All Hail - Justin Webb Today Programme

If Justin used the arm-wrestling example upthread next time that might be a better bet.
To say it once is fine, to keep saying it might become creepy

I wonder if the discomfort was because it is true almost universally between men and women and yet seldom mentioned Yes I think that’s probably the crux of it. There are unspoken rules in the way in which men and women interact to keep the illusion that there is no difference. Speaking about it is taboo because for a man to mention it is to acknowledge that he has power and has thought about how he might use it.

For example, at work I’m quite often in one-to-one meetings with colleagues in a room that isn’t really overlooked so is quite private. Most of these colleagues are men who are younger than me and junior to me. Generally I have the room arranged so they are on the other side of a table and keep quite a business like dynamic so there is no real awkwardness. There was one man (thankfully now left) who would come to my side of the table, sit too close to me, spread his legs wide and look directly at me with a smirk. I am 5’4 and 8 stone, he was about 6 foot and quite big. It was clear from his manner that he was using the physical situation to intimidate and undermine me. I felt that I had to carry on with the meeting as if I hadn’t noticed as to do otherwise would be to recognise his potential power and undermine mine. I found him quite threatening and was surprised at how much it affected me but there was nothing specific to call him out on.

I have no idea about the relative body size and strength of Justin Webb and Jo Swinson but assuming they are both fairly average for their sex I guess he is probably right. Of course, he seems like a nice bloke and I doubt Jo has any reason to fear for her safety (!) but his comment quite clearly exposes the power dynamic that’s always just below the surface. Effectively he’s saying it would be his choice whether he hurt her and in acknowledging that it undermines her position as a leader. I was quite surprised that he chose to do that so directly given all of the concerns about threats to women politicians.

Under Labour, you could change your birth certificate to read female but it still wouldn't allow you into women's refuges, women's changing rooms etc.

How would you keep them out? Anyone who has a birth certificate saying 'female' is female as far as the law is concerned.

The single sex exemptions mean that some services and spaces can be for only one sex (which can be changed, thanks to the GRA). Labour haven't mention the gender reassignment exemption, which is a separate exemption subject to the 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' which leaves it open to interpretation by the service provider, and also to being challenged by transgender people who think they should be allowed to use the service.

Labour's comments about single-sex exemptions are meaningless with a policy of self-ID.

I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of the 'I could do you enormous damage because of my male body' comment. It certainly made me feel quite uncomfortable hearing a male journalist speaking in that way to a female politician

Me too, which is why I think it was brilliant. I'd also like to discuss it more as it's been on my mind.

I wonder if the discomfort was because it is true almost universally between men and women and yet seldom mentioned. I remember when I was a fit, gym obsessed 20 something and I met my weedy, lazy, smoker of a boyfriend. He was 2 stone lighter than me. It used to really piss me off that he'd win every arm wrestle and could just pin me down during a play fight.

Now I'm a bit older, I can only really be friends with men who are willing to interrogate themselves about how their maleness affects the females they share space with. I think ALL males should do this. It could almost be a right of passage growing up. It's got sod all to do with identity or sexual orientation or hair style or clothing. It's about acknowledgement of the material reality and added class privilege resulting from the chance occurrence that they were born male.

It certainly made me feel quite uncomfortable

That's exactly the point, though. Women's vulnerability in intimate spaces because of an instinctive alertness to potential physical risk or danger. that's why we have single sex spaces, services and sports - to mitigate that.

I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of the 'I could do you enormous damage because of my male body' comment. It certainly made me feel quite uncomfortable hearing a male journalist speaking in that way to a female politician

Why?

There was quite a bit of discussion of that comment in the first few posts of the thread, Ali.

I am surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of the 'I could do you enormous damage because of my male body' comment. It certainly made me feel quite uncomfortable hearing a male journalist speaking in that way to a female politician.

Except John McDonnell told us that they would open the Equality Act for debate after introducing self id.

GRA reform isn't even in the Tory manifesto, as far as I'm aware. Let's not forget, they're the only ones who have seen the consultation responses, so are probably aware of what a disaster reform would be.

