Read on Twitter
Alright, here is a thread about a survey commissioned by @ALLIANCELGB and why it is a whole load of shit and how the report by the Daily Mail is full of errors, which are either due to shoddy journalism, or more likely, twisted lies designed to enrage their audience.
Here is the Daily Mail piece:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8457587/One-four-parents-aware-controversial-curriculum-11s-emphasising-transgender-rights.html
and here are the results to the survey:
https://www.populus.co.uk/poll/lgb-alliance-omnibus-survey/
give both a look, none of the following will make much sense. THREAD TIME!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8457587/One-four-parents-aware-controversial-curriculum-11s-emphasising-transgender-rights.html
and here are the results to the survey:
https://www.populus.co.uk/poll/lgb-alliance-omnibus-survey/
give both a look, none of the following will make much sense. THREAD TIME!
Before we get into the nitty gritty, it is important to note that out of the total 3868 participants in the survey, 1054
are parents of school age kids.
This is important to keep in mind throughout. Also, worth mentioning, WHY WOULD NON-PARENTS KNOW ABOUT OR CARE ABOUT THIS?
are parents of school age kids.
This is important to keep in mind throughout. Also, worth mentioning, WHY WOULD NON-PARENTS KNOW ABOUT OR CARE ABOUT THIS?
So let's start with sentence one in the mail.
"Only one in four parents are aware of a controversial new curriculum for primary schools which emphasises transgender rights, a poll has found."
NOPE. Check out the results yourself!
"Only one in four parents are aware of a controversial new curriculum for primary schools which emphasises transgender rights, a poll has found."
NOPE. Check out the results yourself!
See what they did? They grouped together "vaguely/not at all aware" and that came to 75%.
Vaguely aware is not the unaware. Vaguely aware, is being aware, vaguely.
The real number is that out of the 1054 parents of school kids, 60% were aware whilst 40% were unaware.
Lie 1.
Vaguely aware is not the unaware. Vaguely aware, is being aware, vaguely.
The real number is that out of the 1054 parents of school kids, 60% were aware whilst 40% were unaware.
Lie 1.
Lie 2: The Mail imply that all the participants are parents. They aren't.
Here is the way they report the numbers:
Here is the way they report the numbers:
But, look again at the first numbers. Out of the 3868 participants...1054 had school age kids. But this sentence gives the impression that all 3868 are parents because they set the article upon the basis that this was about parents. This is a lie by omitting pertinent facts.
Lie 3: The JK question is dodgy as fuck.
Alright, here is that quote again, referring to JK Rowling (why did a survey about relationships education include a question about JK? NO FUCKIN IDEA, ask @ALLIANCELGB) it claims 69% of parents support JK.
Alright, here is that quote again, referring to JK Rowling (why did a survey about relationships education include a question about JK? NO FUCKIN IDEA, ask @ALLIANCELGB) it claims 69% of parents support JK.
Here's the results and question in full. They used 69% of the total participants, which we noted at the start, only a quarter of those are parents of school kids
Real number, is 67% of the parents. Doesn't sound like much, but 67% of 1000 is a smaller than 69% of 4000
Real number, is 67% of the parents. Doesn't sound like much, but 67% of 1000 is a smaller than 69% of 4000
Also, check out the two options. Note that in the question it asks the participants to select the one that comes closest to their view even if they don't entirely agree with either of them.
The question about "protecting people born as women" got a softer "bio sex ahead of gender in SOME circumstances."
Where the "protecting people whose gender identity is different from bio sex" question got a harder ALL circumstances.
This is a loaded, bullshit question.
Where the "protecting people whose gender identity is different from bio sex" question got a harder ALL circumstances.
This is a loaded, bullshit question.
Why not have more options? Why force people to pick between two unequal answers? Why not have options that allow "some" and "all" answers for both? Because they wanted to game it. And they got what they wanted, a Mail article out of it.
The Daily Mail article stops talking about the results of the survey, but we would like to stay on that for a second. There were 3 questions on Relationship education in the UK...and 1 about JK Rowling (WHY?). Let's check out the other two questions asked.
Here is question 2, covering if the parents of school aged kids had been informed about the new sex/relationships education. Essentially, 61% of parents of school age kids have not been consulted on what the new curriculum is.
Sounds bad, but just think, how much of a curriculum are parents briefed on? How many of these people asked to be briefed? Have no idea, they didn't ask. They didn't ask why they hadn't, or anything.
There is a lot more to this question, notably, how old their kids are.
There is a lot more to this question, notably, how old their kids are.
Here is the breakdown of the ages of all the parents in the survey.
Out of the 994 who specified the age of the school kids, it is roughly split 50/50 split between 5-10 year olds and 11-15 year olds, with 111 parents having 16 year olds.
It is entirely possible, that hundreds of the parents in this have kids who are just about to leave school.
It is entirely possible, that hundreds of the parents in this have kids who are just about to leave school.
WHY WOULD A SCHOOL CONSULT PARENTS ON A CURRICULUM THAT THEIR KIDS WILL NEVER GO THROUGH?
The question of the relevance of RSE (relationship & sex education) to the participants is important. Have no idea how many of these parents will even be affected by it.
The question of the relevance of RSE (relationship & sex education) to the participants is important. Have no idea how many of these parents will even be affected by it.
Here is the final question that references RSE, and an edited version that makes the pertinent details easier to understand.
