not much…but its a million miles better than what any other channel is providing. ITV only seems to think gay men are pantomime queens like Louie Spence or Anthony Cotton and lesbians are a bit of hetero eye candy. Channel 4 does it when it wants to shock people and seems much keener on putting rabid christian or muslim nutjobs on TV to tell us how evil we all are… and Sky of course only shows US tv so we might as well be in Alabama…..
‘whether participants “sometimes adopt the gender role opposite to that assigned at birth”.’
There is NO gender role assigned at birth. A person has a sex at birth and all through their life. That can obviously be changed though.
Gender roles are social norms ie. stereotypical male roles and stereotypical female roles both of which have rightly been challenged, especially by the LGBT community.
GLF must be turning in its grave hearing nonsense such as gender roles assigned at birth.
That said, I think the more that the BBC communicates with its audience the better with one caveat – the BBC should not only listen but lead.
Potentially good, but I’m still sore over their response to their LGB study’s findings: “Well straight people don’t mind how it is now…”
The BBC is another organization that is so PC (politically corrupted) that its programming has become as bland, conformist and predictable as the chaff on any commercial channel. It has lost its edge and sacrificed its remit to be different and exciting in its rush to ensure every box in the PC fascist’s rulebook is ticked: one-eyed black amputee (tick), wheelchair bound dyslexic lesbian (tick), asian HIV-positive transvestite (tick)… Does the double-standards BBC, which doesn’t shirk at broadcasting around the clock government propaganda on its news channels and exercising its phobia against middle-aged female television presenters while treading on tip toes around the rights of its gay viewers, really need a “diversity questionnaire” to spell out that it has abused the licence fee long enough?
You keep using that expression. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
And there’s nothing fascist about making an effort to treat people from marginalised groups with sensitivity and respect.
Personally, I find poorly-developed, stereotyped characters ‘bland’. Every programme being presented through the straight male gaze, that’s pretty bland. But showing awareness of diversity and making an effort to represent a wide spectrum of people fairly – I really wouldn’t call that bland.
I am sick to the teeth having “diversity” shoved down my throat by bespectacled, often folically-challenged, placard waving militant types clasping clipboards like their lives depended on it. Live and let live say I but to hell with this preachy new gospel and its chorus leader the Big Brother Corporation, sorry, BBC!
OK, so you’ve got a thing for mis-stating acronyms for, um, comic effect. We get that. Meanwhile, I’m genuinely amused by your bizarre depiction of those who disagree with your position (aww, the image of you surrounded by bald men with glasses, all struggling to hold placards while simultaneously writing on clipboards and haranguing you, you poor perspected person!). I wonder if this compulsion to pigeonhole those who disagree with your position might shed some light on why you take exception to an idea that threatens your ability to indulge in unexamined cultural stereotyping….
OK. Let’s try the basics.
Media outlets and programme-makers have an important role in shaping people’s perceptions of the world. Cultural attitudes towards societal groups do change in response to depictions of those groups on television.
People from some groups still frequently encounter unfair discrimination in attempting to access jobs, housing, services, and so on. Similarly, hate crime is, like, an actual *thing* – most days, the front page of Pink News shows at least one article concerning an attack on an LGBTQ person, apparently motivated by hatred towards that person’s sexuality or gender identity. Elsewhere, you can see sobering figures for other intersections of oppression.
This isn’t gospel. It’s not based on divine inspiration, but on simple, demonstrable principles. The fair representation of marginalised groups promotes a more enlightened, tolerant society; and if you can change people’s attitudes, you can fight the root causes of unfair discrimination and hate crime. Some people’s lives *will* depend on this.
And I still don’t understand what you find so objectionable with that.
I’m with Sally on this. “PC” is a term invented by tabloids to mask real issues. If the BBC are funded by us, then they certainly should make sure they’re representing us.
It’s a pity that in almost every situation, save for the Emmerdale storyline, and now the Corrie lesbian story, that every portrayal of a gay man has to be in the form of a mincing, lisping, limp-wristed, or sounding like Graham Norton. Not all gay men are screaming queens and promoting this stereotype is as genuine as a Lib-Dems promise – sorry, committment… Working class stereotype – up north, northern accent, Scottish stereotype, violent Glaswegian drunk with overly-pronounced accent… gay man… need I say more?