Labour wants to reform the GRA but maintain single-sex exemptions under the Equality Act. This is a bit daft as a policy but it is very different from what the Lib Dems are offering. Under Labour, you could change your birth certificate to read female but it still wouldn't allow you into women's refuges, women's changing rooms etc. The Lib Dem policy is full-on TWAW.

Labour support single sex exemptions.

But they also intend to reform the GRA to self ID, which means people can be legally recognised as the opposite sex via a simple declaration with no gatekeeping.

Single sex + self ID = mixed sex.

And they intend to do this regardless of the outcome of the consultation, which is undemocratic and goes against the principles of public consultation.

They just said on radio 4 that both Johnson and Corbyn have refused to do a full interview on the Today programme.

I do agree that the focus on GRA reform is stronger in the Lib Dem manifesto than in the other parties. For instance, they are committed to removing the spousal veto so it is reasonable to expect Jo Swinson to receive more scrutiny about this than other leaders. However, without this board, as someone living in England, I would not know about the different positions within the SNP. I suspect that the Conservatives do not see GRA reform as a priority. They have honed down their priorities to a very few areas, like Brexit, more police and tighter immigration. Labour support single sex exemptions. The problem is that none of us know if/how they would enforce them

The leader debate format allows party leaders to be faced with the same questions. However, both Labour and Conservative leaders rarely give proper interviews, as opposed to sound bites, except to their favoured broadcasters or journalists. It is a real problem for democracy.

All.party leaders need to be asked this, otherwise theres a risk it will just be seen as some some obscure bonkers lib dem ideal when in fact its woven into all political parties.

Yep. And if not on the Today programme, then somewhere else.
This crap is already everywhere from schools to police training and civil service 'equality' advice, which recommends re-education for women who turn around when they see a man in the women's loos.

I don't trust any party to get this right atm. They are all clueless.

I bet no one from the BBC will even think for one second to ask the two main parties why they are promising to undermine women's rights.

They just said on radio 4 that both Johnson and Corbyn have refused to do a full interview on the Today programme.

I do think its sexism , and I loathe the lib dems. Just because Jo Swinson doesn't know what a woman is doesnt mean women dont exist and that sexism isn't real. They have plugged this policy (my guess is they wont be doing that again) but Labour have self Id as part of their manifesto too. All.party leaders need to be asked this, otherwise theres a risk it will just be seen as some some obscure bonkers lib dem ideal when in fact its woven into all political parties.

I've just caught up.
Thank you Justin.

Jo has swallowed this hook, line and sinker. Every time she evaded the question and spoke about 'vulnerable' tw, constantly ignoring women, all I could picture was Karen White.

Jo is a disgrace, but you'd definitely get the same with Corbyn.

Rachel Johnson was on Sky News' review of the papers last year and she was GC and with Andrew Gilligan too, Boris must know - which makes plans to reform the GRA even more of a sick joke on women.

Jo Swinson and the Lib Dems made it one of their main policies. Of course she should be held to account over it.

And if she IS a media scapegoat that demonstrates how much people hate this ridiculous policy, then good. Hopefully it will be a lesson to the Conservatives not to bother going any further with this plan.

What’s sad is that it’s needing men to come along and add their voices to women’s (Ricky Gervais is good as well) for us to be listened to.

I think we are all being bought of by how many parts of the media are focusing in on Swinson about this issue.

Because on one level it doesn't matter what they think as they will not be forming the next government.

The is just the media doing what it always does, it finds what they think is an easy target and then they all pile in. they dont care about the issue, they just like getting the boot in. Not sure why Jo Swinson is so unpopular, which is what the media is playing up to, but think as with Theresa May she is being treated differently.

So seriously, if any of us really care about the issue of women's rights, stop going all super fan because some people in the media as picking on Jo Swinson.

Both Labour and Tory are committed to reforming the GRA. Labour is intending to make mis gendering a hate crime.

Challenge the media to challenge them.

If they dont then it proves they dont care about women's issues, they just like giving someone in a weak position a good kicking.

We will either have a Tory or a Labour Government. They are both committed to reforum the GRA in favour of self id etc.. The media not challenging them.

Stop being bought off by this media misdirection.

By the end of the week we will have a Government committed to reforming the GRA and undermining women's rights and it wont be a Lib Dem Government.

