Woman's Hour Jo Swinson Now - 6th Dec

The Purported

Thank you for the link to the Kathleen Stock article, that has really helped clarify this for me

Swinson did a degree in Management at LSE and has a background in marketing and PR

Fuck me, that was a car crash - and not just on self-ID. Hasn't she had any media training?

The obvious follow-up question to all this rubbish about risk assessments always being necessary anyway, is 'In that case why don't we just have mixed sex refuges and risk assess all the men, just as we do the women?'

I would love to see that question put to every politician plugging this shite. I wonder if they'd just keep digging until they found themselves actually recommending that, or whether they'd be forced to admit that there are more things to consider than just 'This one probably won't actually rape or hit any of the women.'

Not that risk assessments could possibly be even that effective when it comes to unknown men - certainly not without a Layla Moran posted at the door of every refuge.

TimeLady thanks for the links, very interesting indeed

BovaryX

Kathleen Stock's piece on the inquiry is very illuminating
medium.com/@kathleenstock/womens-place-talk-full-text-house-of-lords-oct-10th-2018-b1f3d70c4559?

And this thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

Emma Barnett
Jo Swinson

[12:50]

EB: A striking policy of yours, away from Brexit, is the reform that you want to make to the Gender Recognition Act which will allow anyone, without any doctor involvements - something we've discussed here at length on Woman's Hour - to change their gender on all official documents. Gender self-identification, as it's referred to, would mean a blanket law which could mean any predatory man could self-identify as a woman to gain access to women, in what have been traditionally women only spaces, especially vulnerable women, for instance women's shelters. Do you understand why some women are very concerned about this?

JS: Well, I think everybody wants to have confidence, of course, that if somebody's the victim of domestic violence, domestic abuse, that there are safe spaces for them whether - you know, whoever their partner was and whoever they are as an individual. And so it's right that all of those spaces can properly assess the risks, and in exactly the same way that you wouldn't allow into a women's refuge the same sex partner of a woman who had been being abused, you also wouldn't let somebody who was a - who was a risk of abusing whoever ...

EB: You might not ...

JS: ... they were.

EB: ... you might not know they were an abuser and they might, as I've just described it, try and ...

JS: Look ...

EB: ... abuse this law.

JS: Look. [sigh] We have a real problem here that there are many vulnerable people in our society, many vulnerable trans women ...

EB: How many?

JS: ... and trans men ...

EB: How many?

JS: ... in our society.

EB: Do you know?

JS: Well, the - well, we know that the rates of mental health problems, of people attempting suicide, is much higher in the trans community.

EB: I just wonder ...

JS: You know [inaudible] ...

EB: ... when you were writing your manifesto, did you figure this out? Did you get some data on how large this group is?

JS: Well, I - I mean, I ca - you know, we could go and - we could go and look it up in the census, this is obviously a small part of the population, but I mean, I do challenge ...

EB: Is it hundreds?

JS: ... I do ...

EB: Is it thousands? Is it millions?

JS: I - it's clearly not millions. I imagine that, you know, the trans population in the country is clearly in the thousands. But I definitely challenge the suggestion that if it's a small number of people who are ... feeling driven in some cases to suicide, that this is not an issue we should be addressing. Everybody is ...

EB: But what about ...

JS: ... everybody matters.

EB: ... what about their vulnerability versus someone who's in a shelter and doesn't want that space to be open in any way to someone who could abuse this reform to this act ...

JS: Look ...

EB: ... in the way I described?

JS: There's not a hierarchy of equalities. Everybody's rights as an individual matter and ...

EB: But by reforming this you may create a hierarchy.

JS: No I - no, I - I entirely disagree ...

EB: Well I know that, it's your policy.

JS: Yeah, sure, so we need to make sure everybody is protected, and at the moment there is a group of people who are facing huge discrimination, huge bias, and as I say, that has very, very real consequences, in terms of violence, in terms of self harm and potential suicide.

EB: But I'm talking about - I'm not talking about those people. I actually asked you a question which was about those women in women's shelters ...

