn't like feeling bad about themselves as men getting their kicks from being deluded or deluded perverts, and fairly crap at their sports or place in the world so normalised it then went that bit further as they can never abide by any boundaries. They want attention, they want it and this is their way. They couldn't succeed on men's 100 best anything. Or liked the idea of taking a woman's life for dress up. Smash the um er patri...er...heteronormative-erm-archy! There are no boundaries in their Queer Theory. Everything is to be destroyed and rebuilt. Every norm. This quasi Marxist claptrap is the nefarious new kind of colonialism. It's only women and everything female they take, so that seems okay. Destroying us in plain sight.
Men who fail at every field from sports to finance have the ultimate get out of jail and get a promotion and gold medal winning card. All in one. None of that applies to female to male genderology, so again it's only men who find this their added bonus. It does add a slight interest to women who choose to 'transition' but then they end up facing hatred of being both sexes - it's a lose lose for women yet somehow a win win for men. And women who identify into the male gender can't access female spaces but men who 'transition' can. How does that work? Logically it shouldn't, another example of logic thrown out of the window, then that fabrication and fantasy was enshrined in law. We've got two decades of wonky legislation to unpick and there is little appetite to start.
In the Supreme Court Aidan O'Neill KC for For Women Scotland went right back to common law times when women weren't even considered 'persons'. Then he took us through women fighting to gain their rights. Now the Gender Borg are trying to return women to the beginning again!! Even Orwell would be shocked!!
The ruling logic is The Patriarchy Wins -- again. And the demented/perverted male-serving triumph of gender ideology is now described so often (with tacit approval) as a "backlash against feminism" that it seems pretty clear that any gains by women are only provisional and temporary. And not just under attack by the Seriously Woke -- but by raging misogynist incels too.
There are Fresh Hells popping up at a tremendous rate these days. I know I’m still catching up with this inferno but I only just heard about a “pediatric gender clinic” which is defined as “a specialized center that provides care for children and young people who are transgender or gender diverse”.
It is already an absolute obscenity to subject children to considerations of sexuality when they are, by definition, prepubescent. But here we have two utterly manufactured oxymoronic brain melting neologisms: “transgender” and “gender diverse”. It’s as if the CIA’s MKUltra programme has totally come out into the open and gone centre stage.
Or perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be the Nazi experiments of Josef Mengele now operating throughout the West with these “pediatric gender clinics” offering a whole range of bizarre and infinitely questionable “services” such as “advice and guidance on social transitioning”.
“Social transition” is defined as “a process in which a person changes their gender presentation in a variety of ways, including: ... (c)hanging their name and using different pronouns ... (c)hanging their clothing, hairstyle, or other aspects of their appearance” (Since when as anyone ever needed “medical” advice on changing clothes, hairstyles etc.?)
Ah but then we get, “Washroom: Using a different washroom”. At which point the sinister aim of this “non-binary” binary “transition” comes into view: to terrorise women.
And we haven’t even reached the OTHER transition i.e. involving physical mutilation.
Just been educating myself about the horrendous excesses of MKUltra, as detailed on Wikipedia: having previously had only the sketchiest impression of CIA experimentation with psychoactive drugs, brainwashing techniques etc in the 1950s and 60s.
And this $40m+ CIA programme was so widespread in US universities, medical schools (psychology & psychiatry) etc that it's easy to imagine that early perpetrators of gender ideology like John Money could himself have been involved in MKUltra's nefarious activities: to perfect his own brainwashing techniques on the unfortunate children he experimented on. Both of whom committed suicide.
It isn’t merely that the BBC list includes a “trans-identified” male (though I shouldn’t have said “merely” there!) but that THIS male (takes a deep breath) “explores the common patterns between biodiversity and gender identity....uses a queer lens to analyse landscapes and species in a bid to expand the notion of ‘nature’ to better protect ecosystems.....used the Quindío wax palm, Colombia’s national tree, as an example of how “the change of sex and gender has been regularly reported by science” across the lifetime of species”.
