BBC Newsreader corrects her own teleprompter changing "pregnant people" to WOMEN!

[Crimson Dynamo]

1936572866377502810

[Mystic Mock]

I wished I'd caught that live.:joker:

[arista]

I feel sorry for her.


BBC forced her to have a facelift
to carry on her position

[Kate!]

I feel sorry for her.


BBC forced her to have a facelift
to carry on her position

That's disgraceful and I feel sorry for her too Arista.

Round of applause for what she said.

[Cherie]

Good to see women fighting back against being obliterated ...pregnant people lol

[The Slim Reaper]

Hallelujah. Good to see the height of female ambition is being called women. 31% of children in the UK live in poverty, but at least you've got a word :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

The apparent correction, during a broadcast on Saturday lunchtime, was endorsed by JK
Rowling, the Harry Potter author and gender campaigner, who posted a clip of the incident on X.

“I have a new favourite BBC presenter,” she commented.

The gender-neutral term “pregnant people” is used by activists who claim to believe biological
women who may be pregnant can be men, if they identify as such.

[The Slim Reaper]

If folks can't see the blatant radicalisation behind trans people existing, then a billionaire author having a new favourite presenter, because she said "woman," should be a stark wake up call.

You're being used to focus on unimportant things, over and above feeding our families and having decent living standards for everyone in the UK. Interesting that a billionaire who should be paying more, is leading this charge.

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2025/06/22/12/99610213-14835961-image-m-27_1750591519846.jpg

https://media.55redefined.com/zz4d568jqart1fsv_gyputlbwwaa4jrb.jpeg?f=Zz4D568jQA rT1FSV_GYpUtLBWwAA4Jrb.jpeg&auto=format%2Ccompress&rect=0%2C136%2C1545%2C869&w=1020&h=1080

[arista]

LT since that Photo

The BBC forced her to have facelift
to stay in her job.........

[The Slim Reaper]

LT since that Photo

The BBC forced her to have facelift
to stay in her job.........

I have no idea whether this is true or not, but if it is, it should be the one issue in this thread that rightly and justifiably raises feminist ire, but it won't, because she said "woman."

"there is no social revolution without the liberation of women," has been changed by women themselves, to "look, she said a word." Sad times.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Beautiful grey eyes

[Glenn.]

Oh he fancies her that’s why he’s made such a big deal over it. Creepy af

[Beso]

If folks can't see the blatant radicalisation behind trans people existing, then a billionaire author having a new favourite presenter, because she said "woman," should be a stark wake up call.

You're being used to focus on unimportant things, over and above feeding our families and having decent living standards for everyone in the UK. Interesting that a billionaire who should be paying more, is leading this charge.




Don't be ridiculous.people don't see this then sit mulling over it all day. :joker:

[The Slim Reaper]

Don't be ridiculous.people don't see this then sit mulling over it all day. :joker:

I don't know what you mean here. Can you reword or clarify, so I know what i'm replying to, please? Not trying to be a dick, just genuinely don't get what you're trying to say.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Karl Martin writes:

Well done martineBBC
for standing up for women & girls AND biological science.
The ‘progressive’ @BBCNews
previously tried to discriminate against talented women of her vintage but she and her colleagues saw the misogynists off.

If you recall she took the BBC to task for ageism a year or so ago

[The Slim Reaper]

"talented women of her vintage" is an absolutely wild thing to say :laugh2:

[Crimson Dynamo]

"talented women of her vintage" is an absolutely wild thing to say :laugh2:

I thought it was a rather polite way of saying she had been at the BBC nigh on 30 years

[Cherie]

Yeah we have always had a word, until Men tried to take it away from us...go women

[Cherie]

when all else fails and you are being shown up for the mysogynist you are bring starving childers into it....great job :smug:

[Cherie]

LT since that Photo

The BBC forced her to have facelift
to stay in her job.........

Could you provide one of your famous links please because I can't find this anywhere, she took them to court for ageism

[The Slim Reaper]

Yeah we have always had a word, until Men tried to take it away from us...go women

Stop it. Men haven't tried to take words away from you. Support for trans people is highest amongst lesbians. Do those women not count?

Micro-focussing on a word as actual women's rights are being eroded around the world, is wild.

[The Slim Reaper]

when all else fails and you are being shown up for the mysogynist you are bring starving childers into it....great job :smug:

Me? Are you calling me the misogynist here?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Could you provide one of your famous links please because I can't find this anywhere, she took them to court for ageism

I could not either but It does look a bit like it I must say, or its very good lighting?

[The Slim Reaper]

https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397371

why is she dressed like a prostitute hiking lifts from strangers?

l really dont know and this is who parents take their 8 years olds to see... mind boggling

This is how we respect and support women. Fcuking hell. Solidarity, ladies :laugh3:

[Glenn.]

https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397371





This is how we respect and support women. Fcuking hell. Solidarity, ladies :laugh3:

It hilarious isn’t it

[The Slim Reaper]

It hilarious isn’t it

The belief that supporting trans people and supporting women are mutually exclusive is the biggest misconception on the forum.

Disliking individual women on the forum does not make anyone a misogynist, in the same way that women on the forum not liking me, doesn't make them man-haters.

They have no interest in holding genuinely misogynistic posts/posters to account, but say you also support trans people, and all of a sudden, you're ready to chain every woman to a kitchen sink.

[Cherie]

It hilarious isn’t it


Is it, Just because I take issue with how someone dresses in a very sexually explicit way who is idolised by little girls, if her target audience were adults I would have no issue at all why is that hilarious? please explain it to me

[Glenn.]

Is it, Just because I take issue with how someone dresses in a very sexually explicit way who is idolised by little girls, if her target audience were adults I would have no issue at all why is that hilarious? please explain it to me

What I find ‘hilarious’ is that you claim to ‘support all women’, but only as long as they fit into your idea of what’s ‘appropriate’. Sabrina Carpenter doesn’t owe you, or anyone, a dress code, regardless of who looks up to her. Girls aren’t that fragile, and women aren’t public property. If your ‘support’ only applies when women dress and behave to your personal standard, it’s not support at all.

[Cherie]

What I find ‘hilarious’ is that you claim to ‘support all women’, but only as long as they fit into your idea of what’s ‘appropriate’. Sabrina Carpenter doesn’t owe you, or anyone, a dress code, regardless of who looks up to her. Girls aren’t that fragile, and women aren’t public property. If your ‘support’ only applies when women dress and behave to your personal standard, it’s not support at all.

What a ridiculous statement, she can dress how she pleases, however if she is influencing little girls, its a moral dilemma, unless you want to live in a peado paradise of course, I can disagree with how she dresses on stage and still support women, its not mutually exclusive, I mean you want men with penises in womens spaces then say you support women, now THAT is hilarious

[Glenn.]

