“Oh, That Wouldn’t Happen Here!” Wanna Bet?

People always tell me they watch the BBC because it isn’t biased like American broadcast news. It must be the British accents: the BBC is relentlessly, overwhelmingly left-biased. This is a socialist nation that is smothered in political correctness. It’s at least as untrustworthy as any US news source.

Here’s a case in point: the BBC changed the testimony of a rape victim who referred to her alleged rapist as “him.” That was a reasonable choice on her part, because, well, because of the rapist’s “part.” Never mind: Facts Don’t Matter in jolly old England either: the victim’s words were changed to avoid “misgendering” the rapist in an article on the BBC website, which replaced every reference to “he” or “him” with “they” or “them.”

Wait—was it a gang rape? The BBC said in response to the episode was, “Our only intention when deciding on language is to make things as clear as possible for audiences.” Now that’s hilarious! In what universe is calling a single person “them” and “they” clearer than calling a rapist who did the deed with an attached male sex organ “he” and “him”?

The victim had actually said, “I was too young to argue and had been brainwashed by queer theory so he was a ‘woman’ even if every fiber of my being was screaming throughout, so I agreed to go home with him. He used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing his penis and raped me.”

“Oooh, can’t have that,” argued that BBC’s internal diversity team, 14 staffers strong, which felt that it was unfair and disrespectful to the alleged rapist not to reflect the trans woman’s preferred pronouns.

Yes, that was apparently their argument. No, I am not pulling your leg!

And it prevailed! It’s here that a little man in my head starts screaming, “Who ARE these people? How do they get that way? How would anyone’s values and professional standards get so totally screwed up that they would justify changing what someone actually said to pander to the pronoun preferences of a likely rapist? How can this be justified? How can anyone seriously claim it can or should be justified?

The BBC style guide was updated in November 2020—as The Great Stupid began to spread from the US to Europe—to say, “Where possible, use the term/s and pronoun/s preferred by people themselves, when they have made their preferences clear.” Is that meant to apply when the BBC is offering a direct quote? Is it “possible” to ethically present as a direct quote what is really a statement that has been Nineteen-Eighty Foured to meet GoodSpeak mandates?

Apparently so.

18 thoughts on ““Oh, That Wouldn’t Happen Here!” Wanna Bet?

  1. I guess we will even have to make cursing politically correct. Do we need to change SOB to POB– “progeny of a b****.”

  2. I think we all know the answer here but I will offer it again anyway: Crit Theory language (which includes everything from ‘white privilege’ to ‘Latinx’ to all of the gender nonsense) is a tribal shibboleth or something akin to a modern religious test: by using only approved jargon the user is signaling to all others (including current and prospective employers, friends, lovers etc) that they are a faithful obedient liberal or member of Team Good. This also signals that they can be counted on to obey all future party directives and, most importantly, that they are good soldiers in the eternal crusade against the evil Deplorables.
    In days of social fracturing like ours, tribal allegiance becomes the most important fact about a person, the first thing you need to know aka Are you friend or enemy?
    Also, if you aspire to work anywhere like the BBC or NYT or in Hollywood, publishing etc, more important than any achievement, skill or talent is that you can be counted on as a tribal loyalist. Crit Theory is now the official belief system of the left/globalist ruling class, so if you want a seat at the table you must profess the faith.

  3. Jack asks, rhetorically, “How would anyone’s values and professional standards get so totally screwed up that they would justify changing what someone actually said to pander to the pronoun preferences of a likely rapist?”

    It is easy: The alleged rapist was transgender. As we all know, the only rapist is a white, heterosexual male. No one else can be guilty of rape. In this story, the alleged victim was just confused.


  4. If we can’t identify genders, how can anyone “transition”?

    In any case, it’s the UK…where the state doesn’t trust its citizens to have a pocket knife or kitchen knife, prosecutes and imprisons them for such things as rude treets about a dead person, owning a banned book, and teaching a dog a stupid trick. Yet UK based The Economist ranks it higher than the US in “Civil Liberties”.

    • If we can’t identify genders, how can anyone “transition”?

      Excellent question. The answer shows the vacuity of the concept that sex and gender are social constructs and fluid like the Mississippi.


  5. I’ve been in places where CNN, BBC and other English language chanels were available on TV, but Al Jazeera was the most reliably neutral in general news coverage.

  6. As I thought about this more, I think news stories may end up dropping the “trans” label all together. “Trans women are women” and “trans men are men” is the motto. By using the trans label, I could easily see the left saying the trans label itself still stigmatizes trans people.

    So, a future version of this article would suggest that one woman raped another woman, and if there is a a reference to a penis, then that reference may very well be removed, leaving the reader to think something happened that actually didn’t. When you go to war with reality, you continue to distort reality the more the war wages, until reality breaks back through, but sometimes that takes awhile.

    In my opinion, this is what happens when a society allows the mentally ill to dictate the conversation. Gender dysphoria is real, and it is very hard for those suffering from it. Like I’ve said before, they deserve compassion, but the mentally ill do not see reality objectively because of their mental illness. When we all participate in the delusion in the name of compassion, we get actions like this BBC story, and there will be worse still to come. I suspect my example of the “women raping the woman” is only the tip of the iceberg.

    Political correctness could end up dictating how witnesses describe a criminal. “Officer, it was a man dressed as a woman.” Transphobe!

  7. I guess the BBC loved Ricky Gervais’ new special SuperNature (I have not seen it yet, but have seen a promo), where he makes the joke about correct pronouns for a male rapist victimizing a female, so much, that they just outright plagiarized it. I mean, they out to get punished for lack of attribution. The punchline in question.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.