Debbie Hayton and Posie Parker on Matthew Wright, TalkRadio between 1pm and 2pm **Thread title edited by MNHQ**

I'm also of the persuasion that there should be no men in women's spaces. Whilst Debbie's collegues may be happy to share their spaces with Debbie as they don't find Debbie threatening, what happens when fellow staff member "pervy-Barry" decides he's going to self ID as a woman and then demand to use women's spaces.

As Debbie is already in the women's spaces it becomes almost impossible to keep "pervy-Barry" out.
Risk assessing on a case by case basis simply won't work as how can an employer let one be included in women's spaces but not the other?

While I'm of the purist or hard line persuasion that there should be no exceptions when it comes to men accessing women's spaces I would like to commend Debbie for undeniably furthering the debate and also for an observable personable shift in views in the light of comments made by women.

^This. It’s quite unusual ime to see someone (regardless of sex) be so honest and willing to admit a change of position. It’s admirable.

I've been security / background checked a gazillion times and know that I pose no risk. But still accept that there are some situations - such as when I forget to bring the right ID with me, or while checks are being re-done - that mean I cannot fully participate in certain activities until I can demonstrate recent, satisfactory checks. I know it's not personal - everyone is treated in the same way.

While I'm of the purist or hard line persuasion that there should be no exceptions when it comes to men accessing women's spaces I would like to commend Debbie for undeniably furthering the debate and also for an observable personable shift in views in the light of comments made by women.

Did Nick actually say he was the only man in the debate? When it was three men and one woman.

This was a good programme and would have been unimaginable a year ago.

There is still a lot of shit being claimed though. No way do a majority of Scottish women support self ID. Not when they know what it means. Also we have to realise that half the population probably think a transwoman is a woman becoming a man.

The point about my female colleaguss is valid. Even if all of them say they are happy, how do I know they aren't just saying that, perhaps to avoid the issue? Might some of them be - say - 75% OK. Would that be enough.

Would new staff members, female visitors etc have any ability say otherwise?
Also as with any issue of consent surely it is not a blanket agreement but must allow a person to withdraw it?

For example, whilst I may know with absolute certainty that I pose no individual safety risk to a child, there will be circumstances where it would be innapropriate to be in some 1:1 situations as an adult teacher alone with a child.

Thanks corlan

Might some of them be - say - 75% OK. Would that be enough.

Do you really think that's enough? Women are only allowed the safety and dignity of single sex facilities when a majority agree?

I was really pleasantly surprised this time that Matthew Wright seemed to be trying to let people air their views even though he was bricking it a bit. So much better than last time. I thought he was a paid up misogynist when he last had Posie on.

I wonder if the Trans Kids: We Need To Talk programme has tipped things. What with that Esther seeing how masked intimidating behaviour towards women is not a good look for the TRA side.

I noticed that Christine Burns is changing tack now, faux concern - making out that feminists will end up getting the blame for all this friction.

The discourse is definitely changing.

Yes it was a good discussion. Although I did get annoyed by MW continually interrupting Posie and wanting to talk about the toilets issue. Which is, IMO the least of our problems with this whole thing.

But one thing I did want to say, I found it very striking that, yet again, there were 3 men and just 1 woman, talking about issues that affect ALL women whether directly or indirectly. ...

I understand the arguments being made about risk and I find them very challenging.

Why challenging? They inform all work with children and vulnerable adults. Working in schools requires recognition that risk assessments include known factors that are generalised as well as additional individual-specific ones.

I understand the arguments being made about risk and I find them very challenging.

Nick made the "there are no problems" argument. I used to find that persuasive but the more I listen to women the more I realise that women don't tend to report them unless they have to. The point about my female colleaguss is valid. Even if all of them say they are happy, how do I know they aren't just saying that, perhaps to avoid the issue? Might some of them be - say - 75% OK. Would that be enough.

It does challenge my "by invitation and consent" claim. I see that in the political dimension such as this; it's harder to see the problems in real life.

Nick Tweeted that the discussion was surprisingly cordial (or words to that effect). I found that encouraging. Maybe it will be reflected in his writing? It will be interesting to see if Pink News report the discussion.

Pleased that both Talk Radio and BBC WH have found a constructive formula, largely inviting academics, journalists or generally thoughtful people. Adults rather than petulant teenagers, so to speak.

It helps having different viewpoints. So Nick had been briefed with the suicide stats. They are wrong and inappropriate, which Posie was quick to point out. He struck me as enough of a journalist to double check before using them again.

MW struck me as someone with a good eye for a story, and no skin in the game. Also good. He asked some informed questions and got some interesting answers. Just what is wanted on something called Talk Radio.

Just caught up with this thread as I couldn’t tune in today. Thanks to everyone for the overview.
I feel quite heartened by this, sounded like a good and useful discussion. Respect to all the panel for airing the debate, bringing their own points of view and covering the issues together.

The relevent risk factor is being male.
Male pattern abuse / violence / control etc and the consequent risk to females.
Its not mitigated by gender identity.
Its recognised as being under reported and very poorly prosecuted.