What a ridiculous statement, she can dress how she pleases, however if she is influencing little girls, its a moral dilemma, unless you want to live in a peado paradise of course, I can disagree with how she dresses on stage and still support women, its not mutually exclusive, I mean you want men with penises in womens spaces then say you support women, now THAT is hilarious

What a mess of a reply. Criticising a woman for how she dresses doesn’t make you some champion for little girls, it just makes you the fashion police. The ‘paedo paradise’ line is gross and desperate, as if bare legs and a low neckline somehow justify predatory behaviour. The only people responsible for that are the predators themselves.

And as for ‘you want men with penises in women’s spaces’, laughable. Trans women are women, and repeating this tired ‘danger in the bathroom’ trope doesn’t make your point, it just shows how little you understand about women’s safety and solidarity. Trans women don’t attack women in bathrooms. Men do though.

So no, you don’t ‘support women’; you support women when they stay within boundaries you’ve decided for them, and you use that as an excuse to attack others. That’s not feminism. That’s policing and discrimination dressed up as ‘concern’

[The Slim Reaper]

The same attitudes that blame women themselves for being sexually assaulted. Madonna, Beyoncé, Miley, and Dua Lipa, to name but a few, are not dressing like prostitutes and pushing young girls into a lifetime of harlotry.

Women being free to dress how they like should be celebrated. When we have Muslim women wearing Hijabs, everyone has an opinion on how wrong that is, but a free young women dressing for herself is cause for moral panic?

Hypocritical to say the least.

Little girls in Gaza are having limbs amputated and their lives ended on a daily basis, but I don't see an outpouring of feminist support on the forum for that group.

People are free to feel how they like, but maybe folks shouldn't be so liberal with cries of misogyny when they help perpetuate stereotypes that have harmed women through the last 1600 years.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Ms Croxall made headlines in April for challenging a pro-transgender activist who said April's Supreme Court ruling on the definition of sex within the 2010 Equality Act might need some 'clarification'.

In a live interview with the presenter just after the ruling, campaigner and ex-Labour MSP candidate Heather Herbert - who has now joined the Greens - said: 'I feel like I'm under attack.'

He clashed with Ms Croxall throughout the segment, as the host questioned how it was an 'attack', adding he felt it was just a 'clarification of what the word "woman" means'.

Ms Croxall said the case made clear 'sex is binary and immutable' when the activist said local authorities which have not protected single-sex spaces on the basis of biological sex may need to reconsider in light of the ruling.

When Herbert asked for 'clarification', the presenter replied: 'The ruling is that "woman" means biological sex.'

[Cherie]

What a mess of a reply. Criticising a woman for how she dresses doesn’t make you some champion for little girls, it just makes you the fashion police. The ‘paedo paradise’ line is gross and desperate, as if bare legs and a low neckline somehow justify predatory behaviour. The only people responsible for that are the predators themselves.

And as for ‘you want men with penises in women’s spaces’, laughable. Trans women are women, and repeating this tired ‘danger in the bathroom’ trope doesn’t make your point, it just shows how little you understand about women’s safety and solidarity. Trans women don’t attack women in bathrooms. Men do though.

So no, you don’t ‘support women’; you support women when they stay within boundaries you’ve decided for them, and you use that as an excuse to attack others. That’s not feminism. That’s policing and discrimination dressed up as ‘concern’

lol Transwomen are not women they are transwomen J don't need any lectures from a man on what a woman is please sit down

[Glenn.]

lol Transwomen are not women they are transwomen J don't need any lectures from a man on what a woman is please sit down

As predicted. Ignored 90% of my post and resorts to ‘you’re a man, sit down’. It doesn’t matter what you call trans women, they are women, and your ‘dictionary policing’ doesn’t make your point any stronger. What it does make clear is that you don’t ‘support all women’; you only support the ones you deem acceptable.

Trans women aren’t a threat to women. The threat to women has always been male violence and patriarchal discrimination and no amount of sneering ‘lol’ can change that fact. So maybe try addressing that, instead of punching down at those who already have enough to deal with.

[Swan]

As per, men know better.

[Glenn.]

As per, men know better.

The person telling someone to kill themselves last week suddenly has thoughts on ‘morality’? As per, the only thing you seem to know better is aggression and abuse. Might want to work on being a decent human first, the rest can wait

[Swan]

The person telling someone to kill themselves last week suddenly has thoughts on ‘morality’? As per, the only thing you seem to know better is aggression and abuse. Might want to work on being a decent human first, the rest can wait

That wasn't here, want me to get into what you said elsewhere too? What's said as far as im concerned, elsewhere, doesn't apply here. But i, elsewhere, you can hit me up and we'll chat about it there.

Imma try be fair, up to you.

[Cherie]

As predicted. Ignored 90% of my post and resorts to ‘you’re a man, sit down’. It doesn’t matter what you call trans women, they are women, and your ‘dictionary policing’ doesn’t make your point any stronger. What it does make clear is that you don’t ‘support all women’; you only support the ones you deem acceptable.

Trans women aren’t a threat to women. The threat to women has always been male violence and patriarchal discrimination and no amount of sneering ‘lol’ can change that fact. So maybe try addressing that, instead of punching down at those who already have enough to deal with.

Sit down, there is a there about a LBGTQ suicide line where fair enough people want to be heard by someone who knows what they are going through, you know NOTHING about being a woman so sit down and get back in your box

[Crimson Dynamo]

Martine Croxall
martineBBC
·
59m
A huge thank you to everyone who has chosen to follow me today for whatever
reason. It’s been quite a ride…

I wound up all the right people

:clap2:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7RQp1EWsAAUW6g?format=jpg&name=small

[Mystic Mock]

Is it, Just because I take issue with how someone dresses in a very sexually explicit way who is idolised by little girls, if her target audience were adults I would have no issue at all why is that hilarious? please explain it to me

I can't believe that Sabrina Carpenter is teaching little girls to hate men.

[Swan]

You ok, dude?

No, Andrew and Jordan coming round right now, we gonna sort out how to get women back in the kitchen dawg

[Swan]

What moral high horse?

You can't see it? The irony?

I respect your Iran/Palestine/Iran argument.

Do you like DJ Quik?

[Mystic Mock]

As predicted. Ignored 90% of my post and resorts to ‘you’re a man, sit down’. It doesn’t matter what you call trans women, they are women, and your ‘dictionary policing’ doesn’t make your point any stronger. What it does make clear is that you don’t ‘support all women’; you only support the ones you deem acceptable.

