The BBC quoting statistics but not giving the whole story

The BBC report that:

'Today, while official discrimination based on sex is illegal, a gender pay gap persists.

The Office for National Statistics latest Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings puts it at 20.2%.'

However The Office For National Statistics report 'Gender Pay Gap - Gender pay gap narrows informs us that:

'Although median hourly pay provides a useful comparison between the earnings of men and women, it does not necessarily indicate differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs. Pay medians are affected by the different work patterns of men and women, such as the proportions in different occupations, their length of time in jobs and whether they work full-time or part-time.'

Now I have heard that explanation before and could find it very easily in the Office for National Statistics report, so why would the BBC not report it? Does the BBC want to report facts or create a 'narrative'?

Islams view of equality for women

"The Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) has declared the term ‘gender equality’, used in Section 7(a) of the National Commission for Status of Women Ordinance of 2000, ‘vague and un-Islamic’ and called for its repeal.

In its review of laws report for 2008, which is yet to be presented to the government, the CII said that instead of using ‘ambiguous’ terms, Islamic principles of equity and justice should be implemented in letter and spirit in gender-related matters.

The council, which had opposed the constitution of the NCSW, further recommended that the commission’s recommendations in Section 7(b) of the ordinance should be “in consonance with established Islamic laws”.

The council declared that the repeated use of term ‘gender equality’ as an ultimate target by the commission was ‘impractical thinking’.

It explained that the concept of ‘gender equality’ was impracticable because of ‘distinct differences’ in anatomy and physical and mental capabilities. The CII described the term as ‘absurd and un-Islamic’.

The council further stated that the composition of the NCSW was objectionable under Section 3 of the law. It recommended that women members of the commission should have knowledge of Islamic teachings."

Thanks to Dawn.com for that spot. Anyone in the ever so pro-gender equality and also pro-Islamic BBC or Channel 4 care to comment?

Gender

Earlier this month I posted this article about California's passing of a bill that redefines gender to be that which you choose to be regardless of your anatomical make-up.

A UK article from The Telegraph in 2003 shows that the UK got there first...

The article is entitled "Doctors in trouble for not giving man cervical smear" and yes you did read that right; here's the story...

"A family doctor has been summoned to a formal hearing over his refusal to put a 34-year-old male patient on the list for screening for cervical cancer.

The complaint has caused doctors in the west country practice to spend hours in meetings and writing replies to the local primary care trust over the complaint which began two years ago.

The man, who has fathered a child, believes he is a hermaphrodite although his doctors have examined him and can find no evidence for this. However, they did agree to his request to be re-registered with a female name.

One doctor in the practice said: "We are worried that the PCT is so falling over backwards to be patient-friendly, that it has gone too far the other way. Silly things are starting to happen."

The wife of one of the GPs, told The Telegraph she had every sympathy for people who believe they had the body of the wrong gender but the decision to investigate the refusal was political correctness taken to extremes.

She said her husband, who has been a GP for 30 years and who trains young doctors would be "pleased to hear from anyone, medical or otherwise, who could teach him the correct way to carry out a cervical smear on a 34-year-old male".

She added: "The refusal of one of the doctors to put Mr X on the recall list for cervical sceening has resulted in a complaint and, as a result the doctor, practice manager and other practitioners have spent many hours, at the expense of the care of other patients, answering written inquiries.

"My suggestion would be to accede unquestioningly to the patient's demand and carry out the procedure requested. Provided of course that a representative of the primary care trust could indicate the necessary part of this gentleman's anatomy, and was able to give the learned medics a clue as to how they could access it."

The doctors are confident that the man has "a genuinely held belief" about his gender.

He first wanted a cervical examination and was refused because he did not have a cervix. He then asked to be put on the list for regular screening.

He has since requested full DNA testing and full blood toxicology screening, although he will not give his doctor a reason or describe symptoms to justify the tests.

Tim Terry, consultant in reconstructive urology, Leicester University Hospitals NHS Trust, specialises in gender reassignment surgery.

He said: "There are some people with ambiguous genitalia but I have not come across a man who was normal physically and fertile who was in this inter-sex group. My advice would be to refer the patient to a sexual dysfunction clinic."

A local primary care trust spokesman said: "We have received a complaint as you described and as required, under the NHS complaints procedure, we are investigating along with other complaints from the individual.""

Male or female - you decide

This story is so odd that you may assume that I am making it up. I am afraid not, this story is weird but true.


Take a look here and here and at the actual text of the bill here.


In brief, the California Senate have passed a bill that ends "sex" being defined as "the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being." and refines the term "gender" for all schoolchildren by adding this "'Gender' means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth." In other words gender has been redefined to be that which you choose to be regardless of your anatomical make-up.

This bill also uses this redefinition of gender to forbid educators from discriminating against any individual employee, student or other person based upon that individual's unspoken claim of being male or female, regardless of his or her actual sex.

As a result of this bill the Los Angeles Unified School District has already adopted policies allowing boys to use girls' restrooms and locker rooms and of course vice versa. Also it even tells teachers they need to refer to students using the student's preferred pronoun, and of course, it prohibits the teachers from disclosing a student's chosen gender to the student's parents.



Now part of me, and I won't say which part, thinks that if I was a 14 year old NotaSheep again, then I might very well prefer to shower in the girls' locker room rather than the boys. Is this what the legislators envisaged? If not, what were they thinking about?