Furthermore,
“A renowned academic, Baptiste spent 10 years as director of the Alexander von Humboldt Institute and currently serves as president of Universidad EAN in Bogota, a higher-education institution focused on sustainable entrepreneurship. She has also campaigned for better funding to get more LGTBQ+ people into higher education.”
In other words, we have here a dismaying – indeed frightening – example of the idiotic charade that so-called “science” has sunk to.
Meanwhile The Telegraph’s Claire Cohen bleats, “The BBC's 100 women list is a triumph - but where is Madonna?” Really? “A triumph”? And the only criticism is that Madonna isn’t there? And not a mention of Baptiste? That the glaring absurdity of Baptiste’s presence is NOT being mentioned is once again evidence of a massive media programme to legitimise the trans theology.
Since this BBC list has only been going for 11 years and has only twice featured lists of ONLY women, it’s tempting to see the very purpose of this list as serving the introduction of the trans religion.
Exactly. And how many women have been deplatformed or expelled from jobs and academia for simply performing evidence based research that reflects reality?
Surprised that any Telegraph columnist should be so uncritical of the "queer lens" absurdities deemed to be "science" gracing the absurd inclusion of trans-identified males in The 100 Women (so-called) List. The Torygraph usually gives short shrift to this kind of stuff.
Consider the rate of sexual assault by abruptly "trans identifying" husbands in my survey, the sole data in the world on trans widows, their ex-wives. Over 1/3 of us have experienced such traumatizing events that is, 26 of 64. One of the trans widows was murdered. (Jennifer Anderson, wife of Kier Anderson, who now serves 25 to life in a CA women's prison and has a podcast called "Ear Hustle." I got Jennifer's data from the reports on her death by strangulation and her husband's guilty plea in court.) These men are deranged, enraged loonies, more often than not. But "celebrated" by a world in which US Supreme Court Justices (Sotomayor and Brown Jackson) compare mutilation and rerouting of the urinary tract in children to the risks of taking aspirin or the long vacated laws in the American South against interracial marriage.
I wondered how they choose the women on the list. I found this video from the BBC which introduces itself as going to tell us exactly that - how they choose the women on the list. Trouble is it, er... doesn't! https://www.instagram.com/bbc100women/reel/DC7Gpz9qlYL/
If they started this list as recently as 2013, my bet is its whole purpose was to normalise and celebrate cross-dressing men not only as women but as stand-out women. This also very effectively reduces the significance of the achievements of all the women on the list. In 2017 a woman from the BBC contacted my publisher to request an interview with me about my girlhood dance memoir that was positively reviewed by a news outlet here in NZ. But at the last minute someone higher up at the BBC withdrew the offer without explanation. I got the feeling at the time that some kind of sexism was at play, that my girlhood story was too much of a celebration of femaleness for that higher up. But we mustn't be conspiracists, ay? Good to have it all on record though, JL. Thanks as ever.
Oh for goodness sake Terf Vibes don’t just be normal. That’s way too boring. Be some kind of maladjusted oddity and then your story will have added value.
I agree with this. Start a list of women, include 'women' right from the get-go. They were starting to groom us to accept that some men are women. Not only that: we are groomed to perceive that these 'women' are not only superior to the average actual woman, these mediocre men are the peers of incredible, brave, intelligent real women. it is enraging, and sinister. The epitome of misogyny
What a disgrace the BBC has become. Why don’t they just release a list of AGPs of the year and be done with it? They obviously have zero respect for women. When our national broadcaster is so fully on board with the ‘queering of society’ then we really have reached the sewer in terms of the acceptance of fetish normalisation.
Thanks JL. Another great piece of evidence for the battle we are in.
Clearly the 100 Women List is wrongly named. It ought to be "The 98-99 Women List (plus one or two male sexual fetishists / men with mental health problems)".
Then we couldn't complain: except about why such a bizarre mixture? Why not have TWO lists?