Trans women aren’t a threat to women. The threat to women has always been male violence and patriarchal discrimination and no amount of sneering ‘lol’ can change that fact. So maybe try addressing that, instead of punching down at those who already have enough to deal with.

Not punching down.:bawling::joker:

[The Slim Reaper]

You can't see it? The irony?

I respect your Iran/Palestine/Iran argument.

Do you like DJ Quik?

Ok, so let me explain where I'm coming from and you can see how you feel about what I write.

The main issue is that tibb is an echo chamber, and that's just a fact whether you like it or not. Who has differing opinions on this forum?

I always post my thoughts, and question posts that others have written. Sometimes I overstep the line (as we all do), but when folks support the murder of women and children, and someone comes along and says "actually I think it's really wrong," people find that really confronting, so rather than examine how and why they feel the way they do, the aim is to minimise that other person. It's why anti-Semitism and misogyny get thrown around so loosely, that the words have lost all meaning. You never see me running from those accusations, I'll always run towards them, because it's meaningless.

it's why folks who have absolutely no argument, always have to revert to saying "you just want to be right." As though that's a weird thing to aim for. Who wants to live their lives being wrong about everything? :laugh:

I know I'm not right about everything, that's obvious, but I'm happy for anyone to question me about anything, and I'll always give my true thoughts in return.

if folks believe that to be a moral high horse, then that's fine with me.

I am chill, but I do definitely think that sometimes how dry/sarcastic I am irl, doesnt'translate that well on here :smug:

[arista]

1936887746728980778

[BBXX]

While I see trans men as men and trans women as women in societal terms and will defend their rights to use the spaces for the gender they identify as, I think we should take into consideration that it's somewhat disingenuous to say things like "men can get pregnant" when it's the female part of a trans man (the biological aspect) that is allowing them to do that.

I personally don't see why "pregnant women" needs to be changed to "pregnant people". Yes, trans men can get pregnant, but it's so rare that I don't think we need to undo what many millions of biological women have to go through by making it gender neutral.

I personally think that biological women go through a lot of biological strain that men don't have to deal with and by saying things like "men can get pregnant" and "men can have periods" and even "pregnant people" with the insinuation that could be a man, it's undermining that completely.

Away from that, I don't understand WHY a trans man would want to be do something that that is so intrinsic to the biological cycle of biological women and I would imagine most trans men would absolutely despise the idea, which makes this certain gender neutral language a bit pointless.

I also think it's counter productive - as mentioned, most trans men would HATE to get pregnant or menstruate or go through menopause, it would be extremely triggering for them, and so by insinuating they are able to, is highlighting their biological sex which they are trying desperately to disassociate from.

There is a place for gender neutral language for the sake of inclusivity, but I don't believe this is it and I think it does nobody any good.

Having said all that, I don't see the need to take glee from changing it as some kind of gotcha. It feels cheap.

That's just my personal belief on this.

[Beso]

What a mess of a reply. Criticising a woman for how she dresses doesn’t make you some champion for little girls, it just makes you the fashion police. The ‘paedo paradise’ line is gross and desperate, as if bare legs and a low neckline somehow justify predatory behaviour. The only people responsible for that are the predators themselves.

And as for ‘you want men with penises in women’s spaces’, laughable. Trans women are women, and repeating this tired ‘danger in the bathroom’ trope doesn’t make your point, it just shows how little you understand about women’s safety and solidarity. Trans women don’t attack women in bathrooms. Men do though.

So no, you don’t ‘support women’; you support women when they stay within boundaries you’ve decided for them, and you use that as an excuse to attack others. That’s not feminism. That’s policing and discrimination dressed up as ‘concern’


Oh they do attack females in toilets.. particularly young females.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/14674350/trans-paedo-supermarket-toilet-ruling/


https://www.scotsman.com/regions/edinburgh-fife-and-lothians/female-spaces-need-better-protection-after-trans-woman-sex-assault-on-girl-say-campaigners-140883


To gruelling and upsetting to post more links..

[Glenn.]

Oh they do attack females in toilets.. particularly young females.

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/14674350/trans-paedo-supermarket-toilet-ruling/


https://www.scotsman.com/regions/edinburgh-fife-and-lothians/female-spaces-need-better-protection-after-trans-woman-sex-assault-on-girl-say-campaigners-140883


To gruelling and upsetting to post more links..

The links you posted are for the same person

[Beso]

The links you posted are for the same person

It is...and on further inspection it does seem that you are correct.

[Niamh.]

While I see trans men as men and trans women as women in societal terms and will defend their rights to use the spaces for the gender they identify as, I think we should take into consideration that it's somewhat disingenuous to say things like "men can get pregnant" when it's the female part of a trans man (the biological aspect) that is allowing them to do that.

I personally don't see why "pregnant women" needs to be changed to "pregnant people". Yes, trans men can get pregnant, but it's so rare that I don't think we need to undo what many millions of biological women have to go through by making it gender neutral.

I personally think that biological women go through a lot of biological strain that men don't have to deal with and by saying things like "men can get pregnant" and "men can have periods" and even "pregnant people" with the insinuation that could be a man, it's undermining that completely.

Away from that, I don't understand WHY a trans man would want to be do something that that is so intrinsic to the biological cycle of biological women and I would imagine most trans men would absolutely despise the idea, which makes this certain gender neutral language a bit pointless.

I also think it's counter productive - as mentioned, most trans men would HATE to get pregnant or menstruate or go through menopause, it would be extremely triggering for them, and so by insinuating they are able to, is highlighting their biological sex which they are trying desperately to disassociate from.

There is a place for gender neutral language for the sake of inclusivity, but I don't believe this is it and I think it does nobody any good.

Having said all that, I don't see the need to take glee from changing it as some kind of gotcha. It feels cheap.

That's just my personal belief on this.

I'd also be interested to know if any real number of trans men are even bothered by the term "pregnant women" anyway or is this whole thing (more likely imo) being pushed by activists who aren't even trans

[BBXX]

I'd also be interested to know if any real number of trans men are even bothered by the term "pregnant women" anyway or is this whole thing (more likely imo) being pushed by activists who aren't even trans

I don't want to speak on behalf of trans people, but I honestly think it's a case of appreciating normalising gender neutral language rather than being bothered by the term "pregnant women".

As a gay man, I do understand how normalising gender neutral language can be super helpful - for instance if I am in a conversation with a client and I don't particularly feel safe outing myself, I will always refer to my husband as "my partner" instead of husband. I think this often potentially outs me anyway because married people tend not to say partner unless they are gay, but it is more common than it was, which for me can help in me keeping closeted if I feel it is appropriate.

So I understand that normalising GN language to draw less attention to the use of it, but personally in this instance, I just don't think it's appropriate or useful for the benefit for biological women or actually trans men.