This is just total two faced media hypocracy. they are just showing off to each other. And we are the muppets lapping it up as though it was actually a serious advance on behalf of women's rights.

I bet no one from the BBC will even think for one second to ask the two main parties why they are promising to undermine women's rights.

The thing I don't get is how Swinson and the Lib Dems ever thought this was a winnable policy! I mean they didn't have to make it front and centre but they did. She tweeted about it, several tweets in a row. Proudly proclaiming her woke credentials. And Labour isn't much better. Do they ever get out of their bubbles and actually listen to real voters on the ground? This is all so top down. It may be popular in certain small circles but it was never a policy to go out and win millions of voters.

In fairness to interviewers, the other parties have made clear how they will use the first 100 days. The Tories will push on with Brext and Labour plan a massive nationalisation programme. It is not clear how either will work so there are lots of questions to ask. And either way we can be sure there will not be any parliament time for gender stuff.

What would the LibDems do in their first 100 days. Well they wont push ahead with Brexit, and they dont plan a major nationalisation programme. They will plant trees, but that hardly makes for a robust interview. Reform of the GRA is a flagship policy, and is something that some interviewers are delighted to be able to tackle. Nothing about them picking on the woman.

As it happens the LibDems wont get elected so it does not matter. Apart from the possibility of a LibLab pact. Jo may then demand self ID as the reward for the LDs supporting John McDonnell's agenda. I hope she is beginning to realise how unpopular that would be.

Justin Webb has stated the obvious, that men have a different power level than woman, something people like Swanson did not even try to think through because no debate and TWAW. This c&p is by VMisaMarshmallow on the thread but I think it is a good fit for this thread because it outlines where we are going if we follow through with this:

"If you make the legal definition of ‘woman’ into anyone who signs a piece of paper to say they are then you make ‘woman’ a meaningless term.

If it’s a term that holds no legal meaning then all our sex based protections are gone, if you can’t define sex you can’t protect those of us who are marginalised because of it.

If it’s a term that holds no meaning you have taken away woman’s vote. You can’t measure what natal women vote for if the catagory ‘women’ includes men. You can’t assess how women feel about issues that effect our lives if you can measure who women vote for. Women can’t come together as a group to use our democratic rights to influence positive change for women if the group ‘women’ includes men. Women can’t use media and social discussions to raise awareness of issues that effect us when a significant number of ‘women’s’ voices come from men.

There’s no way to measure the gender pay gap if ‘women’ includes men. There’s no way to assess how many women are in senior positions in employment if some of those ‘women’ are men. There’s no way for any woman who is unfairly passed over for promotions on the basis of her sex to complain when her employer can claim that 50% of the male managment are women. There’s no way to assess how many women are in STEM subjects when ‘women’ contains men.

There’s no way for any single sex prison, hospital, mental health facility, dv refuge or any other single sex facility can turn away a man when ‘woman’ now includes any man who signs a form.

Making the legal definition woman something any man can opt into, without any ‘transition’ of any sort makes the term women meaningless. Doing so wiped out all our sex based protections and all our rights in one go. You maybe a woman yourself, but if your not you were certainly birthed by one. You may also be married to one, or have sisters, daughters or other women you care about. They are the people whose rights you are erasing.

This will decide my vote now (most likely spoiled ballot) and will do in every election following. I will endeavour to vote in every single local election as well, and any candidate who is willing to stand up and vote against party line on self ID bill will get my support. More over I will explain this to every other woman I know, to my family, friends, school mothers, teachers, hcp and so on. I know a lot of women, I suspect that’s true of other women on this board do also. At some point one party will release what a large % of votes that is, as more and more women are aware of this. Will it be your party or will it be the reason you loose? Females make up 51% of the population, and our erasure of rights effects us all. That’s a lot of votes for whoever is smart enough to figure that out."

Sorry I am such a slow typer, that was a cross-post. I don't normally just paraphrase other posters!

Agree because lots of people won’t get it

It was very effective because the words he chose were quite brutal. I flinched a bit at them and thought, that's a bit much, Justin. But it got the point across more effectively than saying the more sanitised 'men pose a risk to women' or similar. I could do you damage. Blimey. But is is the crux of it.