The "98-99 Women Lisr": because the BBC couldn't be arsed to find one or two more sufficiently distinguished women from a choice of 3.905 billion.
And the Other List, a BBC Exclusive "One or Two (fetishistic) Men List". For the most outrageous and/or revolting of all the drag queens, AGPs etc with bared double G plastic boobs, naked women tattoos, and the most extreme parodies of "femaleness" the male mind can dream up to indulge in.
BBC List choosers clearly have very poor taste, muddled thinking and defective vision: to be able to mix up these two wildly differing groups -- way beyond the fact that they are not even the same sex.
I no longer think they are just misguided in these choices Ms Gabriel. Something much more sinister is going on which goes to the heart of this society.
Well yes: like all other hapless subjects of internationally organised transactivist indoctrination, cashing in on the LGB movement having achieved eg same sex marriage & in need of new objectives & new FUNDING, the alleged cabal of younger BBC staff under the required illusion that "trans rights" are a "human rights" issue, are in no position to query the evidence of their own senses -- set against the hugely superior power of Trans International Gaslighting Inc. Any such dissenting staff would stand to be instantly cancelled and probably fired. As Glinner can testify.
The State Broadcaster, there to tell us how and what to think, but whose obedient audience is declining rapidly. I wonder why... The BBC is apparently happy to allow previously successful programmes like Sports Personality of the Year to be overshadowed and tarnished by their relentless pushing of gender ideology. It simply wouldn't do to have separate trans categories, would it? I suspect what the BBC and their Lords and masters want above all is a fractured society arguing till the end of time about "identity" though, along with "misinformation" ie censorship, there's certainly a helluva lot of money in gender insanity.
Thank you JL (I am 'hearting' your work, not the content just as Woke Apostate writes).
I often mull on learning and knowledge. It's usual to be introduced to concepts, then build on that, at school, year after year, hopefully building on and deepening that understanding and knowledge. You can then apply that and change tack but it becomes more about not only the core bank of facts, but how to view, how to think and your critical analysis. Sometimes you go on with further study and into professions or to academia.
So it's odd to open your updates as often it's the same again and again, year after year. There is a sense of ennui. But the value in that is that you bring a new twist, you keep bang up to date, yet also show the really grindingly familiar and known aspects to this that too many act surprised and shocked about. What we have to put up with day in day out. Some parts chauvinism, some parts sexism and misogyny. A lot of ignorance and abuse.
The BBC is not just reviled by the 'far right' or 'fascists' or certain parts of the press or political world. By those they feel happy to label who disagree with them. I stopped my licence or watching their output years ago because of this. But I feel so distanced, so unable to comprehend how it does this and how it gets this wrong, and so grotesquely and insultingly wrong year after year and time after time. In news reports, in content, in their choices of what or who to push to the fore. I've been listening to the Reith lectures (always worth a listen) and can't compute how those now sit within the rest of their empty, posturing propaganda. And I am furious with how they are funded to do this. How many work diligently to produce all this total vacuous but damaging shite. They had a key role in normalising this fetish. Many have been chipping away at their deluded output for a while, but they are still happily at it, still obviously with gender zealots still embedded right at the top and in every layer. To show him next to the brave Gisèle Pelicot, the woman at the heart of one of the most egregiously shocking cases ever that has convulsed France and forced it to look deep within its culture's rotten core and how we all value women and girls. The images of that man standing to the doorway I assume to his office are vile. The porno look, with the too tight and obviously fetish nature skimpy too small dress barely covering the lumps he had bolted to his chest, to deliberately not fit him, so exposes the bra and his flesh additions. Then the length. To again, deliberately break rules and expose his genital area. To make anyone nearby worry they'll get an eyeful of his bits. To show he can. Rules made by men are only for women to follow. No senior woman, no woman at all let alone a woman in her 60s would dream of doing this or be allowed to. We would never be employed, never promoted and would be sacked. He oozes and reeks of male privilege, male fetish, male power. That he is so ugly is the point. To have featured him on a list of women is violently offensive and the BBC know it. Shame on them and anyone associated with their totally corrupt organisation. How can anyone not see this? They openly mock us.
