Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

early version of video about recent bbc transphobia (Patreon)

Published:
2021-11-11 23:10:26
Imported:
2026-06

Content

Howdy folks! Quick video about an article that really annoyed me. Content warning for sexual assault, transphobia & transphobic violence

Title, video description (inc content warnings) and real thumbnail to come. No credits for this one as it's only short

Any feedback appreciated as always

Thanks,

Shaun

Files

bbcv1

Comments

hey

This was great, thank you

Dragon Cobolt

"you may notice I am a bit annoyed by this" he says while...making what has to be the angriest Shaun video I've ever heard?

Sam Standen

Thanks for this, will be sharing far and wide on official release. Have you seen BBC's response to the open letter against this article?

Adam Greene

Thank you for this, truly.

Liam Kofi Bright

Great video. I complained under "other" with this text: The article re trans women pressuring cis lesbians into sex was quite manifestly inappropriate. It inaccurately claimed that no prominent trans women were willing to speak to the author despite that being an admitted falsehood (https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/11/04/bbc-trans-chelsea-poe-lily-cade/). It initially featured a known rapist Cade (known to the author to be as much at the time of writing) as a prominent source, who then used the attention this brought her to write a murder manifesto about lynching trans women - a further clear error in judgement about the suitability of sources. But most of all - the article is just quite obviously a work of hateful propaganda. One could with as much accuracy say of *any* demographic group that some of its members have done horrid things. But by raising to salience the misbehaviour from a socially disfavoured minority group you are simply doing the bigot propagandists' work for them. It is the exact same rhetorical strategy as the infamous Willie Horton advert (https://www.history.com/news/george-bush-willie-horton-racist-ad) and you should be ashamed of yourselves. What is more, beyond (admittedly tragic) isolated cases all one gets from this re evidence of the phenomenon is one survey included. This was from a group who misgender trans people in their material so are in that way obviously going to filter for what sort of person replies, who surveyed a paltry amount of people they reached through their own social network, and who operated with a very expanded sense of what counts as pressuring into sex that apparently includes unrelated third parties online offering trans affirming sentiments. This is, like Cade, absolutely improper to include as a source. I am an academic at the London School of Economics. I have researched racist bigotry and oppression. Its transphobic analogues here are obvious to see. Such bigoted rot should be beneath the dignity of our national broadcaster.

Nicolai Nielsen

This is great, Shaun. One issue I had, though was about the four-minute mark where you mention the "approached by trans women" part of the ... erhm ... study? I am pretty certain that this is a meant in the sense of "solicited for sex" and you taking it as meaning "they were passing by" comes off as a bit disingenuous in and otherwise awesome video. If still mentioning it, I would suggest you instead point out how this part of the "study" results are meant to trigger cis mens' fear of finding out that have had sex with a transitioned trans women or (shudder!) find themselves in bed with a non-transitioned trans women, complete with dangerous body parts. In my mind, it is actually worse than how you position it. Thanks again for this video. It is great and I'll probably submit a few different complaints to the BBC website!

Ramona Mantegani

Thank you for writing this, Shaun. I have been so incredibly angry, hurt, and sad about this whole situation which I have been watching extremely closely. The only thing that makes me feel better is knowing how many people are seeing this for what it is: Blatant transphobic garbage, pure hate speech being platformed by one of the most recognizable news organizations in the world. It is disgusting that they published this, but it is heartening to see so much support for the trans community from our allies.

creeot

"Passing" in this context means a trans person being perceived as their gender without people thinking they're trans, e.g. a trans woman being seen as a woman without people knowing she's trans, not "passing by." I think Shaun's making the same point you are.

Nicolai Nielsen

Ah, I was not aware of this meaning of "passing". I interpreted it as Shaun claiming that this was about trans woman passing BY the reportees. TIL! Thanks.

Aless

Thank you, Shaun, for standing up for us against this bullshit hate-filled propaganda. It’s been extremely difficult for me to cope with this shit, and it’s good to see we still have cis people on our side. Additionally, as a journalism student, I have to say that I appreciate that you have a better grasp on basic journalistic ethics and practice, than the goddamn motherfucking BBC itself. Thank you.