[Niamh.]

I don't want to speak on behalf of trans people, but I honestly think it's a case of appreciating normalising gender neutral language rather than being bothered by the term "pregnant women".

As a gay man, I do understand how normalising gender neutral language can be super helpful - for instance if I am in a conversation with a client and I don't particularly feel safe outing myself, I will always refer to my husband as "my partner" instead of husband. I think this often potentially outs me anyway because married people tend not to say partner unless they are gay, but it is more common than it was, which for me can help in me keeping closeted if I feel it is appropriate.

So I understand that normalising GN language to draw less attention to the use of it, but personally in this instance, I just don't think it's appropriate or useful for the benefit for biological women or actually trans men.

I understand your view on that especially with the example you've given. I think (and I'm not putting you in this category because you do seem to understand where women are coming from in this particular case) some men don't really understand how important this actually is to women and tend to brush it off.

[Cherie]

I would imagine the percentage of transmen who would want to get pregnant is vanishingly small

[BBXX]

I would imagine the percentage of transmen who would want to get pregnant is vanishingly small

Indeed.

[Ammi]

I don't want to speak on behalf of trans people, but I honestly think it's a case of appreciating normalising gender neutral language rather than being bothered by the term "pregnant women".

As a gay man, I do understand how normalising gender neutral language can be super helpful - for instance if I am in a conversation with a client and I don't particularly feel safe outing myself, I will always refer to my husband as "my partner" instead of husband. I think this often potentially outs me anyway because married people tend not to say partner unless they are gay, but it is more common than it was, which for me can help in me keeping closeted if I feel it is appropriate.

So I understand that normalising GN language to draw less attention to the use of it, but personally in this instance, I just don't think it's appropriate or useful for the benefit for biological women or actually trans men.

….its sad that in some schools…(…my primary school…)…that ‘partner’ wouldn’t be used if being introduced to the children…it would be ‘friend’…whereas any heterosexual member of staff can refer to their partner as husband/wife…

[Niamh.]

….its sad that in some schools…(…my primary school…)…that ‘partner’ wouldn’t be used if being introduced to the children…it would be ‘friend’…whereas any heterosexual member of staff can refer to their partner as husband/wife…

Still? That seems outrageous to me in a country where gay marriage is legal

[Ammi]

Still? That seems outrageous to me in a country where gay marriage is legal

…yes, still in many primary schools even though some children will have same sex parents themselves…

[Beso]

Don't tell me they have a "bring your partner to school day" in primary schools..

[BBXX]

Still? That seems outrageous to me in a country where gay marriage is legal

It's because some people equate same-sex relationships with sex, not love, in the way they think of straight relationships, and therefore think it's an inappropriate topic for children to know about.

Gross, but unfortunately true.

[Niamh.]

It's because some people equate same-sex relationships with sex, not love, in the way they think of straight relationships, and therefore think it's an inappropriate topic for children to know about.

Gross, but unfortunately true.

It's not the children thinking like that though that's for sure, certainly not at primary school age

[BBXX]

It's not the children thinking like that though that's for sure, certainly not at primary school age

No, absolutely, but adults have a habit of looking at the world through adult eyes and forget children don't see the world like that and just accept things at face value.

My niece and nephew have never ever questioned why I have a husband. To them it just is, as that's how it's always been. It doesn't need an explanation, whereas I've seen many a time adults say kids shouldn't learn about same-sex relationships until they're older to "understand". They are often projecting their own lack of understanding onto children.

[Ninastar]

…yes, still in many primary schools even though some children will have same sex parents themselves…

You know what’s really wild? It’s not like that here… obviously if you were going into all kinds of details about your partner and things got inappropriate, it would be frowned upon… but in general, the schools can’t tell you not to talk about your home life with the kids

[Niamh.]

No, absolutely, but adults have a habit of looking at the world through adult eyes and forget children don't see the world like that and just accept things at face value.

My niece and nephew have never ever questioned why I have a husband. To them it just is, as that's how it's always been. It doesn't need an explanation, whereas I've seen many a time adults say kids shouldn't learn about same-sex relationships until they're older to "understand". They are often projecting their own lack of understanding onto children.

Yeah I agree with that. Adults certainly over complicate things like this. There really isn't a lot to understand about it really, in fact a primary aged child probably thinks same sex marriages are more understandable when they're that age :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

1937138388500357516

[The Slim Reaper]

Keep looking at those people, not us.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GuE-GCfWgAAGI1n?format=jpg&name=small

[The Slim Reaper]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gtsv2QPaQAADqGG?format=jpg&name=small

[Liam-]

You should know by now Slim that only certain types of misogyny are worthy of critique

[The Slim Reaper]

You should know by now Slim that only certain types of misogyny are worthy of critique

Honestly a completely mental post deletion. I don't get what was going through whichever mod/admins head decided to delete it.

I have a lot of posts removed; sometimes because of conversations on the other side, sometimes because of me, but this is the absolute stupidest nonsense I've ever seen on here. I guess healthcare decisions that infringe upon women is irrelevant in the grand scheme of issues such as a word, but there was absolutely nothing wrong with my post.

[Vicky.]

I didn't delete it but from looking it was totally off topic so that's probably why it was deleted..

(It's a vile story tho)

[The Slim Reaper]

I didn't delete it but from looking it was totally off topic so that's probably why it was deleted..

(It's a vile story tho)

How could it have possibly been off topic? It was a post about women's healthcare being attacked, in a thread about women's rights. It's impossible to be more on-topic than that.

oh, and thanks for the reply.

[Cherie]

Lets bring every story that denigrates women in to prove that women are denigrated....who knew...yes we knew....women ...yay

[The Slim Reaper]

From excitement over a word, to dismissive over a brain dead woman being forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Not exactly what my priority would be, but we are entitled to follow our own paths.

[Cherie]

thin end of the wedge, to the fat end.... denigrate women however you can ...yay

[The Slim Reaper]

Who is denigrating women? Please point to specifics, not make believe.

[Crimson Dynamo]

BBC bosses have backed a television presenter who corrected the phrase
“pregnant people” to “women” while broadcasting live, in what has been
welcomed as a rejection of ridiculous gender-neutral language.

Martine Croxall, 56, was citing a study about protecting vulnerable people in
hot weather and, after reading out the report’s phrasing, immediately rolled
her eyes and changed the wording to “women”.

“Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged,
pregnant people … women … and those with pre-existing health conditions
need to take precautions,” she said.

JK Rowling was among those to support the presenter, calling Croxall “her
new favourite BBC presenter” on X, and the former Wimbledon champion
Martina Navratilova also backed her.

Croxall added: “A huge thank you to everyone who has chosen to follow me
today for whatever reason. It’s been quite a ride.”