This. Individual risk assessment is expecting women to prove the risk of individual male transpeople.

apologies, link to source quoted above:
quillette.com/2018/12/04/the-new-patriarchy-how-trans-radicalism-hurts-women-children-and-trans-people-themselves/

DebbieinBirmingham
In the interview you said individual risk assessments were the solution you favoured (I think) and went on to talk about your female work colleagues inviting you into 'their' spaces.

Helen Joyce has published an article today (worth reading) in which she highlights the inevitable failings of the 'individual risk assessment' argument when applied to males accessing intimate female spaces:

(extract)
"Earlier this year Karen White, a self-identified trans woman with a record of sexual offences against women, was placed in a women’s prison in Britain—and promptly assaulted several other prisoners. In October, White was given a life sentence for these assaults and two previous rapes. The prosecution argued that White had used a “transgender persona” to gain access to vulnerable women to abuse. It is unclear how the decision to place White in a women’s prison was made: When deciding where to place trans offenders, Britain’s prison service is supposed to carry out a risk assessment.

But it is impossible to make such risk assessments meaningful, since few sexual or violent crimes against women lead to a conviction. Moreover, any male prisoner who transitions legally would count as a woman—and under gender self-ID that would be a matter of mere paperwork. To refuse placement in a women’s prison, the prison service would have to show that any woman with an equivalent risk profile should be held in a male prison, says Richard Garside of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, an independent charity. Yet women are held in male facilities only in “exceptional” circumstances—a very high bar."

The relevent risk factor is being male.
Male pattern abuse / violence / control etc and the consequent risk to females.
Its not mitigated by gender identity.
Its recognised as being under reported and very poorly prosecuted.

DebbieInBirmingham It did sound like a more respectful and balanced debate than many recently, and thank you for stepping into the fray to give your perspective.

I did feel for Nick. He is very young. I was pleased that he was willing to do it - I suspect other more senior voices simply said #nodebate.

Nick Duffy's articles for Pink News are amongst the most biased and are frequently anti-women / anti-feminist.

Pink News has considerable political influence.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3390910-Can-we-talk-about-Pink-News-Collecting-examples-of-their-propaganda

MW is soon to have his first child after many many years of trying - a baby girl. It possibly has made him more interested in the issues being raised. Imo he’s always mostly been an ally to women - even if he gets a lot of hate from mumsnet.

@Badstyley I think you meant "no transwoman's land" ;-)

It was a good discussion. Respectful and I good humour. I did feel for Nick. He is very young. I was pleased that he was willing to do it - I suspect other more senior voices simply said #nodebate.

Posie is formidable, and it was lovely to meet her and talk to her. I have huge respect for her clarity of exposition.

Matthew Wright has clearly done his homework and he understands what is going on and the issues that are arising.

Just listened. TBF I thought MW did a good job. He alluded to Women’s Hour and the stultified debate allowed on there, and he did name check people and orgs who refused to join him, including Mermaids, who he used as a nifty Segway into the transing of children.

Posie as usual was great. Clear, to the point and uncompromising. Debby, who is obviously caught in no mans land between womens’ interests and their own self preservation, came across as a little confusing at times, but sensible and measured for the most part. That Nick bloke from penis news, well, as expected really, fake suicide stats, which were deftly debunked by Posie, and of course he did the usual hiding behind lesbians. Apparently us butch dykes get shoed into the mens’, which is odd, because neither me or the butch, ish, dyke I was listening with have ever had that. Oh and because some women fancy women then it’s fine to let men into toilets/changing rooms as well, as if men rape and sexually assault because they fancy a woman. His male privilege really shon through there.

I thought that was good, and oh so different to anything allowed to air on our esteemed national broadcaster. Cue another meltdown from our photophobic TRA friends.

It's interesting when men's ego or sense of fair play forces them to acknowledge they are not necessarily right, and need to get better informed.

Perhaps Matthew Wright is of this ilk.

oh dear - correction - I have not heard the programme

and sorry for all the typos - in a rush

I have heard the programme and have found the commentating really interesting and useful ie not having to sit with bated breath for some sort of car crash.

But just thought (which I never imagined I it is something I would ever do) is put in a small defense of MW. I found his tv show particularly in the early days, hopelessly male centred and uniformed, totally based on his previous tabloid experience. But (according to him!) he tries to do research inform himself.

And in fact it would seem it was his defence of women having the right to say trans women are NOT women that got him ejected from his own show. There was some instance when a female guest (someone well known is you watch a lot of tv) "misgendered" a trans woman on the panel (Paris Lees?). He was later told by the company that had bought out his show (ITN?) as the presenter he had to apologise to the trans woman.

He then didn't appear for the next few days with the company saying he had a cold or something.

Anyhow, not long after that he left. (There was some coverage in the media).

Which ever DWM they now have doing the show is like some throw back to the 70s and so uninformed generally. And by change I watched an episode to see what it was like in its new format and there was a call to the show and the caller referred to a trans woman as he. The new presenter instantly ended the call, apologised and said it is their policy to use the pronouns of the gender identity.

Not saying I am a fan of MW, as think he is incredibly self important (in imagining himself as a proper journalist) and can only imagine his reaction to being told he had been informed by a woman. But give him his due, he did or has stood by his principles.

(Am typing this from memory which is why I have inserted a number of ? but could later tonight find links if anyone is interested. A strange martyr to TWANOTW).