Woman's Hour Tues 20/11/18 "Why is the current debate about sex and gender so often called “toxic” - we hear from @Bex_Stinson and @helenlewis"

does this raise questions about whether Stonewall should be giving private training in this area, if they refuse public scrutiny absolutely. Can we complain? They get public money after all.

Rosa Freedman win's the internet.

Rosa Freedman's comment:

"I am a woman"
"I feel like a woman"
"I have solidarity with women"
"I feel safe in women's spaces"

"I won't come into a studio and talk to a woman about women's issues on Woman's Hour"

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you Bex_Stinson from Stonewall

twitter.com/GoonerProf/status/1064828108145070081

"does this raise questions about whether Stonewall should be giving private training in this area, if they refuse public scrutiny?"

Emphatically. The evidence base for the content of training should be available for scrutiny and there should be an explicit ethical framework within which that evidence is assessed.

And then, that training has to have an impact assessment for intersections within society, HR, law and policy etc.

"does this raise questions about whether Stonewall should be giving private training in this area, if they refuse public scrutiny?"

^THIS. I think this is exactly the line we should be pushing if they continue with #nodebate

I suspect that Stonewall trainers are rarely challenged. Sessions will be very carefully manipulated with TWAW & #nodebate laid out as the framework.

Yes, that’s what I meant when I said they were in control of the narrative.

I meant that in theory, the exact same issues could come up in a training session but Stonewall don’t shy away from those- because they control the narrative. I didn’t mean that the issues are actually raised by anyone, sorry prob didn’t explain very well.

"We offered Stonewall a space here to discuss this issue live and defend their views and policies, described by many feminists and LGB activists as homophobic, misogynistic and in contravention of equal rights legislation, but they declined stating that it is 'unsafe' for them to do so in public, despite offering private training around the country in schools and workplaces."

This is what platforms should say when Stonewall refuse scrutiny and accountability. And then they should make a point of asking the guests that turn up, "does this raise questions about whether Stonewall should be giving private training in this area, if they refuse public scrutiny?"

It was fascinating listening to BS frame the argument
They are masters of the slippery argument. When asked about groups of people (trans, women) BS managed to reduce it to the personal.
BS (with all the power of Stonewall behind them ) feels vulnerable ergo all trans are vulnerable.

Me too Lang*. She was fantastic. So very pleased, as I have been a great admirer of her for some time and subscribe to the NS podcast.

I also understand her wish to be fair and kind. Don't we all want to be that? But not just to trans people, to all people, including, er, women.

LemonJello
I suspect that Stonewall trainers are rarely challenged. Sessions will be very carefully manipulated with TWAW & #nodebate laid out as the framework. It would be a very courageous employee to challenge this in any way. Stonewall and other trans lobby groups have trained everywhere , especially in local and national government. This is why they have been able to trample all over the rights of other protected groups, the safeguarding of children and even the nature of democratic discourse. Such an abuse of power.

Jane Garvey if you are reading this thread- you are brilliant! And brave. And asking all the right questions. Keep going. No idea how you've got this approved by BBC producers but it's terrific!

Keep on keeping on. You speak for me. Thank you.

Can’t believe that a radio studio is too hostile and intimidating for the poor things, but training sessions with schools, businesses, NHS are fine and dandy. The exact same questions and issues are likely to come up in a training session, however, unlike in an interview, Stonewall are in control of the narrative.

But the questions won't come up at work because (as you say) Stonewall are in charge of the narrative: questions=phobia, phobia=disciplinaries and people are worried about their jobs.

Stonewall's position is the reason for the toxicity. When any group makes demands that society changes on their behalf and strips out rights from other groups and then frames it (as they have done from the outset) as a no debate issue, then any challenge - no matter how reasonable - is always framed as hostile.
It was fascinating listening to BS frame the argument: trans as the perpetual victim over women - top of the victim hierarchy - and demonstrating a total lack of insight, empathy or understanding into any women's experiences or beliefs. Irony in action.

This seems like an excellent series. Why the hell wasn't it out out before the GRA consultation ended?

or more recently 'gay couples are married #nodebate'.

I was thinking more like

''intelligent design will be taught in schools #nodebate''

''abortion will be banned #nodebate''

AFAICT TRAS aren't pushing for any noble goals in the vein of votes for women or gay marriage. Instead they want to replace meaningful definitions with meaningless ones. They want unscientific ideology taught in schools as fact. They want to interfere in the sexual maturation of children who don't conform to gendered stereotypes.

I take back what I said about Helen. She did brilliantly.

It's astonishing really. Trans ideologists have the support of government, the major political parties, large charities, international agencies, big businesses. Despite this we're supposed to believe trans people are the most marginalised and oppressed people who have ever lived in the entire history of the planet.

Only until the scales fall from your eyes and you realise this is an ultra-capitalist men's rights movement that is entirely prepared to sacrifice as many women and children as is necessary to get its way!

Logging Stonewalls no-shows is a very good idea.

Can’t believe that a radio studio is too hostile and intimidating for the poor things, but training sessions with schools, businesses, NHS are fine and dandy. The exact same questions and issues are likely to come up in a training session, however, unlike in an interview, Stonewall are in control of the narrative.

If Stonewall are incapable of representing their own views publicly, the views upon which they are campaigning for changes to the law, then they are woefully unfit for purpose and should have their funding removed.

What, just say 'Women are voters, #NoDebate'?
or more recently 'gay couples are married #nodebate'.

I have to admire them though - they have got this far (a very long way) behind the scenes, while maintaining nodebate on the public stage. Clever strategy.
They used the modern version of the corridors of power (the diversity policies of power?). Millicent et al didn't have that option.

Maybe organisations should start doing a reverse-no-platform. If Stonewall are repeatedly invited to platform (speak and debate live) and repeatedly refuse to show then they will look pretty daft.
Is someone logging all their no-shows?

Jane Garvey was absolutely brilliant today.
Helen made some excellent points, particularly the point about women not being responsible for violence/assaults on trans women.
Stinson, pretty much as expected, apart from the fact that it was altogether too intimidating to do a live broadcast

on the other days the TRAs will drop out, citing BBC bias and hostility and saying they are too fearful to take part in the remaining debates.

Unless WH has altered its methods, I'd expect that the recordings have already been done if they are part of non-live discussions.

In which case, pre recorded pieces will still presumably be aired. This is probably going to feel like a bad decision for TRAs as they can’t respond to all the very good live discussion of the issues.

I think two weeks, Hackmum, but am not 100pc sure.

hackmum - I would take bets on it.