TSBBL that is why you have to question who is doing this and why. Are they trying to undermine our society by bringing the BBC and the UK down. Is this a better way of destroying the west than flying planes into buildings or bombing railways. Why are these people not on our screens justifying these choices if they feel they have a good reason for doing so?
I think that we'd all agree that the BBC, along with practically every other major organisation or concern in the UK, is utterly captured by the Gender ID nonsense and this informs its output. There are people throughout the organisation who are utterly committed to the nonsense and are able to get away with producing this rubbish by possibly out of touch people in charge who either can't see that they're being manipulated or who are so desperate to be seen as 'progressive' that they'll agree to absolutely anything being published. This output or whatever it is is obviously way more dangerous and insidious than any in-your-face, blatant terrorist acts like planting bombs. It's indoctrination by stealth by a (once) respected broadcaster. And, of course, any challenge as to why this male horror has been included on a list of women will be met by a fit of the vapours and the usual accusations which I guess everyone of us would recognise and I don't need to spell out.
Even if this ludicrous choice is made by crackpots in the DEI department it surely has to be signed off by a senior officer who in turn would know in advance the kind of choice likely to be made. So what are they getting from this. We all hate it and are enraged. The intelligent press lambasts them but still they do it. Why? The person who gave me those names at the head of the BBC seemed to think if I read up about them I would understand what is going on but despite vigorous googling I don’t feel I know anything useful.
The senior people will go along with this nonsense for a number of reasons. Being 'kind'? Ignorance of what is actually at stake? The mistaken idea that they're being progressive (whatever that really means) and on the right side of history? Plain ordinary stupidity? That latter idea may be close to the truth when you look at the quality of people at the top of the tree in any organisation in the UK. I get the awful feeling when you look in their eyes that you can truly see the back of their heads.
I would love to see an analysis of those who are in the BBC's LGBTQ WTF LOL department. I'll eat my hat if there are not a few cultural Marxists there who hate the West. I often end up back with the Frankfurt School!
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
Oh I do question it. I've gone slightly mad questioning it. That just leaves me with questions. We know who pays and who benefits. It's those who excuse, who ignore and who let that unfold that leaves me scratching my head. It is unlike anything I have known in my whole adult life though and nothing has prepared me for the total and global (in every sense) capture. I'm not naive and I'm educated and aware. It is totalitarian in ways I only know from text books and my studies. All those I know who lived under Communist rule tend to have a wry smile when we discuss this. They grew up and lived or worked under it. Families and lives were shattered and that leaves a scar on that culture and in folk memory for generations. Most left if they could and relished the freedom of 'the West'. It was a place of safety for many and from wars. To now have my culture and everything about my society some lifetime later and several generations tilted to propagate this crap (some 'theories' of which I 'studied' at Uni 20+ years ago) chills my blood. It's the antithesis of everything good, has nihilistic pap at its core and yet it's got a grip on everything. Too many did and do look the other way. Lawfare has been one remaining way to counter this as when it faces any kind of logic or actual scrutiny it melts. But that's a hard way to fight this. I don't want to get too end of days or conspiratorial.
I think that speaking out (like Let Women Speak) and legal cases are major ways to fightback. The capture of much of the Western MSM is a major problem of course leaving us citizen journalists as voices crying in the wilderness!!
But...onwards..I think the giant ship is slowly turning around - it will take some time😃
Dusty
It's weird to me that whole populations: USSR, China et al, with no access to news from the wider world, or even a neighbouring province, were indoctrinated into a set of thoughts and values they believed in, except for the brave contrarians. Yet here we are 25-30 years after instant mass communication was rolled out worldwide and we see indoctrination again in sections of society that frankly should know better. Is it something deep in our lizard brain that we have to have something to believe in, as I think Dawkins says?
