The BBC is gambling with its own future

Many have received a response to their complaints about The BBC threatening to report non-compliant women to the police, surely the lowest moment in its disgraceful cheerleading campaign for an expansion of male rights.

Susan “The Actual Susan” McDonnell 💜🤍💚 @sleeepysandy

So, I had a response from the BBC re Hubbard in the Olympics. Anyone else?

If you want to send a follow-up complaint, here’s where to write.

And here are two letters for inspiration. One from Susan and the second from Rob Jessel.

---

In your reponse to my complaint you say "The BBC does not take an editorial position" on these issues. This is untrue. For example, you refer to " the co-evolution of trans and women's sport". To say this assumes that these two things are entwined and therefore that transwomen have a place in women's sport, a position that many women do not accept and that goes to the heart of the issue. 

You also say that you have referenced "the latest research", but you do not reference Emma Hilton's work at all, even though it is direct on point. You reference Joanna Harper's work, which other than a recent literature review is several years old and widely discredited as it is based on self-reported reduced performance among 8 track athletes, none a weightlifter. There is simply no question that male puberty confers an unremovable advantage on competitors in strength based sports, but you brush that off as being "not necessarily overwhelming".  That Hubbard, who is twice the age of most competitors in weights, with an unsuccessful history in male competition and a history of serious injury, was not mentioned, even though this makes it clear to most that Hubbard's inclusion was grossly unfair. 

You also do not consider the changing nature of what it is to be "trans" when noting that there has not been a huge number of trans medal winners. Previously there was an expectation of SRS surgery, but this is no longer the case - Hubbard has intact male genitalia. This makes the barrier to accessing women's categories lower. 

You refer to Hubbard as competing as a female. Female is biology. Hubbard is not and can never be female. 

You imply in your quote from Harper that trans athletes are required to reduce their testosterone level to levels present in natal women. This is not the case. The requirement is to 10 nmol; women have levels around a fifth of that. The figure is an arbitrary one because testosterone is irrelevant, mere noise compared to male puberty. 

Please review.

Susan McDonnell

---

This is not good enough. The advantages of male puberty isn't a matter of conjecture; of "on the one hand this, on the other hand that". It's settled. Male puberty confers enormous physical advantage - everything from skeleton to bone density, to upper body strength, to fast-twitch muscle fibres..the list is practically endless.

You don't give equal weight to climate change sceptics or anti-vaxxers, do you? And yet for this 3,000-word article you just had talking heads with an agenda, and no links or analysis of the studies. You took everything they said at face value. Would you do that with Alex Jones and his disgusting claims about Sandy Hook? Of course not. The BBC's role is to question, discriminate, and present the facts objectively - not passively give equal weight to both sides.

Remarkably, the BBC itself broadcast Martina Navratilova's documentary examining this issue in depth and detail. For some unaccountable reason, this programme remains unavailable on iPlayer, depriving the public of empirical, scientific knowledge about this issue at a time when they most need it. Inform? Educate? Shame on you.

And why is the BBC using such absurd language such as "lived as a man"? What does it mean to "live as a man"? That he wore trousers and had short hair? Or that he has a penis and a Y chromosome? Because the first is reducing someone to harmful gender stereotypes (bad! not woke!)...and the second is immutable.

Here's the thing: you are torn between knowing this is nonsense, and sensing that the BBC - being nice and cuddly - has to support a minority cause. Newsflash: supporting anti-science positions will make you look stupid in the long (and not-so-long) term.

Last thing: That small sick feeling in the pit of your stomach when you get to work every day? That's the knowledge that trust in our national public broadcaster is slowly but steadily slipping away. As you pursue "niceness" and abandon reality, your audience are abandoning you too.

Rob Jessel