UK news stories..

[Fee]

I thought the following articles might be of interest to ppl here at BLO and was wondering what views were out there.

Sex-swap therapy at 3
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=328871&in_page_id=1799

Human Rights
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_article_id=299669&in_page_id=1797

Best

Fee

[Dana Gold]

Regarding the Daily Mail:

These articles can hardly be commented upon given the nature of the Daily Mail's biased reporting which in all likelihood would mean the first story (definitely) and the second as well, covered here are not entirely accurate and even skewed toward the news staff's socio-political and religious ideology. I researched the Daily Mail and found this:

excerpts from the links below them:

Several British web blogs I came across consider the Daily Mail (and similar "rags") a right-wing conservative, anti-gay (since these kind of people view transsexuality as homosexuality, it can be presumed to be anti-transgender as well.....further searches proved this to be true.

Activists Invade London's Daily Mail
Gay activists chained themselves to a pillar in the newsroom of London's Daily Mail March 15, set off fog horns, and chanted, "Daily Mail, Hate Mail." They were angry over the paper's support of Section 28, a 10- year-old U.K. law that prohibits cities from "intentionally promot homosexuality" or teaching "the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" in schools. Another activist attached herself to a railing overlooking the office building's atrium where additional protesters unfurled a banner reading, "Daily Mail Promotes Anti-Gay Hatred." Outside, a third group of activists sprayed the building and security guards with pink "silly string" and erected signs declaring the area a "Pink Zone."
There were no arrests.
"The Daily Mail is Britain's most insidiously homophobic newspaper, organizing periodic anti-gay campaigns amongst its vast readership," said a spokesman.
"Last year, the paper's bigoted rants were instrumental in defeating the British government's attempts to equalize the age of consent for gay men. Most recently, the paper has aligned itself with conservative forces in the House of Lords to ensure the retention of some of the most viciously homophobic legislation in Europe, the infamous Section 28."

http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/world/032400wo.htm

[I]The Daily Mail's editorial stance was criticised in February 2005 by London mayor Ken Livingstone after their coverage of anti-Semitic comments made to a Jewish reporter for the Evening Standard, comparing the reporter to a concentration camp guard. Livingstone criticised The Mail for its vilification of asylum seekers and their supposed history of campaigning against immigrants from other backgrounds, including Jews:
"In truth these papers were the leading advocates of anti-Semitism in Britain for half a century. Beginning a hundred years ago with their campaign to stop Jewish refugees fleeing to Britain from Russia they carried on right the way through the rise of Hitler and even after the start of World War II still felt free to peddle the lie that Germany's Jews had brought the holocaust upon themselves. [...] Whilst it is true the Mail group no longer smears Jews as bringing crime and disease to the UK it is only because they have moved on. After a decade of pandering to racism against our citizens of Black and Irish origin they have moved on and now describe asylum seekers and Muslims in similar terms. For the Mail group the victims may change but the intolerance, hatred and fear pervade every issue of the papers." [3]

the Mail's founder, Lord Northcliffe said his winning formula was to give his readers "a daily hate".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

It would be interesting to know if any articles about intersex (and consequent surgical and/or hormonal treatments on children) have been written in the Daily Mail......or their viewpoints on the topic in general.

No comment therefore on the articles themselves, considering the source. That is, "from dirty wells, spring dirty water"

Dana

[Fee]

Thanks for that Dana...for your info, I am not a Daily Mail reader preferring the Guardian or the Times for a more balanced view...and although raised Tory, I rebelled, and married an almost-Marxist. Having a cousin I was very close to who was gay (I was the first person he came out to when we were 18), a doctor, and who committed suicide 1n 1997, I have always found myself fighting the corner of the LGBT and I movement whenever I can.

Fee

[Dana Gold]

Hi Fee,

Yes, I too prefer the Guardian and for international news here in the USA, I watch the BBC. We have our "rags" in this country,too and they disgust me when they provide supporting "evidence and testimonies" to uphold a sensationalistic and/or "compassionate conservative" agenda.

The evening of the same day I posted my rant, I had an afterthought :redface: and was hoping I would have not embarassed or offended you by such a critical analysis of the tabloid , which could have possibly been perceived as a criticism of you. I'm glad that it was not the case.:embaresse The link to their rag had this at the bottom:
This story first appeared in the Daily Mail . For more great stories like this, buy the Daily Mail every day.
That statement was what set me off,.....i.e. "Extra, Extra!...read all about it....weird sh*t happens! :happy68:

Anyway, thanks for your reply....I'm known here at BLO as the vociferous and emotional one...angry-toned, however, like you, I care about the injustices to those, and unequivocally support the dignity and human rights of, human beings who are judged to be ( in body, mind or life ) "abnormal, immoral, or perverse" by those self-righteous "normals", who ,with their propaganda and socio-political or religious dogma poison or influence the minds of their readers, listeners, or peers.

Take care. PS: I like your asking about and posting the link for people with endocrine conditions that for various reasons are associated with or lack a definitive diagnosis. Many searching for the truth "have nowhere to go". :confused3

PS: I'm saddened to hear that a close relative of yours committed suicide, it must have been traumatic for you...such things are difficult to get over, as well as and in addition to , dealing with one's own life severities.

:wavey:

[Betsy]

While I agree the Daily Mail is nothing more than a bunch of whackos not unlike the the moonies that run the Washington Times, I personally think it it very important to pay attention to what others say about us. Strategically, it is vital to know what those who would like to eliminate us, change us, or whatever are thinking.

I often the words of those who think we are freaks, or in need of fixing when I speak...it's a very effective way to get the point across because it illustrates how important the issue is. I would encourage the postings of all articles, good or bad in that regard. One of the more unpleasant part of my day is when I wander to scary places like the free republic website, or the website of untraditional values, and others who would prefer we stay meek and quiet, but it's something I do everyday.

Betsy

[Fee]

No Dana, I wasn't embarrassed nor offended by your 'rant'....to be honest, you voiced what I was thinking but much more articulately..lol. Sometimes I wanna chat to you but feel this huge gap in knowledge and academia, so usually just read your stuff and think, "Wow, Dana is such a goddamn intelligent woman," - suppose I'm a bit in awe, or something..lol :redface:

But, I also agree with Betsy that we need to pay attention to what others say about us -what's that old adage, "keep your friends sweet, and your enemies sweeter"...?

Fee

[Dana Gold]

Hi Fee,

Actually, I'm not that much of an "egghead" :teach: that others would not be able to talk "down to earth" stuff with me....besides, I like to chat and I don't tend to overwhelm people with my "knowledge" when I converse casually ....I'm a "gabber" really, and can be quite silly :clown: at times....not the kind of thing one would expect from a science nerd.......and I'm not as articulate in conversation as I am "on paper" :rolleye11 .................

Regarding "knowing one's enemies"...yes, you and Betsy are right. Silencing and/or avoiding the adversaries agendas and mindsets only results in not knowing "what they're up to" and what to expect from them....in the tactical sense, as well as stategically, in case they become confrontational....something a lot of us may encounter occassionally... and what Betsy(on the "front lines") sees a lot.

:pizza: After all's "said and done", I'm jest a down-home country gal from the South (Germany, that is) :wink_smil