Alistair Davidson

Good video. I think you should take a bit more time to define terms (passing, cis...) for the sake of people who are newer to the issue

Kathy G

This is what I posted on the BBC complaints page (and for the record I didn't make anything up): "I have a trans child who is engaged to a cis lesbian. They are high school sweethearts, and very much in love. This story is insulting to both of them. What's more, it increases the likelihood that they will be harassed and even assaulted. Please remove this "feature". It serves no purpose except to make people fear and loathe my kids and people like them."

Nghtfall

Much appreciation for you talking about this and covering it so well.

Gianna J

When I first read the article my initial impression was that it was of an issue that was being under-reported, hence the need to report it. What I should have then done was check out the sources they used to see the massive amounts of bias. The author either has an agenda or wrote the article for clicks, which for the BBC disappoints me massively. I will say that I immediately recognised how problematic it was punching down onto a group that is unfortunately already hard-done by our society. Thanks for going into depth about it, great video as always.

LomeaDae

Great video! And awesome idea to share the link for complains!

All-Natural Fig Jam

A "little annoyed" from Shaun is an incoherent rant from anyone else

All-Natural Fig Jam

Amazing video as usual, will definitely make a complaint ASAP. Here's hoping the BBC feels ashamed of themselves. Also worth noting that the article frequently mentions that other groups and sources that they reached out to "did not want to speak to them" - like Veronica Ivy and Stonewall. But they sure seemed to get a lot of anti-trans sources. Did they cut other contributions out, or did people not want to talk to them once they realised what the article was going to be?

Pillbughug

Thanks Shaun, I appreciate you for trying to jump on this and also for demonstrating how to navigate the BBC’s trash bi- sorry, complaint page

Robin C

Hi Shaun, something that I think might be important to discuss is that responses to complaints and comments on the article tend to say that "the article recieved many complaints as well as many appreciations". I have made a freedom of information request to ask about the number of complaints recieved about the article, something they should be able to provide, as well as asking whether they have any official methods of measuring "appreciations", or what justification they have to imply that the response being so split. I worry that there response is worded to continue the attempt to "both sides" the debate as well as attempting to distract from the fact that a large amount of the british public do disagree with the war against trans people. I'll let you know what response I get.

Robin C

Oh, also another thing which is just terrible journalism (though it might take away from the main point of your video) is the terrible cherrypicking in the article where the author has clearly just tried to find the most controversial tweets which support their points. One of the tweets saying "genital preference is transphobic" is one tweet from a series of tweets which had a larger point, was from 2015, and had 6 comments and 23 likes. That this made the cut as one of there examples shows just how far they are needing to reach, and at no point is it thought to compare the rates of how many people feel pressured by trans women to have sex to how many people feel pressured by men to have sex. While the BBC blurred the name obviously you can still find the person who said it, and in an article talking about online hate it seems irresponsible to take just a section of a person's point and put it in another context in an article aimed at militant transphobes.

JMW Music

Always love your content and especially love your allyship with the trans community. At 1 minute and 16 seconds have you considered saying equally invalid instead of equally valid? Just a thought. Thank you for sharing your perspective!

James King

Great commentary as always! I think your idea of targeting the undeniable falsehood about not getting replies from trans women is very smart. However, I would also mention that to be able to escalate the BBC complaint to Ofcom you may need to respond multiple times regarding the same complaint (and it may be helpful to outline that process too). Re the script itself — At ~9:34 you say “her sexual assaults” in reference to the Lily Cade’s ‘inappropriate behaviour’. I’m nitpicking, but I think saying “sexual assaults she perpetrated” (or more accessible vocab to that effect) is clearer. Your meaning should be obvious from the previous discussion in the video, but someone new to this story might possibly misunderstand that as sexual assaults she *suffered*.

Winona Ingle

Excellent work Shaun. Terrifying that the article could even be published in the first place.

Couchnapping

I came to say the same thing

Couchnapping

Hi, I think it might be helpful to clarify in the deception part (around 4:17) that you're quoting them. If someone isn't paying attention to the visuals in the moment it sounds like you're implying there's a distinction between "trans women" and "women". Apologies if I'm overthinking it.

