I would expect most people would respond to such an article by saying 'While there's undoubtedly examples of gay people trying to pressure straight people into sex, they are not representative, and such an article will only fuel hatred towards a group which suffers bigotry'
The key difference, of course, is that in modern Britain, cis gay and bi people do not face the level of Establishment sanctioned bigotry which trans people suffer.
Take this example.
Last year, Reynard Sinaga was jailed for raping dozens of straight men in Manchester.
There was no BBC article about the phenomenon of gay people preying on straight people. If there had been, there would have been outrage.
Since this BBC journalist is invoking Jimmy Saville to justify the demonisation of trans people, let’s have a look at his past utterances on the BBC cover up shall we.
It's beyond belief that the BBC published such unbelievably appalling journalism, based on no reliable data and the testimonies of anti-trans activists.
You'd expect to find this sort of conspiratorial hate on the darkest recesses of the internet, not on the BBC.
It's difficult not to conclude that BBC management have made a decision to promote anti-trans talking points as a matter of editorial policy.
A leading pollster explains why it is so disreputable for the BBC to use a *social media poll* distributed by an anti-trans rights group on their own network as evidence.
This article doesn't even mention the anti-trans rights LGB Alliance, for which Kathleen Stock is a Trustee, and which is the *main focus of the Sussex students' objections*, which shows how utterly bereft of basic journalistic standards this is.
If this piece was a proper piece of journalism, it would note that Kathleen Stock signed the "WHRC Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights, which Sussex University students contend seeks to abolish trans rights".
If you are going to write a piece about why Sussex University students are objecting to a certain academic, and you don't even mention the reasons why those students are objecting, then you are clearly not telling your readers the truth.
This from a man who has spent years vilifying and demonising the left in the most over the top way possible, in a newspaper which whips up bigotry against entire communities, knowing the left and minorities face violence from right-wing partisans.
Nauseating.
We have to be honest about what's happening here: some are trying to use the sickening murder of an MP to suggest passionate critiques of our ruling party - and their gruesome policies, including tens of thousands of avoidable COVID deaths - are tantamount to inciting violence.
When parents refuse to accept their child coming out as gay, they almost always justify it on the basis of love. They’re convinced it’s a terrible act of self harm that will destroy their child’s lives.
They are wrong. It’s their failure to affirm their child which risks harm.
Mental distress is much higher among LGBTQ people than the rest of the population and, as a consequence, alcohol and drug abuse is higher.
One of the reasons for this is the failure of parents to accept their LGBTQ children for who they are.
The same people who dismissed anyone mentioning the daily relentless media monstering Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership faced as a factor in his defeat are now claiming that me, a single newspaper columnist, will single handedly make the Tories win again by criticising Keir Starmer
The same people who spent years full of self righteous indignation about the lies and broken promises of Brexiteers and Boris Johnson now say well Keir Starmer deceiving his way to the Labour leadership is fine, actually, because the left are fair game so anything goes
The same people who spent years denouncing the abuse and vitriol they received from Corbyn supporters, and for being denounced as Red Tories, are now calling me every name under the sun on my timeline, as well as a Tory for that matter