This is when I start to believe in a conspiracy theory, with the WEF worthies (ha ha) discussing how to undermine society in every country by the use of new theories: critical, social justice, race, gender. It's distracting for us - makes us take our eye off how appallingly we are being governed. The revenue streams that come in! Medical, social, literary, establishment groupthink, on it goes. The BBC are notorious for ignoring the hoi polloi; (I have no doubt that Mr Lineker just decided to retire). It is deeply embedded with seeds planted years ago by the likes of the frankly evil Stonewall, as in all the other arenas around the world.
Utterly disgraceful. No matter a man's "identity", he objectively remains a man. Giving anything that belongs to women, whether it is our rights, or awards, to a man, is a clear expression of contempt for women. If the BBC wants to give trans identified people an award, they are free to do so. They could create such an award. But, the fact is, they don't want to do this. They deliberately give men a women's award proving they want to send the clear message a man deserves to take what belongs to women. That an institution that can make such good dramas, comedies, docos, can betray the intentions of its founders, is tragic. I hope this is not a sign of the BBC's self destruction lead by young, irrational postmodernists. The universities preach utterly irrational queer ideology and then the graduates go out and cause obscene damage to our culture.
As a frequent BBC Radio 4 listener, I have to disagree with you about its comedies. Most of them are IMHO awful -- tediously unfunny: except to whom? (Only the satire remains excellent: Dead Ringers especially.) As licence fee funding has been progressively cut & otherwise threatened by Tory governments, the BBC has become ever more conscious of audience size and ratings in deciding which programmes (on R4 at least) to cut. These include even popular ones, to judge from howls of protest on "Feedback" as long established favourites face the chop. So it's not audience preferences that the BBC is motivated by in its policy dedication to gender cult ideology. Its staff's brainwashed status as a Stonewall Diversity Champion appears to be responsible for that.
Totally agree re R4. I listen to the World Service in the early hours and it is often brilliant. I like Inside Health and Inside Science and yes I like Dead Ringers. The comedies at 6.30 pm are usually utterly boring or even cringe making. Edgy they are not. If you don’t have freedom to speak the truth then it is like a dead hand on creativity.
I agree that the BBC is being controlled by internal ideological staff, not by the actual audience. I suspect that those staff members are even in a minority, but have acquired a disproportionate amount of power. A big problem too is that they tend to be younger and hence might be there "for the duration". I listen to BBC 4 too, but not current affairs, more history programs. Trans et all ideology can creep in everywhere though. I hope that it becomes so clear that the majority of society is not onboard with DEI stuff that the silent majority of BBC staff push back against the overly powerful ideologues. And, as a gay person, and a feminist, the fact even I think DEI has become manipulative and dangerous, is telling. The BBC returning to "service as normal" depends upon rather a lot of positives falling in to place.
I sound like a broken record, but JL, you have done us all a huge favor--not just your readers, but everyone. You have collected and compiled the receipts. You have made it possible for historians to write truthfully and comprehensively about this time period. THANK YOU.
HEAR HEAR
You're a hero, JL
One of the problems with some of the men the BBC has put on this list is that they have obviously scraped the bottom of the barrel to find them. How are they inspirational when hardly anyone has ever heard of them? The disrespect is therefore intensified when (a rather ugly) model, gender activists, and drag queens are on the list, who wouldn’t be on there but for their trans identification, are rubbing shoulders with some high achieving, highly respected women.
Yes. For some reason (let me think) very ordinary men obviously lacking in talent and skill have found this way to escape. Escape reality. Escape standards. Escape logic. And it's become codified. This magical transformation turns them into something special when the glow of trans is bestowed upon their soul. How fortunate! They are automatically accorded this new aura of most vulnerable, most valued, most in need of celebration. They didn't like feeling bad about themselves as men getting their kicks from being deluded or deluded perverts, and fairly crap at their sports or place in the world so normalised it then went that bit further as they can never abide by any boundaries. They want attention, they want it and this is their way. They couldn't succeed on men's 100 best anything. Or liked the idea of taking a woman's life for dress up. Smash the um er patri...er...heteronormative-erm-archy! There are no boundaries in their Queer Theory. Everything is to be destroyed and rebuilt. Every norm. This quasi Marxist claptrap is the nefarious new kind of colonialism. It's only women and everything female they take, so that seems okay. Destroying us in plain sight.