Kimberley Challis

Excellent work as usual. The BBC will be getting a complaint from me, that’s for sure…

Tomasina Wallman

Great video. I’ve already received a truly pathetic response to my complaint, and follow up complaints are getting ‘we’re very busy please wait’ replies. Not sure where you get your optimism from that the BBC will apologise, but I do hope you’re right. LGBTQ employees at the BBC are quitting over this and it doesn’t seem to have had much of an impact :/

Kat

I've been following this issue through creators like verily bitchily and curio, and it's both surprising and disheartening to hear that there is more to this story that I hadn't heard yet (specifically the lie about reaching out to high profile trans women). Thank you for this video, and I will be lodging a complaint with the BBC from Canada.

Jessica Cooper

Thank you so much for this Shaun <3 A much better job than I did explaining to cis friends.

Dylan Bailey

This is great, really well made and fantastic that you gave us a way to help stop this hateful nonsense from being spread in the media. Will deffo be sending in my complaint!

Aless

Here’s my complaint. It’s maybe a bit more aggressive than I would have liked, but I truly don’t know how to not be actually angry about this shit. “ I am contacting you to complain about a lie in the October 26 article “we’re being pressured into sex by some trans women” by Caroline Lowbridge. This article claims that no high profile trans women who have written about sex/relationships responded to Lowbridge’s requests for an interview, and thus could not be represented in the article. This is a lie, as the BBC itself has admitted (https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/11/04/bbc-trans-chelsea-poe-lily-cade/): “a BBC source confirmed[…] that Lowbridge interviewed Poe [a trans woman who wrote about sex and relationships] but did not find her contributions relevant”. How could her contributions not be relevant? This is an article which attempts to claim that trans women are inherently dangerous (before you claim otherwise, consider whether you would write an article like “some black people are pressuring us into sex”), and you thought it was not relevant to interview one of us about it? Not only that, but the trans woman you interviewed notified you that Lily Cade, a source you previously included, had a history of sexual assaults (or, as you call it in your retraction, “inappropriate behaviour”). In an article that claims trans women are pressuring cis women into sex, you did not think it relevant that you were informed that one of your main sources was known forcing women into sex? Given that a Lowbridge claimed to not have interviewed any trans women who had written about sex/relationships, this is a shameful lie must be amended and apologised for. Otherwise, the BBC will simply be confirming that this article is not intended to inform, but instead to inflame hatred and fear of trans women like me. If the BBC wishes to maintain its credibility as a news organisation, instead of a hateful propaganda outlet, it has no choice but to amend this falsehood.”

Matthew Foweraker

They seem busy. Your Reference CAS-6992482-K6N0Z7  Thanks for contacting the BBC recently. Please do not reply to this automated email: it is from an outgoing address which cannot handle replies. This is an update to apologise to you that although we normally aim to reply to most complaints within 2 weeks, we are currently dealing with a higher than normal volume of cases. This means it will take a little longer to reply to you at present. We hope you understand that this is why we are unable to respond within our normal service times. We will of course respond as soon as we can, but in the meantime ask you not to contact us further and apologise if you do experience further delay. For full details of our complaints process please visit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/how-we-handle-your-complaint. Thank you for contacting us - we appreciate your patience in waiting for our response. Kind regards BBC Complaints Team www.bbc.co.uk/complaints NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

Matthew Foweraker

And here is there non-apology. Dear  Mr Foweraker  Thank you for contacting us regarding the publication of a recent BBC article. In preparing the article, the BBC conducted a number of interviews with a number of people over a number of months. However, it is commonplace for some interviewees, who may have been spoken to during the research stage, not to feature in the final version of an article due to a number of factors. As the article states, a number of high-profile commentators on this issue were contacted but declined to contribute. The definition of ‘high profile’ is clearly open to debate but the journalist considered it appropriately reflected the wider public profile of those she contacted and their track record in discussing transgender issues. There is no obligation upon the BBC to include a contributor purely on the basis that someone may wish us to do so, or indeed because a complaint about not having done so is received. Thank you for getting in touch. Kind regards, BBC Complaints Team www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Adam Greene

