Whilst the BBC is hostile to any war on radical Islam, there IS at least one war front that it fully endorses. I refer to the war on gender. Yes, the BBC is an advocate of seeking to remove the idea of boys and girls being dfferent to each other. John Lewis are the latest coroporation to pander to this mental aberration and the Today programme had one of the “gender erasure” advocates on this morning around 6.45am to reinforce the idea that boys and girls should be genderless. Incredible really but it’s what passes for normal in the halls of the BBC,

Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to GENDER WARS…

  1. Pounce says:

    I wonder what would happen if a load of bBC males started using the females toilets?


    • Guest Who says:

      That this is unlikely to ever happen seems already covered by historical hiring policy, with the few anomalies being addressed per Adonisonian requirements.


  2. Pounce says:


  3. Bob Nelson says:

    This is sinister.


  4. Grant says:

    Everything that is perverted to normal people is normal to the BBC. All that is normal is perverted. They are perverts.


    • lojolondon says:

      Zactly. That is why adulterers, paedophiles and drug addicts fit so well in the BBBC and never come up for any criticism, much less termination of employment (unless, of course they are already dead!).


    • Lefty Wright says:

      My thoughts precisely. Well put Grant.


    • NCBBC says:

      Will gender neutral clothes have all the bumps in the right place or not?


  5. JimS says:

    It is hard to know what any word means nowadays. When the ‘gender’ word was first imported from the US it appeared to be a prudish word for ‘sex’, there being an argument that ‘sex’ applied to ‘the act’ not ‘the equipment’ so the use of ‘gender’ avoided that (non-problem). Up until then we had been quite happy to have a column labelled ‘sex’ on birth certificate, even during the Victorian age when, reputedly piano legs needed socks to preserve domestic decorum.
    Then gradually the meaning was shifted, it was now how one ‘felt’, hence all the rubbish now about ‘gender fluidity’ and the ever-increasing number of types that now seem to be available.
    Of course it is all crazy, ‘male’ and ‘female’, as determined by ‘the bits’ defines 99% plus of the population perfectly well, which is pretty good when it comes to classifying humans. Where the BBC really shoots itself in the foot is that it still uses the ‘gender’ word for this classic male/female distinction when it comes to comparing pay, say. But if ‘gender’ is all in the mind, or down to the colour of Lego bricks our children use then there is nothing to compare as ‘we are all the same’.


    • Lord Wreath says:

      Years ago, as I recall, animals and some plants had a sex, male or female, and languages such as Latin, French, and German had two or three grammatical genders.

      Even Latin didn’t feel the need for 71 genders.

      Apart from the occasional bisexual flower, life seemed so simple, and more-or-less sensible.


    • TruthSeeker says:

      Indeed JS
      I am old enough to remember when Wimbledon led the way with Open Tennis.
      Time for Wimbledon to again innovate, time for sex-free tennis.
      No Gentlemen’s events.
      Just one tournament, prize money based solely on merit, “The Wimbledon Singles Championships”.
      128 Individuals in the first round. All men.


    • Kaiser says:

      99% hmmm ive met a lot of people, ie thousands , including 3 transsexuals ( all ahem ex blokes at least 1 of which still has a dick) and 1 yep 1 actual real person who had both parts and the poor fucker has had a terrible life and is really mentally fucked up but totally harmless , the percentage is in reality incredibly small,

      but i fear peados is where the bbc is going next its the logical step there is a point to finally draw the line and its coming very soon


      • NCBBC says:

        I was going to extend the barriers even further, but decided that the time for it has not yet come. But given the onrush of the progressive train, it wont be long.


