Moving swiftly onto the #mailonsunday piece on @stonewalluk . Some context first (without belittling anyone’s genuine belief). Sainsburys has nearly 190,000 employees. This seems to be a complaint from a single employee as a reference source.
Now some technical edits...(1/9)
for Sanchez Manning. The definition of a whistleblower is someone who is in a protected position when informing about their employer’s breach of the law here (usually something underhand or hidden). So this person is not a whistleblower. Yet the word is used repeatedly...(2/9)
to give the story some (untrue) gloss. Try replacing the word ‘whistleblower’ with ‘person who does not agree with Sainsburys trans policies’ and the story loses its clickbait/dogwhistle appeal.
Secondly, we are back to the same old concept of ‘othering’. (3/9)
The article accuses Sainsburys of ignoring the concerns of women, but what they mean here is ‘women who are not trans women’. I totally there is a need for explanation and this may not have taken place (but it may – the person in the article only says “as far as I am aware” (4/9)
there was no consultation – does that mean Sainsburys did this without consulting any women? Possible but strange)
Thirdly, I would also question the seniority of the person questioned. They know an awful lot about the Workplace Equality Index –even that it takes about 400..(5/9)
hours to fill in to get four lines of feedback. That’s an AMAZINGLY detailed stat and I’m not even sure that it’s true. This person also then says that the feedback is “not anything actionable or thorough” – which is also strange and in the view of @thetimes yesterday,..(6/9)
Stonewall is forcing companies to change exactly through this feedback. So, is it ‘coercing entire government departments’ or ‘nothing actionable or thorough’. I think it just depends on which narrative we are being fed. Interestingly, here’s a piece later...(7/9)
in the paper from @AShulman2, dismissing complaints about Jess de Wahls as there are only 8. So, just to help #mailonsunday with their maths... (8/9)
– 8 complaints about something anti-trans? Fuss over nothing. One disgruntled employee over Sainsburys pro-trans stance? Half page at the front of the newspaper… (9/9)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Okay, final #mailonsunday piece before I have a bloody mary at this rate.
Right – this piece is trope number 3 – just lie in the headline. So, the headline sounds shocking – LGBT people demand right to have LGBT representation on LGBT stories!! Actually, it doesn't...(1/9)
sound that bad when you say it like that, so it’s been misrepresented and twisted into our old false friend – the secret all powerful trans lobby that is silencing dissent (remember again – the gay lobby in the 80s what was silencing dissent. It’s a well-trodden path ...(2/9)
to encourage otherness).
When you read the article, no-one except #sanchezmanning said 'vet'. The LGBT group wants to play a role in editorial processes. Lots of people do that, and we always complain that editorial boards aren’t diverse enough (ahem #mailonsunday). (3/9)
Okay, so now #mailonsunday. TBH I struggle a little with members of the LGBT+ community now quoting anti-trans or anti-Stonewall pieces from this newspaper, forgetting the vitriol they have previously had for us. Change of editorial policy or way to divide us? I think we...(1/10)
need to be more aware.
I’m splitting today's media check into 3 to make it easier. Firstly is this piece on pupils being brainwashed. So, this is a great example of making a very small thing seem like a tsunami about to drown us in wokeness. It follows a standard template: (2/10)
1.“Won’t someone think of the children??” Make alleged risk to children the issue – who would be anti that? Thing is, it’s not true and for those with selective memories, it was this newspaper (that didn’t want gay men as teachers. There is no risk here – there is no...(3/10)
Sorry - it's a long one today - and tomorrow I will have the @thesundaytimes and the Mail on Sunday to deal with.
But today it's @thetimes .So there’s a lot going on here. Today’s lesson is on ‘thematic distortion’ where you create an idea in someone’s mind by the tone.. (1/12)
of a piece, rather than facts. What we see here is various ‘forcing’ words such as ‘bully’ ‘coerce’ ‘force’, giving the impression that Stonewall is forcing public bodies (again, underlying subtext – it’s your money) to change. Here's the thing - it's just not true... (2/12)
The Workplace Equality Index is totally, 100%, completely voluntary. Don’t agree with their stance on gender equality? Don’t sign up for the index. Tell your employees that you disagree with that issue and start a debate. (3/12)
Apologies in advance – this is quite a hefty read. This article from @thetimes is a dramatic shift in the battlefield folks. We’ve gone from a handful of GC loons such as Fair Cop and A Woman’s Place to the UK’s equalities watchdog also now taking the gencrit side. (1/6)
The point about the EHRC is it has a tricky job – to negotiate the tricky ground between competing freedoms. The new head as simply apparently thrown that out. If women are allowed to question trans identity – importantly HOWEVER they choose to do it, even abusively - (2/6)
without sanction, then with all protections being equal, why can’t a racist discuss repatriation without sanction, or a holocaust denier discuss that at every Jewish conference without sanction? See my previous thread on the pyramid of prejudice (3/8)
The heading is already clickbait. ‘‘FEMALE student faces expulsion…” not just “Student faces…’. So by the 1st word you know that this story is not transphobic but about alleged oppression of women. You rarely see ‘WHITE student in racism row’ (1/8)
Asides from that this one is the usual story – a ‘real’ woman has her views silenced by an overly woke uni - as ever no context – was it a genuine argument? Was she being offensive? Also what is the sanction here? Is is really expulsion?
Importantly there is an acknowledgement from the student herself that she caused offence so let me fix the headline for you:
“Student who admits causing offence faces discipline”