Dear Audience Member Thank you for contacting us regarding the publication of a recent BBC article. In preparing the article, the BBC conducted a number of interviews with a number of people over a number of months. However, it is commonplace for some interviewees, who may have been spoken to during the research stage, not to feature in the final version of an article due to a number of factors. As the article states, a number of high-profile commentators on this issue were contacted but declined to contribute. The definition of ‘high profile’ is clearly open to debate but the journalist considered it appropriately reflected the wider public profile of those she contacted and their track record in discussing transgender issues. There is no obligation upon the BBC to include a contributor purely on the basis that someone may wish us to do so, or indeed because a complaint about not having done so is received. Thank you for getting in touch. Kind regards,   BBC Complaints Team www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Adam Greene

Giant fuck you to the BBC

Jordan Spencer

Complaint from December 5th: Inaccuracies exist in this article which undermine the integrity of the content, the author, and its editor. The statement "I contacted several other high profile trans women who have either written or spoken about sex and relationships. None of them wanted to speak to me" is known by the author to be false, because at least one other person fitting these criteria did, in fact, agree to speak and was interviewed by the author. Handwaving journalistic fundamentals such as seeking and sourcing alternative viewpoints is unacceptable. I rely on the BBC for news and investigation of many subjects, including controversial ones. My views are changing and sometimes wrong, which is why I need my news to be clear and honest. I select the BBC over other news sources because of my past experience - editors here are talented and keep content on track and impartial. The BBC plays a role in molding my view of the world. So, while it's good that this general subject (transphobia and women's safety) is getting exposure, it is an order of magnitude worse that nothing close to impartial reporting was achieved or seemingly attempted here. The presentation of objective falsehoods and biases such as misgendering completely undercuts my faith that the BBC can responsibly discuss social issues. It is understandable and expected for a single reporter or editor to sometimes be blind to their own biases. However, it is inexcusable for a piece on such sensitive subject matter to receive such mediocre editorial review. If that presumption is incorrect and this article successfully passed through an appropriately robust review, then that team was not up the task given them. They failed their readers. The editorial process at the BBC must be sound. When incorrect or offensive content slips through, the BBC must take appropriate action supported by democratic principles. This complaint is part of that process. The article does not display impartiality and should be removed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Response on December 10th: Thank you for contacting us regarding the publication of a recent BBC article. In preparing the article, the BBC conducted a number of interviews with a number of people over a number of months. However, it is commonplace for some interviewees, who may have been spoken to during the research stage, not to feature in the final version of an article due to a number of factors. As the article states, a number of high-profile commentators on this issue were contacted but declined to contribute. The definition of ‘high profile’ is clearly open to debate but the journalist considered it appropriately reflected the wider public profile of those she contacted and their track record in discussing transgender issues. There is no obligation upon the BBC to include a contributor purely on the basis that someone may wish us to do so, or indeed because a complaint about not having done so is received. Thank you for getting in touch. Kind regards, BBC Complaints Team

Finn L'e

Response to the follow-up complaint. Jan 13th. I had pretty much followed Shaun's approach and insisted on the trans-phobia. It took them a while to not read. Hello, Thank you for getting in touch again to restate your complaint that an interview with Chelsea Poe did not feature in the article 'We're being pressured into sex by some trans women' (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385). We can only reiterate that the choice of interviews which feature in the final version of an article is the legitimate expression of the editorial judgement of journalists and editors- and so does not usually raise the prospect of a breach of standards. This concludes Stage 1 of our complaints process. That means we can’t correspond with you further here. If you remain unhappy, you can now contact the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU). The ECU is Stage 2 of the BBC’s complaints process. You’ll need to explain why you think there’s a potential breach of standards, or if the issue is significant and should still be investigated. Please do so within 20 working days of this reply.

Ctolm [the t is silent]

BBC response to my complaint about the lack of coverage of the protest using the template you gave in the 3rd video: Dear  [my name] Thanks for getting in touch with us. Many marches and protests take place in cities around the UK and we’re unable to cover them all. Decisions on which stories to report on, and the amount of time we spend on them, depend on a range of factors, including what other stories are around at the time. We know that not everyone will agree with our choices. With regard to our output in this area, as a public service broadcaster we explore a wide range of issues and perspectives. We have a strong commitment to impartiality, and this includes covering stories on any point of the spectrum of debate. Stories should be seen not just individually, but in the broader context of our wider coverage. We do not condone or support discrimination in any form. Kind regards, BBC Complaints Team

Josh Cheesman

I also got the exact same response for my complaint.