She has gained almost 50,000 followers on the social media platform since
the incident on Sunday afternoon.

BBC bosses are also understood to have been “intensely relaxed” about the
wording amid concerns from some staff that Croxall may have faced
disciplinary action.

Times

[Alf]

Hallelujah. Good to see the height of female ambition is being called women. 31% of children in the UK live in poverty, but at least you've got a word :laugh:Careful, you'll be labelled "incel" soon.

[The Slim Reaper]

1937267290476515827

[Mystic Mock]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gtsv2QPaQAADqGG?format=jpg&name=small

What the heck did I just read?

That sounds horrible.

[Cherie]

Women can care about alot of things at the same time, we are great multitaskers and our brains are built for it

the good thing is that these horrible stories are American where they are a law unto themselves, or maybe the poster could post some Iranian footage where women are murdered for showing their hair, kinda funny to be honoring the guy who facilitates that in an avatar and then pretending to care about women, lol! and we luckily have a Supreme Court that honours womens rights

[Crimson Dynamo]

Women can care about alot of things at the same time, we are great multitaskers and our brains are built for it

the good thing is that these horrible stories are American where they are a law unto themselves, or maybe the poster could post some Iranian footage where women are murdered for showing their hair, kinda funny to be honoring the guy who facilitates that in an avatar and then pretending to care about women, lol! and we luckily have a Supreme Court that honours womens rights


Indeed, Iran is the world’s top executioner of women

[BBXX]

the good thing is that these horrible stories are American where they are a law unto themselves, or maybe the poster could post some Iranian footage where women are murdered for showing their hair, kinda funny to be honoring the guy who facilitates that in an avatar and then pretending to care about women, lol! and we luckily have a Supreme Court that honours womens rights

America is a law unto itself so we don't need to worry about focusing on their news stories, but we should instead talk about Iranian news stories....?

I think it's important to concentrate on U.S law because we're so closely linked with it. U.S is a Western country with supposedly Western values.

Laws in the Middle East are despicable for many, I don't think anyone will dispute that, but their values are so far removed from ours. Comparatively, and unfortunately, America is not that far away from us. Looking at the U.S is always wise because sometimes it can be an indicator of where the UK goes next. Iran is not.

I know you're only suggesting to talk about Iran because you believe liberals are scared of talking about the awful atrocities that often comes with Islamic regimes (I for one am not) but it happens so often on this site by a select few that instead some of you just come across like you're only interested in talking about the awful crimes committed by brown people.

Whenever conversation turns to horrific crimes that happens to be done by a white westerner, someone will pipe up with "how come you're not talking about what muslims are doing?"

[Cherie]

America is a law unto itself so we don't need to worry about focusing on their news stories, but we should instead talk about Iranian news stories....?

I think it's important to concentrate on U.S law because we're so closely linked with it. U.S is a Western country with supposedly Western values.

Laws in the Middle East are despicable for many, I don't think anyone will dispute that, but their values are so far removed from ours. Comparatively, and unfortunately, America is not that far away from us. Looking at the U.S is always wise because sometimes it can be an indicator of where the UK goes next. Iran is not.

I know you're only suggesting to talk about Iran because you believe liberals are scared of talking about the awful atrocities that often comes with Islamic regimes (I for one am not) but it happens so often on this site by a select few that instead some of you just come across like you're only interested in talking about the awful crimes committed by brown people.

Whenever conversation turns to horrific crimes that happens to be done by a white westerner, someone will pipe up with "how come you're not talking about what muslims are doing?"

No I didnt say that, I said the poster only ever concentrates on US stories and not other countries which have even more horiffic ways of dealing with women, all I was saying is its a bit rich to be talking about womens rights while supporting an Iranian regime, I will talk about crimes committed against women by anyone of any colour, so please dont paint me with that crime, I am not the one with an Iranian supporting avatar, dont tell you you dont think that is not hypocritical?

[Cherie]

The only other thing I would add to the above in response to this quote from you

Laws in the Middle East are despicable for many, I don't think anyone will dispute that, but their values are so far removed from ours.

correct, but we import boatloads of people every week whose values are far removed from ours but if anyone queries how this will impact on the country going forward they are shut down, and lets be clear not everyone arriving on a boat is brown

[Maru]

What the heck did I just read?

That sounds horrible.

Hospitals are their own bit of crazy here, so there is that. They could have left them on LS due to perceived restriction. Could be a Dr encouraged them doing so as a protest vote. Hard to believe they would waste a bed for that, but brain dead pts cause headaches for many drs especially in states where religious views hold more water. Well known example is Jahi McMath who died via brain death and her mother fought tooth and nail to have her body moved to a state that would recognize her on religious grounds so she could keep her on life support indefinitely (including benefits). For that reason when people are diagnosed some doctors will encourage pulling them ASAP to avoid a potential extensive fight over it.

If the hospitals see risk for a suit, they are prone to do anything to avoid. Americans are very sue happy. It may not actually be required to keep them on LS but until someone spends the legal fees to get it answered by a judge, there needs to be precedent. It's expensive to be the first person to test a law because unless it is written explicitly that it certainly can't apply then that means it has to go through higher courts potentially to actually settle it. The hospitals front enough legal to know how expensive that is and there is also the PR while they make the legal claim to terminate a child that is going to get other types of attention (extreme activism) who will look up other malprac cases and drag them through the mud potentially. Depends on where they are.

Baby delivered prematurely from brain-dead woman on life support in Georgia
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/baby-delivered-prematurely-from-brain-dead-woman-on-life-support-in-georgia


Smith’s family said Emory doctors told them they were not allowed to remove the devices keeping her breathing because state law bans abortion after cardiac activity can be detected — generally around six weeks into pregnancy.

Georgia Republican Attorney General Chris Carr later issued a statement saying the law did not require medical professionals to keep a woman declared brain dead on life support.

[Maru]

1936572866377502810

I wouldn't say this was heroic by any measure, except it is a middle finger to the BBC.

Many women I suspect are done giving a **** and "shifts" seen here by media are less common examples of that. I would not say just women, though. People in general are tired of third parties trying to create both language and emotional obstacles/challenges that bare no resemblance to how one actually lives their lives.

[arista]

[I wouldn't say this was heroic by that any measure,
except it is a middle finger to the BBC.]


Yes they need that more

[The Slim Reaper]

Women can care about alot of things at the same time, we are great multitaskers and our brains are built for it

the good thing is that these horrible stories are American where they are a law unto themselves, or maybe the poster could post some Iranian footage where women are murdered for showing their hair, kinda funny to be honoring the guy who facilitates that in an avatar and then pretending to care about women, lol! and we luckily have a Supreme Court that honours womens rights

When folks comment on the terrible treatment of these women in other countries, in an extremely selective manner I might add, then it just highlights it's completely performative.