JS: And - and that ...

EB: ... and you have completely ignored those people ...

JS: No! I have not! I started ...

EB: ... and gone towards ...

JS: No!

EB: ... the people who you're now going to say ...

JS: Emma, the ...

EB: ... will be able to come in, who may be able to abuse them.

JS: No - no, the first thing I said was that every shelter needs to be able to keep people safe, and to do so on the basis of risk, and frankly - you know, that - whether somebody is cis or whether they are trans, that risk assessment needs to be done and I reject the suggestion that trans women are more likely to do that. But what you're saying is ...

EB: That was not my suggestion, to be clear.

JS: Well you're - you're - OK ...

EB: I was saying that there could be an abuse, ironically not ...

JS: So ...

EB: ... by the group that you're seeking to protect - by people who are going to try and use this reform in a dangerous way.

JS: So ...

EB: So by opening the door with that reform it will be on your head.

JS: No, so the answer is to have proper risk assessments and structures in place to prevent abuse. I - you know - and that's clearly the ...

EB: So the 2010 ...

JS: ... that's clearly the answer.

EB: ... the 2010 Equality Act sets out sex as a protected characteristic. How will you guarantee women's sex based protections when you've reformed the Gender Recognition Act?

JS: Look, I think that - you know, trans - trans women are women. And women, whether they are cis or whether they are trans, whether they are gay, whether they are straight, whether they are bi, whether they are black, whether they are white, whether they are asian, whatever their mix of characteristics are, you know - you know, nobody is just one thing on its own, and equality law does not work if it either tries to elevate - you know, one protected characteristic above others, or doesn't recognise that people have these multiple characteristics. Because we all do, and we all face different ...

EB: But the law ...

JS: ... prejudice and discrimination on that basis.

EB: ... the law does have to be precise, which is why lawyers have rowed about this. They are in dispute over this exact question and you haven't given any clarity in your answer.

JS: I - I mean - I do - I do, I recognise that there is controversy about this. I think there is - much of the media reporting, I'm not saying this is of yourself right now, but certainly in much of the print media, much of this reporting is sensationalised, you know, the discussions around you know, going to toilets and such like. I mean, I don't know the last time that somebody asked you for your birth certificate when you went to the loo, because you know, that just does not happen. So I think there is an element of this debate which has ...

EB: ... which has been sensationalised ...

JS: Exactly.

EB: ... but I'm not sensationalising it and Woman's Hour doesn't do that. I know you're not saying that, but the 2010 Equality Act sets out sex as a protected characteristic. I ask you again, Jo Swinson, how will you guarantee women's sex based protections if you reform this act?

JS: I don't believe that there is a problem in making sure that we can protect the rights of trans men and trans women, and also protect the rights of cis women, and make sure that we can give those spaces which are safe for women, whether that's refuges, whether that's other spaces, that we can make sure that that works. It's not beyond possibility to do that.

EB: What kind of feminist are you, Jo Swinson?

JS: An enthusiastic one.

[on to the stuff about Lord Rennard]

[19:14]

Emma was great! Thank you EB!

I thought it was absolutely great, but (and it is a big but) there was very little (if any) talk about men. It was all, about “people” taking advantage/being dangerous which meant that we lost the nub of this, which is about men being able to claim womanhood, men taking advantage of spaces intended for women, men disregarding women’s boundaries, men prioritising their validation over women’s expectations of privacy, men pretending that men (as a class) are not a danger to women (as a class). I When I was listening I thought the absence of the word “men” was striking.

I'm not defending Theresa May. I think it was a dreadful appointment. But I expect most people don't disapprove of it because they're not aware of the anti-woman shenanigans that have gone on. She was Head of Stonewall. Big tick

I also apologize for derailing thread, but this has been really interesting. I don’t know much of the background of how this has got to the current state of play and I have only been on this forum a couple of months. I have learned so much here, but it’s really quite shocking how a determined lobby group can have such a malign effect on freedom and democracy

I'm not defending Theresa May. I think it was a dreadful appointment. But I expect most people don't disapprove of it because they're not aware of the anti-woman shenanigans that have gone on. She was Head of Stonewall. Big tick.