    • ID says:


      The sex/gender distinction makes sense when dealing with nouns and adjectives whose endings agree with “sexed” personal pronouns. “Das Mädchen” is grammatically an “it” and has to be referred to as an “it”. In English most things that are inanimate are “it” s. Other languages like Turkish and Hungarian do not have “sexed” pronouns and “o”, “ö” are used for he, she or it. If the “sexist” language shtick had any real foundation at all, you would expect Turkish and Hungarian speakers to exhibit less sex bias or sexual stereotyping than speakers of languages with “sexed” pronouns. This is obviously not the case. The conjecture that sexual stereotyping occurs through language seems to arise in the Anglosphere. I wonder if this is because English does not have grammatical gender.

      The four year-old boy who suddenly discovers that “he” is really a “she” simply contradicts that idea that early sexual stereotyping through language and external clues like pink dresses and “gender-specific” toys determine “gender roles”.
      A boy discovering that he is really a “girl” or “born girly” must mean that some children at least are born with an innate idea of what their “gender” is. But gender roles are supposed to be social constructs. How can a child have an innate knowledge or a priori intuition about its “true” gender role when gender roles are supposed to be social constructs? In other words, how do these arbitrary distinctions appear in the mind of a child without being implanted there? In tribal societies, many professions are hereditary and it is tabu for say a warrior to become a potter or a cowherd. Men and women have traditional roles and a child may feel more attracted to a non-traditinal role, but this does not mean that a cowherd child who would like to be a potter is a potter born in a cowherd’s body.
      Strange no one suggests abolishing boys and girls names in the interests of gender neutrality. Why not just assign every child a random number at birth? That would also eliminate a lot of other opportunities for discrimination.


      • NCBBC says:

        Why not just assign every child a random number at birth?

        Numbers are too associated with male dominance in mathematics. It wont do. Maybe those square barcodes or something.

        Speaking of mathematics, I have noted that there are far too many statues of White men claiming all sorts of things that men have supposedly invented – Newton, Maxwell, De Broglie, Fourier, Pascal, Boltzman, etc etc. The same in music and art. The list is too huge.

        It is clear that this cannot be true. It is more likely a White male conspiracy to continue the oppression of People of Colour and Wimin.

        These male statues, for the sake of truth, should be torn down. New ones should be put in place, giving credit where it is due. A new generation will then grow up without feelings of inferiority or superiority.


        • ID says:

          Sandra G. Harding an American philosopher of feminist and postcolonial theory, epistemology, research methodology, and philosophy of science referred to Newton’s Principia Mathematica as a “rape manual” in her 1986 book “The Science Question in Feminism”.
          “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” Orwell.


  6. All Lives Matter says:

    They’re only in favour of it because the majority of parents forcing their children into this mindset are misandrist mother’s trying to turn their sons into daughters. The left’s tune would be very different if the dynamic was reversed.

    When you’re an adult you can identify as whatever you want, but pushing this onto kids is abuse.


  7. Alicia Sinclair says:

    This is all Gramscian nonsense.
    Left is right, peace is war and all the rest of it. Alinsky tactics to destabilise, remove any trace of common sense or humanity.
    It cannot be easier-XX=female, XY=male(yes, a few grey areas, but nothing like the deliberate perversion of common sense we`re seeing).
    Time to boycott all “brands” so desperate to smarm onto the BBC or a univeristy campus outlet as john Lewis.
    Guessing this topsy turny world they`re creating starts with us not kicking back hard over Tony Martin-and only shrugging a shoulder when fifty year old women get made to show ID as they try to buy a lager.
    These PC clowns are taking the mickey,and here we are with all this nonsense today,
    “They`re havin a laugh”-we need to bite back and deal with it.


    • Lefty Wright says:

      With my views I’m considered to be “On the wrong side of history,” whatever that means . I prefer to be on the right side of Mother Nature. The Lady will take her time but she will eventually win, despite the brain washing attempts by the the nutters who currently own and control the main stream media. The daft buggers will go down just like the Roman Empire.


      • Oaknash says:

        I think the truth of the matter is – is that all of this pointless and time wasting debate about gender – Is in truth just that pointless. It is just another sign of how this whole sick organisation is staffed by a bunch seemingly decadent weirdos who have found another way to de-stabilise society and indulge their own personal pecadilos at the same time. I agree that there are those with real problems who should be helped but this is not the be all and all. And why confuse little kids for just a few confused individuals.

        A balanced society at ease with itself does not need to indulge in such damaging trivia. It knows what it is, who it is and where it is going. And the BBC have for years been at the forefront of sabotaging this for their own reasons.


  8. vesnadog says:

    “The move was welcomed by LGBT campaigners,”

    Real-world: By a few mentally ill patients let loose and boy aren’t we going to pay for it!


    • Alicia Sinclair says:

      Have gone back to listen to our geezerbird above as Piers Morgan tries to speak some sense.
      Blokes like this Oreal model don`t need to lop their bits off, in order to spout what he`s saying. Shallow language of Marxist grievance moanings as learned from a couple of courses, no brain needed at all-just adopting the vocab of the Lefty rebel to signal that they`ve been to the race workshops, gender workshops and can mix and match.
      Must be some factory setting they`re all able to be set to. But so dangerous when this is what spouts from the agitprop deviants and perpetual revolutionaries.
      Absolutely irredeemable, there is no “off switch” let alone a receive option. The left just talk and are unteachable.
      Like the Jesuits-or Jezzuitz as we need to spell it today.


      • MarkyMark says:

        Man pretending to be a woman, complains about sexist men. It’s good they are now being challenged rather than just agreed with.


    • Wild Bill says:

      They were discussing all this on LBC this morning, someone said gay children are depressed by bullying and have suicidal thoughts, then said LGBT children even more so, made me think, “maybe they all have mental health problems?”.

      Just thinking and saying that is probably a hate crime now.


    • BigBrotherCorporation says:

      Was discussing the bBBC’s latest ‘gender fluid’ fad with a GP friend recently, he’s actually something of a lefty (reads the Guardian, although he doesn’t agree with a lot of it), and is generally a supporter of the BBC, however this campaign to de-gender(?) children has really woken him up and he’s finding it as sinister and frightening as I am.

      He claims to have had quite a lot of professional dealings with transgender people over the years, and told me that every one of them he’d encountered to date had suffered from ‘other very serious’ mental issues. Apparently, all of them (yes, all), had severe regrets after undergoing sex change operations and some had even committed suicide over it. He said (and I repeat he’s the most left wing, ‘progressive’ friend I have) “They don’t need to talk to a GP about gender realignment, they urgently need to talk to a psychiatrist about their mental health. I’d not be doing my duty as a doctor if I didn’t try to direct them that way.”

      Didn’t some Tory MP get sacked recently for saying the same publicly?

      Anyway, his other point was, a significant minority of children and adolescents go through phases where they question their sexuality and gender, it’s considered perfectly normal, but is nearly always a passing phase, perhaps a result of imbalances in hormones as much as anything else. Some people are aware of their gender and sexuality at a very young age, others aren’t really sure where they feel most comfortable until adulthood, and a very small minority may still feel they’re in the ‘wrong body’ then, but he’s adamant that attempting to meddle with the natural development of sexuality and sense of gender in children and adolescents is a very, very bad (“ought to be criminal”) thing to do and he’s so horrified that the BBC are making out it’s quite reasonable to be experimenting with kid’s minds and emotions in this way that he’s written to them in a professional capacity about it (I have told him he’s wasting his time there).


      • NCBBC says:

        I’v wondered how a supposedly educated man can arrive at middle age. and still be reading the Guardian.


  9. Dystopian says:

    bBBC1 now “Undercover: Britain’s Immigration Secrets. Undercover reporter gets job in “Immigration Removal Centre” .

    Reveals “chaos, incompetence and abuse”

    It’s only 2 minutes in and already I can see the “poor asylum seeker victim” narrative


  10. NCBBC says:

    I’m certain that that Lineker bloke will have already welcomed him to the brotherhood.


    That is a Thought crime.