You don't care about Iranian women anymore than you care about the daily massacre of women in Palestine. They're brown people far away to you. The same way that any time a story about the cruelty of the Taliban pops up on the forum, we have the same posters rush in to rightly condemn the absolute heinous conditions. Yet we see video (not news stories) of Palestinian women having their body parts scraped into rubbish bags on a daily basis, and suddenly there is nothing to say. That's the kind of feminism you indulge in. I can explain exactly how and why the conditions in those countries are the way they are, but you're not interested in history, it's all performance art. I hate muslims, so I'll ignore their slaughter, and use this story to push my narrative - just as your "import boatloads of them" comment from a later post highlights. They are just people trying to live their lives. Their values aren't' wildly different from yours. They love their families, and want to make a living, and live without fear. They are not sleeper cells, looking to blow up parliament every day. Just out of interest, do you think the west continually bombing these countries, and slaughtering their populations, will make them want to stay in their own countries or come to the UK in even higher numbers? If you can't see the destructive nature of cause and effect, then you're living in a fantasy land.

I'm not honouring Khamenei, I support the right of the Iranians to live without having Israel and the US bombing them them constantly.

Correct. You've got the supreme court ruling you wanted (which will eventually be overturned imo). Women have been protected; which is all anti-trans people on here said they wanted, but we know that's not enough to quench the thirst. Now we are going for the full removal of trans people from society.

[The Slim Reaper]

No I didnt say that, I said the poster only ever concentrates on US stories and not other countries which have even more horiffic ways of dealing with women, all I was saying is its a bit rich to be talking about womens rights while supporting an Iranian regime, I will talk about crimes committed against women by anyone of any colour, so please dont paint me with that crime, I am not the one with an Iranian supporting avatar, dont tell you you dont think that is not hypocritical?

I don't view them as stories about the US. I view them about the increasingly dark mistreatment of women across the globe, but even more frighteningly, in the west. If you think what happens in the US doesn't eventually find it's way here, then you're not tethered to reality.

Reform are an anti-abortion party, and they will be the next governing party.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/farage-reform-abortion-time-limit-labour-b2759811.html

Farage abortion plans would have ‘catastrophic consequences for women’

Nigel Farage’s plans to restrict access to abortion would have “catastrophic consequences for women”, campaigners have warned.

The Reform UK leader this week said it is “ludicrous we allow abortion up to 24 weeks” and that the law is “totally out of date”.

[The Slim Reaper]

Hospitals are their own bit of crazy here, so there is that. They could have left them on LS due to perceived restriction. Could be a Dr encouraged them doing so as a protest vote. Hard to believe they would waste a bed for that, but brain dead pts cause headaches for many drs especially in states where religious views hold more water. Well known example is Jahi McMath who died via brain death and her mother fought tooth and nail to have her body moved to a state that would recognize her on religious grounds so she could keep her on life support indefinitely (including benefits). For that reason when people are diagnosed some doctors will encourage pulling them ASAP to avoid a potential extensive fight over it.

If the hospitals see risk for a suit, they are prone to do anything to avoid. Americans are very sue happy. It may not actually be required to keep them on LS but until someone spends the legal fees to get it answered by a judge, there needs to be precedent. It's expensive to be the first person to test a law because unless it is written explicitly that it certainly can't apply then that means it has to go through higher courts potentially to actually settle it. The hospitals front enough legal to know how expensive that is and there is also the PR while they make the legal claim to terminate a child that is going to get other types of attention (extreme activism) who will look up other malprac cases and drag them through the mud potentially. Depends on where they are.

Baby delivered prematurely from brain-dead woman on life support in Georgia
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/baby-delivered-prematurely-from-brain-dead-woman-on-life-support-in-georgia



What are you on about? From the link you posted:

Smith’s family said Emory doctors told them they were not allowed to remove the devices keeping her breathing because state law bans abortion after cardiac activity can be detected — generally around six weeks into pregnancy.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Other insiders said the mood music had changed at the BBC since Justin Webb, a Radio 4
Today show presenter, was censured last year for stating “transwomen, in other words,
males” on-air. “I think the fallout made them think: this is mad,” a source said.

It's understood BBC chairman Samir Shah was dismayed by the radio incident, which
took place before he joined the broadcaster.

[Crimson Dynamo]

1937260502272311808

[Cherie]

1937260502272311808

:joker: stupid cow India

[Cherie]

I don't view them as stories about the US. I view them about the increasingly dark mistreatment of women across the globe, but even more frighteningly, in the west. If you think what happens in the US doesn't eventually find it's way here, then you're not tethered to reality.

Reform are an anti-abortion party, and they will be the next governing party.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/farage-reform-abortion-time-limit-labour-b2759811.html

Farage abortion plans would have ‘catastrophic consequences for women’

Nigel Farage’s plans to restrict access to abortion would have “catastrophic consequences for women”, campaigners have warned.

The Reform UK leader this week said it is “ludicrous we allow abortion up to 24 weeks” and that the law is “totally out of date”.

and there you have it I am a Farage fan, though I have never once supported Reform or Farage, I am also Tommy Robinsons Mrs having never ever supported him either....just assumptions like he assumed I voted for Brexit, which I didn't he is a stereotype beyond all stereotypes.... hilarious if it weren't so pathetic

[Cherie]

File the proof I have supported either Slim..... have a great day finding it :hee:

[Crimson Dynamo]

1937479314745741706

[The Slim Reaper]

and there you have it I am a Farage fan, though I have never once supported Reform or Farage, I am also Tommy Robinsons Mrs having never ever supported him either....just assumptions like he assumed I voted for Brexit, which I didn't he is a stereotype beyond all stereotypes.... hilarious if it weren't so pathetic

What on earth are you on about? You're the one making assumptions

My post had nothing to do with any of the things you mentioned. You talked about me bringing up US stories, so I was just stating that the next government will crack down on abortion. Abortion rights are 4 years away from being attacked over here, which is the exact start of the anti-women movements in the US.

Fcuking weird.

[BBXX]

1937479314745741706

Aside from that article screenshot, these are the newest cervical cancer news pieces below, and all reference women. Even the article she has screenshot says "Since the coronavirus pandemic, cervical screening attendance rates for women and other people with cervixes have been steadily declining, from 72.2% in 2020 to 68.4% in 2024, NHS England data shows."

You can probably find other articles too, under one of the Guardians main content hubs, which is titled... erm... 'Women'.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/09/at-home-pap-smear-cervical-cancer-test

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/10/one-in-four-women-england-reproductive-health-issue-survey

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/14/new-cervical-cancer-treatment-regime-cuts-risk-dying

You know when people talk about trying to create culture wars, it's those kids of tweets they're talking about. False information used to get people angry against specific demographics.