Anyway, not trying to derail this thread; just wanted to provide a bit of background for any newbies or lurkers.

Because no politician has the balls to call Stonewall out, I suppose? The public criticism from LGB groups is relatively recent

TimeLady,
This is precisely the problem. Politicians who are directed not by any particular principle or consideration of the long term ramifications, but by what they think will garner them good media coverage. That’s a trait many politicos share, but it’s exacerbated when you have as PM someone whose main claim to fame is apologizing for her party and doesn’t seem to have any coherent political philosophy at all.

I’ve just listened. I don’t think Emma was harsh at all!

Emma's dealing with not just the socialised belief that women being assertive/authoritative are not being nice

Also, perhaps with the idea that 'Woman's Hou'r is a cosy little space where this issue can be safely buried - because women will just be 'nice' to each other - because they are women.

Ruth Hunt was made a Baroness by Theresa May? Why?

Because no politician has the balls to call Stonewall out, I suppose? The public criticism from LGB groups is relatively recent.

Ruth Hunt was made a Baroness by Theresa May? Why?

I really want every party to be interviewed on this, especially labour and snp as they are clearly in disarray . When will they wake up to women having an actual vote which we will use.
The guardian is asking for issues around the election to be raised. I raised this ...will wait to see if they pick it up....

and had been plugging away on this 'poor disadvantaged minority' theme for years (Press for Change). I bet they couldn't believe their luck when Ruth Hunt agreed to get Stonewall involved. What MP was going to challenge Stonewall back then? They were beyond criticism at that point
TimeLady,
Your posts on this have been very informative. I am still struggling to understand how this lobby group have managed to colonise so much, so quickly and exert such influence across so much of the power apparatus while the media were on mute. It’s quite incredible

I'm in the Emma Barnet fan club.

She wipes the floor with just about everyone she interviews.

Which only serves to add to the point that Jo Swinson should have been prepared for an interview with her.

I rate Emma Barnet as the best broadcast interviewer out there atm. She is better than Andrew Neil who just ends up being purely aggressive. (I don't like Neil but he's a great political interviewer for picking up on the bullshit politicians are spouting)

The committee's lead advisor, Stephen Whittle, was a respected professor and had been plugging away on this 'poor disadvantaged minority' theme for years (Press for Change). I bet they couldn't believe their luck when Ruth Hunt agreed to get Stonewall involved. What MP was going to challenge Stonewall back then? They were beyond criticism at that point.

I have a fairly moderate position on this as I DO think it right and proper to protect vulnerable transpeople even if I sincerely hope as we tack gender stereotypes and societal pressure the need for medicalising this is reduced significantly. However I thought Emma made a very helpful distinction between vulnerable trans people the law would intend to protect and predators who take advantage of said law. I didn’t feel Jo gave a good answer to that.

The Committee was set up in July 2015; the first trans representations were taken just two months later (and the HoC closes for August, remember).That suggests some serious preparatory work and extensive lobbying beforehand

TimeLady,
That’s very interesting. This lobby group are well organized and very strategic. But I don’t understand how they have been able to advance this agenda without vocal opposition. Why do they always seem to find such fertile ground for their niche agenda? Who is bankrolling all this?

I have to say these radio interviews are helpful. Hearing the voice alone helps emphasise things a bit I think. Doesnt matter if they are sat in the studio in a dress with their hair done. They cant rely on a performance. It's just them talking

The Committee was set up in July 2015; the first trans representations were taken just two months later (and the HoC closes for August, remember).That suggests some serious preparatory work and extensive lobbying beforehand.

It's all set out in those minutes. The Committee will have recommended a consultation. What was the Government department supposed to do? Refuse?

It was supposed to be an all party fait accompli by the looks of it, but then those pesky women started complaining......

Shoesa - Julia is amazing on that interview Again, she speaks plain truth - and it's powerful.

All prompted by Stickerwoman that interview.