Men who fail at every field from sports to finance have the ultimate get out of jail and get a promotion and gold medal winning card. All in one. None of that applies to female to male genderology, so again it's only men who find this their added bonus. It does add a slight interest to women who choose to 'transition' but then they end up facing hatred of being both sexes - it's a lose lose for women yet somehow a win win for men. And women who identify into the male gender can't access female spaces but men who 'transition' can. How does that work? Logically it shouldn't, another example of logic thrown out of the window, then that fabrication and fantasy was enshrined in law. We've got two decades of wonky legislation to unpick and there is little appetite to start.
In the Supreme Court Aidan O'Neill KC for For Women Scotland went right back to common law times when women weren't even considered 'persons'. Then he took us through women fighting to gain their rights. Now the Gender Borg are trying to return women to the beginning again!! Even Orwell would be shocked!!
Dusty
The ruling logic is The Patriarchy Wins -- again. And the demented/perverted male-serving triumph of gender ideology is now described so often (with tacit approval) as a "backlash against feminism" that it seems pretty clear that any gains by women are only provisional and temporary. And not just under attack by the Seriously Woke -- but by raging misogynist incels too.
There are Fresh Hells popping up at a tremendous rate these days. I know I’m still catching up with this inferno but I only just heard about a “pediatric gender clinic” which is defined as “a specialized center that provides care for children and young people who are transgender or gender diverse”.
It is already an absolute obscenity to subject children to considerations of sexuality when they are, by definition, prepubescent. But here we have two utterly manufactured oxymoronic brain melting neologisms: “transgender” and “gender diverse”. It’s as if the CIA’s MKUltra programme has totally come out into the open and gone centre stage.
Or perhaps a more appropriate comparison would be the Nazi experiments of Josef Mengele now operating throughout the West with these “pediatric gender clinics” offering a whole range of bizarre and infinitely questionable “services” such as “advice and guidance on social transitioning”.
“Social transition” is defined as “a process in which a person changes their gender presentation in a variety of ways, including: ... (c)hanging their name and using different pronouns ... (c)hanging their clothing, hairstyle, or other aspects of their appearance” (Since when as anyone ever needed “medical” advice on changing clothes, hairstyles etc.?)
Ah but then we get, “Washroom: Using a different washroom”. At which point the sinister aim of this “non-binary” binary “transition” comes into view: to terrorise women.
And we haven’t even reached the OTHER transition i.e. involving physical mutilation.
Just been educating myself about the horrendous excesses of MKUltra, as detailed on Wikipedia: having previously had only the sketchiest impression of CIA experimentation with psychoactive drugs, brainwashing techniques etc in the 1950s and 60s.
And this $40m+ CIA programme was so widespread in US universities, medical schools (psychology & psychiatry) etc that it's easy to imagine that early perpetrators of gender ideology like John Money could himself have been involved in MKUltra's nefarious activities: to perfect his own brainwashing techniques on the unfortunate children he experimented on. Both of whom committed suicide.
DefUnded !!!
It isn’t merely that the BBC list includes a “trans-identified” male (though I shouldn’t have said “merely” there!) but that THIS male (takes a deep breath) “explores the common patterns between biodiversity and gender identity....uses a queer lens to analyse landscapes and species in a bid to expand the notion of ‘nature’ to better protect ecosystems.....used the Quindío wax palm, Colombia’s national tree, as an example of how “the change of sex and gender has been regularly reported by science” across the lifetime of species”.
Furthermore,
“A renowned academic, Baptiste spent 10 years as director of the Alexander von Humboldt Institute and currently serves as president of Universidad EAN in Bogota, a higher-education institution focused on sustainable entrepreneurship. She has also campaigned for better funding to get more LGTBQ+ people into higher education.”
In other words, we have here a dismaying – indeed frightening – example of the idiotic charade that so-called “science” has sunk to.
Meanwhile The Telegraph’s Claire Cohen bleats, “The BBC's 100 women list is a triumph - but where is Madonna?” Really? “A triumph”? And the only criticism is that Madonna isn’t there? And not a mention of Baptiste? That the glaring absurdity of Baptiste’s presence is NOT being mentioned is once again evidence of a massive media programme to legitimise the trans theology.
Since this BBC list has only been going for 11 years and has only twice featured lists of ONLY women, it’s tempting to see the very purpose of this list as serving the introduction of the trans religion.
Exactly. And how many women have been deplatformed or expelled from jobs and academia for simply performing evidence based research that reflects reality?
https://www.filia.org.uk/latest-news/2020/7/5/10-women-in-academia-censored-or-threatened
Surprised that any Telegraph columnist should be so uncritical of the "queer lens" absurdities deemed to be "science" gracing the absurd inclusion of trans-identified males in The 100 Women (so-called) List. The Torygraph usually gives short shrift to this kind of stuff.
High time we all stopped paying the licence fee. They can’t lock us all up.
Consider the rate of sexual assault by abruptly "trans identifying" husbands in my survey, the sole data in the world on trans widows, their ex-wives. Over 1/3 of us have experienced such traumatizing events that is, 26 of 64. One of the trans widows was murdered. (Jennifer Anderson, wife of Kier Anderson, who now serves 25 to life in a CA women's prison and has a podcast called "Ear Hustle." I got Jennifer's data from the reports on her death by strangulation and her husband's guilty plea in court.) These men are deranged, enraged loonies, more often than not. But "celebrated" by a world in which US Supreme Court Justices (Sotomayor and Brown Jackson) compare mutilation and rerouting of the urinary tract in children to the risks of taking aspirin or the long vacated laws in the American South against interracial marriage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwZUV72oDbQ&t=43s
I wondered how they choose the women on the list. I found this video from the BBC which introduces itself as going to tell us exactly that - how they choose the women on the list. Trouble is it, er... doesn't! https://www.instagram.com/bbc100women/reel/DC7Gpz9qlYL/
If they started this list as recently as 2013, my bet is its whole purpose was to normalise and celebrate cross-dressing men not only as women but as stand-out women. This also very effectively reduces the significance of the achievements of all the women on the list. In 2017 a woman from the BBC contacted my publisher to request an interview with me about my girlhood dance memoir that was positively reviewed by a news outlet here in NZ. But at the last minute someone higher up at the BBC withdrew the offer without explanation. I got the feeling at the time that some kind of sexism was at play, that my girlhood story was too much of a celebration of femaleness for that higher up. But we mustn't be conspiracists, ay? Good to have it all on record though, JL. Thanks as ever.
Oh for goodness sake Terf Vibes don’t just be normal. That’s way too boring. Be some kind of maladjusted oddity and then your story will have added value.
I'm working on that maladjustment, Marionq, making some good progress too. 😉BBC = Be Bloody Crazy.
I agree with this. Start a list of women, include 'women' right from the get-go. They were starting to groom us to accept that some men are women. Not only that: we are groomed to perceive that these 'women' are not only superior to the average actual woman, these mediocre men are the peers of incredible, brave, intelligent real women. it is enraging, and sinister. The epitome of misogyny
Exactly. It's more about bettering women than being women. They couldn't be more male and misogynist in this strategy.
All the more reason not to follow BBC. Is there viewership as low as CNN, yet?
Live it up because it’s gonna be over soon. The Mothers are the biggest gang in every country. You’ll see
So many ugly men! Was it the ugliest man competition? If so they are all joint winners!