Also it's clear from that woman's feed she actually just hates any trans person who has any kind of visibility anywhere. She seems extremely hateful.

[Cherie]

I dont respond to Slim given he ranted like an A4 page against me, but its clear he quoted me and mentioned Farage, I have no control over who people vote for so its clear he is trying to link me to Farage, and then he calls me ****ing weird :laugh:

[BBXX]

I dont respond to Slim given he ranted like an A4 page against me, but its clear he quoted me and mentioned Farage, I have no control over who people vote for so its clear he is trying to link me to Farage, and then he calls me ****ing weird :laugh:

He didn't say you were a Farage fan in this thread, or link you with him...if you read his post you will see why he replied to you and mentioned Farage.

[The Slim Reaper]

I dont respond to Slim given he ranted like an A4 page against me, but its clear he quoted me and mentioned Farage, I have no control over who people vote for so its clear he is trying to link me to Farage, and then he calls me ****ing weird :laugh:

You still don't get it. My post was clearly about reform cracking down on abortion rights when they get in, and why stories about women's rights in the US are an indication of what is coming here in a couple of years.

It had absolutely nothing to do with you supporting Farage, Robinson, or especially brexit.

If I reply to you and it's a post about German history; if I write Hitler and Cherie in the same post, under no circumstances does that mean I'm calling you hitler, or even more degrading, calling Hitler, cherie :laugh:

I can't believe you're trying to double down on this nonsense.

[The Slim Reaper]

Actually scrap that, I absolutely 100% can believe it.

[The Slim Reaper]

He didn't say you were a Farage fan in this thread, or link you with him...if you read his post you will see why he replied to you and mentioned Farage.

Thank you for offering an outside opinion. Sometimes folks get so focussed on the person they are "talking" to, they forget to read the content of the post.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Aside from that article screenshot, these are the newest cervical cancer news pieces below, and all reference women. Even the article she has screenshot says "Since the coronavirus pandemic, cervical screening attendance rates for women and other people with cervixes have been steadily declining, from 72.2% in 2020 to 68.4% in 2024, NHS England data shows."

You can probably find other articles too, under one of the Guardians main content hubs, which is titled... erm... 'Women'.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/09/at-home-pap-smear-cervical-cancer-test

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/10/one-in-four-women-england-reproductive-health-issue-survey

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/14/new-cervical-cancer-treatment-regime-cuts-risk-dying

You know when people talk about trying to create culture wars, it's those kids of tweets they're talking about. False information used to get people angry against specific demographics.

Also it's clear from that woman's feed she actually just hates any trans person who has any kind of visibility anywhere. She seems extremely hateful.

2 of your 3 examples omit the word woman from the headline and subheadline and that was her point...

1937531469410312612

[Maru]

[I wouldn't say this was heroic by that any measure,
except it is a middle finger to the BBC.]


Yes they need that more

I will gladly take the BBC over the slop that gets delivered as news on US Cable. Just sayin'.

[Cherie]

He didn't say you were a Farage fan in this thread, or link you with him...if you read his post you will see why he replied to you and mentioned Farage.

With all due respect, you dont know the history and his hatred of me, so better not to comment, I tend to ignore him in the main, if you care to check back his post history he went on an A4 rant about me which shocked quite a few people, bringing mods into it etc, he really has issues. Have a great evening

[The Slim Reaper]

With all due respect, you dont know the history and his hatred of me, so better not to comment, I tend to ignore him in the main, if you care to check back his post history he went on an A4 rant about me which shocked quite a few people, bringing mods into it etc, he really has issues. Have a great evening

Someone doesn't like having the tables turned on them. I stand on everything I have written on this forum, so you pretending now to be wary and a victim, when a short while ago you were on the attack, is an obvious and telegraphed vibe shift.

[BBXX]

2 of your 3 examples omit the word woman from the headline and subheadline and that was her point...

1937531469410312612

Unlike GB News consumers, most Guardian readers have the intellect to read past the headline and subheading and make a judgement off the actual content of the post.

Perhaps she should look under the section titled WOMEN on the website and see the word WOMEN displayed many times in headlines or captions if that makes her feel any better. But it won't, because she's outraged based on a false narrative she's pushing to create division.

[Glenn.]

Someone doesn't like having the tables turned on them. I stand on everything I have written on this forum, so you pretending now to be wary and a victim, when a short while ago you were on the attack, is an obvious and telegraphed vibe shift.

Known tactic by many on here when you clock them. You can play go fish with the amount of victim cards that get played.

[Beso]

I stand on everything I have written on this forum.

I would clean my sandals if I were you.

[Cherie]

I would clean my sandals if I were you.

Fair :smug:

[Mystic Mock]

Hospitals are their own bit of crazy here, so there is that. They could have left them on LS due to perceived restriction. Could be a Dr encouraged them doing so as a protest vote. Hard to believe they would waste a bed for that, but brain dead pts cause headaches for many drs especially in states where religious views hold more water. Well known example is Jahi McMath who died via brain death and her mother fought tooth and nail to have her body moved to a state that would recognize her on religious grounds so she could keep her on life support indefinitely (including benefits). For that reason when people are diagnosed some doctors will encourage pulling them ASAP to avoid a potential extensive fight over it.

If the hospitals see risk for a suit, they are prone to do anything to avoid. Americans are very sue happy. It may not actually be required to keep them on LS but until someone spends the legal fees to get it answered by a judge, there needs to be precedent. It's expensive to be the first person to test a law because unless it is written explicitly that it certainly can't apply then that means it has to go through higher courts potentially to actually settle it. The hospitals front enough legal to know how expensive that is and there is also the PR while they make the legal claim to terminate a child that is going to get other types of attention (extreme activism) who will look up other malprac cases and drag them through the mud potentially. Depends on where they are.

Baby delivered prematurely from brain-dead woman on life support in Georgia
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/baby-delivered-prematurely-from-brain-dead-woman-on-life-support-in-georgia

It's just tragic to hear about in terms of morality imo.

I do understand what you're saying though, it must be tricky for a lot of the Doctors who have to assess these situations.

[Mystic Mock]

2 of your 3 examples omit the word woman from the headline and subheadline and that was her point...

1937531469410312612

What's the difference between gay men and men who have sex with men?:conf:

That article is written in a very bizarre way imo.

[BBXX]

What's the difference between gay men and men who have sex with men?:conf:

That article is written in a very bizarre way imo.

Gay men have sex with exclusively men. Bisexual men also have sex with men, but also women. Pansexual people are attracted to anyone, so might have sex with biological women, men, trans men, trans women, etc...