When asked if the parents wanted to delay the introductions...51% said they shouldn't.
This did not make it into the Mail article.
When asked if the parents wanted to delay the introductions...51% said they shouldn't.
This did not make it into the Mail article.
Back to that article, they included this bizarre bit of information about where Stonewall gets money from. Why include this? It isn't the most relevant thing, and where they got basic facts wrong (more of that to come in this thread!) and omitted far more relevant facts...
Like, "taxpayers money" as a term is weird and innacurate. Here is where the mail got those numbers from: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/stonewall_2017-18_signed_accounts_.pdf
Here is the breakdown of Stonewalls grants received from October 2017 to September 2018 with the government cash highlighted.
Here is the breakdown of Stonewalls grants received from October 2017 to September 2018 with the government cash highlighted.
Taxpayers money is not the same as government sources. The UK government announced in 2017 that out £769bn income, £51bn didn;t come from taxes (source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2017/nov/22/where-does-the-uk-government-get-its-money-and-what-does-it-spend-it-all-on)
Calling it tax payers money is innacurate.
Calling it tax payers money is innacurate.
It also plants the seed that the gov are giving YOUR money to STONEWALL to POISON your kids. BUT SURE, THAT WASN'T WHY YOU WROTE IT IN ANDREW ( @toryboypierce). ALSO NICE TWITTER HANDLE. ALSO HI ANDREW THIS IS A THREAD BREAKING DOWN WHY YOU ARE A GARBAGE JOURNALIST! ENJOY!
Anyway, right at the top of the article, there is another straight up lie. Here is outright lie 3: "The survey found 69% of parents back JK Rowling's essay posted this month"
Look at the JK question again. Do you see any reference to her essay? Look at the options below, do either of them mention the essay? Do they ask whether they back JK? No, they don't They don't even ask if they read it. The question doesn't even describe the essay's contents.
Okay, next...a pretty big lie for lie number 4 - Pierce introduces Stonewalls "LGBT Inclusive primary curriculum" guide into the narrative. Here is a link to the guide: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/creating_an_lgbt-inclusive_primary_curriculum_2019.pdf
Lie 4 lies near the end of the piece, where a quote from Liz Truss appears, worded to make out that Pearce went and asked her. But we know she didn't, because this quote looks VERY familiar to us, and will be to you if you have followed/listened to us for a while.
Pierce makes out that she is talking about the Stonewall guide. But she isn't, she is talking about a document created by Equaliteach, a totally fucking different document that is not referenced by Pierce. Pierce could have made a mistake...but as you can see in the image...
...if he got that quote from the tweet, he will have known that the quote wasn't about Stonewall's resource. Or he got it from skimming articles about this situation. Either way, he is shitty as a journo and/or a liar and sketchily implies he asked for comment when he didn't.
And for the final lie, lie 5, we have this thing. But it is untrue. LGB alliance was no set up by former members of Stonewall.
Looking at the LGB Alliances files of incorporation (available here https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12338881/filing-history), LGB Alliance is a limited company that was incorporated by four company directors: Beverly Jackson, Ann Sinnot, Katherine Harris and Malcolm Clark.
Cannot find any evidence of any of them being "members" of Stonewall and Pierce doesn't clarify what being a member actually is. Closest we could find was Harris being reported as a "former fundraiser" for stonewall.
That doesn't make her a member.
That doesn't make her a member.
The idea that the LGB Alliance is a group that "split off" from Stonewall is a lie, and one that came from one of the founders of Stonewall signing an open letter in support of the LGB Alliance. Haven't seen any evidence that this stonewall founder has done anything else for them
Also, we did an episode of the pod featuring 2 stonewall founders calling the LGB Alliance out. But we didn't get any of the coverage that the LGB Alliance got with their 1. We didn't get any "Stonewall founders slam LGB Alliance" headlines...wonder why? - https://whatthetrans.com/ep-32/
So that's it, 5 massive lies, one kinda lie.
Andrew Pierce is a terrible, ideologically driven news reporter for a garbage paper. He should never be allowed to work in journalism.
The @ALLIANCELGB and @PopulusPolls put together a shitty poll.
Andrew Pierce is a terrible, ideologically driven news reporter for a garbage paper. He should never be allowed to work in journalism.
The @ALLIANCELGB and @PopulusPolls put together a shitty poll.
The @ALLIANCELGB of course know all of this. But that didn't stop them making this report their pinned tweet:
The @ALLIANCELGB are liars. @toryboypierce is a shoddy journalist/liar/both. And here is a bonus pallet cleanser - Ann Sinnot, one of the founders of the LGB Alliance told the Guardian 10 years ago that she isn't against breastfeeding until the kid is in their late teens
Here it is, for your pleasure: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jan/09/breastfeeding-older-children
Breastfeeding a child is something that is shamed. That is wrong.
Breastfeeding a child longer than what is socially accepted is fine.
Breastfeeding someone into their late teens, could be seen as child abuse.
Breastfeeding a child is something that is shamed. That is wrong.
Breastfeeding a child longer than what is socially accepted is fine.
Breastfeeding someone into their late teens, could be seen as child abuse.
So maybe, don't take advice or trust anything around "protecting children" from her.
UPDATE: Strangely after we replied to their pinned tweet about this, linking to this thread, @ALLIANCELGB have unpinned this tweet.
Funny that.
Funny that.
