Woman’s hour asking whether porn for teens should be toned down. (NB: an apology was received)
On Aug 3, your Woman’s Hour account tweeted: [link was here]
“What’s the best way to inform teenagers about porn? Should there be age-appropriate porn as has been suggested so they can learn about consent and what’s respectful and what’s not?”
This tweet was a reference to a tweet by Flora Gill, a deliberately controversial tweeter, who asked whether there should be “training wheels porn”. Despite her entire Twitter existence being devoted to controversy, even she recognised immediately that this was a stupid thing to suggest, and she deleted it within minutes.
That a renowned troll recognised that this was not appropriate only makes it more shocking that “Woman”‘s Hour decided that this was a “suggested” subject for discussion.
Why did Flora Gill delete? Because it was pointed out to her, immediately, that it is impossible for porn to be age-appropriate – sharing nude pictures with children is unlawful. The suitability of pornography for children is not a matter of consent.
Moreover, NO porn is “respectful” because ALL porn demeans women as things to be objectified. Boys in particular are vulnerable to having their ideas of what women are “for” derailed by seeing pornography.
Woman’s Hour should be promoting WOMEN, not this. There are plenty of huge stories about women: single sex wards being removed in hospitals, successful Olympians, the Hubbard controversy, to name a few.
That this tweet was poorly received is an understatement; it currently has a ratio of 118 “likes” (your account has 227k followers) to around 3000 replies (almost entirely negative) and 2000 quote retweets. It seems as if your social media team are so desperate for attention that they will tweet things that the trolls think are beneath them. Yet this is WHY women like me no longer interact with the page, or listen to the show.
Please learn that it is better to get no attention than this level of negative attention. Do better.
Complaint regarding article about Hubbard’s participation in the Olympics
The article repeatedly uses the controversial & widely resented term “cis” (ie aligned with the means of oppression) and conflates the terms “sex” & “gender”.
It states that Hubbard is a woman, though Hubbard is not a female.
It fails to canvas crucial evidence which it is well known the IOC itself is now considering – that testosterone levels are almost irrelevant to athletic performance, because the advantages arise from male puberty not testosterone – see here: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/15/865 .
The article also fails to mention:
a) why women have sex-segregated spaces & competitions;
b) the equality impact on the outstanding young women of colour displaced by a middle aged previously mediocre male athlete;
c) that Hubbard is a highly privileged white male born multimillionaire, not an oppressed victim;
d) that weight categories do not correct for male puberty because pound for pound men are stronger – see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3;
e) that Hubbard is Executive Officer of the New Zealand weightlifting association https://theworldnews.net/uk-news/new-zealand-s-transgender-weightlifter-laurel-hubbard-will-be-shielded-from-trolls;
f) that Hubbard has not had any surgery and despite “identifying as female” remains an intact male – clearly evidenced in numerous photographs
g) that even though Hubbard was once number one in New Zealand as a man, since that time Hubbard has had injuries which in most athletes would prevent further competition;
h) that Hubbard, at 43, is “over the hill”, the average age of other competitors of either sex being around half that age;
i) that Hubbard is a controversial figure as a result of a driving conviction which many felt was covered up – relevant given that this was a profile piece.
All in all, the article was a biased “puff piece”, which sets out an ideological view, not a view worthy of the BBC and its charter obligations. It does not present a balanced view of the facts.
Complaint re “Transitioning Teens” (BBC3 programme)
This programme was biased in that:
You invited Helen Webberley to comment. She set up Gender GP, the private overseas clinic which prescribes hormones to those who identify as trans. This is a multi-million business – they claim to have 30,000 clients each paying around £400 a year to subscribe. They are understood to have contributed to “charities” in the UK which promote gender ideology such as Mermaids and have appear to have staff in common with another, Gendered Intelligence.
Ms Webberley is currently in the throes of a 55 day hearing regarding her suspension from the GMC as a practitioner, prompted by alleged prescriptions of hormones on inadequate assessments. This makes her an unsuitable person to contribute to the programme – her reputation is, to say the least of it, in doubt.
Jolyon Maugham was also represented as offering an unbiased view. It is widely reported, and he has intimated, that he has a close family member who is a trans-identified child. While he is presented as if he is a lawyer in this area, he is in fact a tax lawyer. This is not his area of expertise – his interest in this is running a private business, “The Good Law Project” (not a charity), of which he is the sole controller, and which has brought a number of claims in this area. His interest is personal, not dispassionate or legal.
You also make reference to teen suicide. There is NO evidence that trans-identifying children have an increased suicide risk compared with others with similar profiles, nor that transitioning reduces the risk. This has already been the subject of complaints in your coverage of the Keira Bell case, where you shifted ground, so there is no reason to repeat the arguments here. You can find accurate data here: https://fairplayforwomen.com/suicide/
Your presenter is a transactivist – are you planning to offer a programme to those campaigning to support teens with gender discomfort with therapy?