[Mystic Mock]

Gay men have sex with exclusively men. Bisexual men also have sex with men, but also women. Pansexual people are attracted to anyone, so might have sex with biological women, men, trans men, trans women, etc...

Thanks for the information.:wavey:

I still think that the article should've just said Pansexual, because it made it look poorly written imo by saying "men who have sex with other men" not long after mentioning gay men.

[BBXX]

Thanks for the information.:wavey:

I still think that the article should've just said Pansexual, because it made it look poorly written imo by saying "men who have sex with other men" not along after mentioning gay men.

The term used in the article is a healthcare term (Gay, Bisexual and Men Who Have Sex with Other Men - GBMSM), it's not a term the writer has made up or that is there because the article is poorly written. It's an actual term in the healthcare industry to avoid healthcare professionals assuming someone's sexual identity just because they happen have had sexual intercourse with another man.

It's used as a 'catch all' term because because otherwise you could be listing numerous sexual identities and still leave some out - someone for example could engage in sexual intercourse with another men as part of a threesome with his girlfriend and not indentify as gay, bi or pan.

[Mystic Mock]

The term used in the article is a healthcare term (Gay, Bisexual and Men Who Have Sex with Other Men - GBMSM), it's not a term the writer has made up or that is there because the article is poorly written. It's an actual term in the healthcare industry to avoid healthcare professionals assuming someone's sexual identity just because they happen have had sexual intercourse with another man.

It's used as a 'catch all' term because because otherwise you could be listing numerous sexual identities and still leave some out - someone for example could engage in sexual intercourse with another men as part of a threesome with his girlfriend and not indentify as gay, bi or pan.

I get what you're saying.

I'm just probably someone that would try tick off all sexual options if I were the one to be writing down the options for the patients.:laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/ws/640/cpsprodpb/f7c5/live/4bc7ac80-1d33-11f0-b7ae-85a57b54ad31.jpg.webp

JK Rowling is right: The Guardian should be embarrassed by this
pro-trans propaganda

Only women need a scan for cervical cancer, not ‘people’, like the activist-

appeasing newspaper suggests

The Guardian has long been celebrated for its typos. The other day, however,
it ran a headline which appeared to have an entire word missing. It read:
“One in three across UK are overdue for cervical cancer screening.”

One in three what? Mothers? Midwives? Marchionesses? Members of
Bananarama?

I scanned the article’s intro to locate the mislaid noun. Unfortunately, though,
I ended up even more confused. Because the answer turned out to be
“people”.

“A third of people across the UK,” reported someone with the unusual job title
of health and inequalities correspondent, “are overdue their cervical cancer
screening, while in parts of England some are at greater risk of the disease
than others due to a low uptake for the preventive vaccine.”

Naturally, I was alarmed. Because “a third of people across the UK” includes
me. In all my 44 years on this Earth, I’ve never had a single screening for
cervical cancer. Am I in danger? Should I ring my GP and demand a detailed
inspection of my cervix as soon as possible?

Then again, there is another way to interpret this story. Which is that the
poor old Guardian is so desperate not to offend trans activists, it’s got itself
tied up in knots.

Any sane newspaper, after all, would simply have used the word “women”.
But The Guardian daren’t do that. Because then it would be besieged by
horrified ideologues, irately reminding it that trans women are women but
don’t need cervical cancer screenings – while trans men are men but do need
cervical cancer screenings. To use the word “women”, therefore, is hateful
and trans-exclusionary.

As JK Rowling put it on social media: “This is what happens when you erase
the word ‘woman’ from your reporting: you disseminate inaccuracies and
falsehoods. If you prioritise an ideology over giving clear and accurate
information, you aren’t journalists, you’re propagandists.”

To be fair to The Guardian, however, it doesn’t always get it wrong. Less than
a month ago, it ran the headline: “New AI Test can predict which men will
benefit from prostate cancer drug.” So they are clear about the difference
between men and women sometimes. When the cancer only affects men,
anyway.

Still, it would be nice if they and other progressive outlets could be
consistent. In an important medical context, such nonsense is enough to give
you a thumping headache.

JK Rowling is right. Trans propaganda is bad for your health.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/26/jk-rowling-is-right-about-the-guardian/

[Cherie]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/ws/640/cpsprodpb/f7c5/live/4bc7ac80-1d33-11f0-b7ae-85a57b54ad31.jpg.webp

JK Rowling is right: The Guardian should be embarrassed by this
pro-trans propaganda

Only women need a scan for cervical cancer, not ‘people’, like the activist-

appeasing newspaper suggests

The Guardian has long been celebrated for its typos. The other day, however,
it ran a headline which appeared to have an entire word missing. It read:
“One in three across UK are overdue for cervical cancer screening.”

One in three what? Mothers? Midwives? Marchionesses? Members of
Bananarama?

I scanned the article’s intro to locate the mislaid noun. Unfortunately, though,
I ended up even more confused. Because the answer turned out to be
“people”.

“A third of people across the UK,” reported someone with the unusual job title
of health and inequalities correspondent, “are overdue their cervical cancer
screening, while in parts of England some are at greater risk of the disease
than others due to a low uptake for the preventive vaccine.”

Naturally, I was alarmed. Because “a third of people across the UK” includes
me. In all my 44 years on this Earth, I’ve never had a single screening for
cervical cancer. Am I in danger? Should I ring my GP and demand a detailed
inspection of my cervix as soon as possible?

Then again, there is another way to interpret this story. Which is that the
poor old Guardian is so desperate not to offend trans activists, it’s got itself
tied up in knots.

Any sane newspaper, after all, would simply have used the word “women”.
But The Guardian daren’t do that. Because then it would be besieged by
horrified ideologues, irately reminding it that trans women are women but
don’t need cervical cancer screenings – while trans men are men but do need
cervical cancer screenings. To use the word “women”, therefore, is hateful
and trans-exclusionary.

As JK Rowling put it on social media: “This is what happens when you erase
the word ‘woman’ from your reporting: you disseminate inaccuracies and
falsehoods. If you prioritise an ideology over giving clear and accurate
information, you aren’t journalists, you’re propagandists.”

To be fair to The Guardian, however, it doesn’t always get it wrong. Less than
a month ago, it ran the headline: “New AI Test can predict which men will
benefit from prostate cancer drug.” So they are clear about the difference
between men and women sometimes. When the cancer only affects men,
anyway.

Still, it would be nice if they and other progressive outlets could be
consistent. In an important medical context, such nonsense is enough to give
you a thumping headache.

JK Rowling is right. Trans propaganda is bad for your health.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/26/jk-rowling-is-right-about-the-guardian/

:idc: