Moral Maze, R4 19th Feb 8pm

PS my expectations were pretty low after previous 'debates' (except the Emily Maitliss interview)

I thought Glinner did well - After a bumbling start, he managed to get out from under the talking over him, and when faced with the emotional manipulation of what to name the poor oppressed people that no longer fitted in the man box came up with his 'The word woman is already taken' stunner. He also managed to take the wind out of the sails of the questioner with his very reasonable tale of his trans 'brothers'.

I was very disappointed that he was invited rather than one of the excellent female philosophers around. But having thought about it, if any of them had said what he said, they would have been seen as 'ungenerous' and 'unkind' and subject to more of the manipulative false teaming we heard used on Kiri Tunks.

It was very much a male combat interlude in the debate.

Also, think the female philosophers would have been wasted as it was very much entry level and probably what should have happened a good couple of years ago - the BBC is very behind on this and things have moved on a long way. It was all a bit muddled.

I thought Michael Portillo was very good, and Torr did an excellent job

Not sure if it has been linked yet but hopefully this should work. Searched Moral Maze on BBC Sounds app. www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000fgsp

That was good as far as it went.

I wanted more Long Nandy questions addressed to everyone.

Specific questions of what should be done in this exact situation, like, teenage boy comes out as trans and wants to get changed with the girls, should adults allow it?

I thought Glinner did well but I would like to have heard Kathleen Stock interviewed in his place. Kiri Tunks did brilliantly and remained clear, concise and on point despite attempts to derail her. Michael Portillo has a good grasp of what the unintended social consequences of self ID would be and why legal definitions mattered, more so than the rest of the panel who were very stuck on “be kind” stuff.

Strange digression from the panel towards the end about this being a proxy debate for feminists who are threatened by transwomen. Silly.

Transmen are noticeably absent from most discussions. I suppose they find it even more challenging to be visible?

Mona Siddiqui could have been stronger on the bioethics of 'puberty blockers'. No-one ever seems to challenge their experimental and often irreversible nature.

I stand corrected.

No female trans voices.

Both Michael Portillo & Graham Linehan referenced male TS to support their positions so there was no representation of female trans or non-binary people.

two female voices out of seven (Anne McElvoy and Kiri Tunks) in a discussion centred on women's rights.

Three of nine including Michael Buerk

There was a helluva lot of talking over Kiri Tunks and Glinner.

Rachel Mann's communication style came across as extremely coercive to me.

I don't think most people are aware of the trans labour pledge thing because they're not following the leadership contest much, so Torr Robinson will just have come across as a random person with strange pomo views.

I'm also wondering about these 'briefing notes' and I hope Glinner takes it up with the BBC. Who writes them? Do some people get to write their own and others are written by BBC researchers? There seemed to be some confusion.

I suspect the 'briefing notes' on Jane Fae lacked some historical detail. Who wrote Jane's briefing notes?

Wonderful blast of sunlight though

Mona Siddiqui?

Lineham and Portillo were great. I thought that Portillo didn't get enough time to speak- he didn't get the chance to interrogate the 2 GC witnesses for a start.
It's a shame he doesn't go on twitter, as I'd say thank you. (I went to a talk he did once, and he said he had to make the choice between twitter and alcohol, and chose the latter)

Yes, there really does need to be an investigation into the briefing notes. If the person who prepared them has spun them then that would justify a serious complaint.

I'm already wondering whether we need to make a serious complaint about only having two female voices out of seven (Anne McElvoy and Kiri Tunks) in a discussion centred on women's rights. Although frankly Michael Portillo and Graham Linehan did the majority of the heavy lifting as far as I'm concerned.

I suppose if you are the most hated man on the internet, the odds are stacked against you. I googled him the other day and TRAs have really done a number on him.

I think production assistants write them, by speaking to the interviewee beforehand and snipping a couple of points out of any recent publicity.

Sounds like whoever wrote the briefing notes twisted Glinner's words as much as possible.

But who writes it, where does it come from, what is on it, because Graham didn't seem to know.

The briefing note must be given to the panellists and chair in advance.

Agh there’s 2 threads. Graham referenced the briefing notes twice. What WAS on them? He didn’t seem party to them

Indeed - what are these 'briefing notes' and are they the same ones used on Newsnight?

I'm a regular R4 listener and I don't think I'd have followed this debate as clearly if I hadn't swotted a bit (mainly on here) about the issues it raises. I tried listening with an open mind to all the panellists.

Excellent questioning from Michael Portillo, credit must be given where it is due. He demonstrated that he very clearly understood what the concerns of women are.

As always, thank you glinner for speaking up you did great!

I can't believe Jane Fae is invited on a panel to discuss women's rights after the eggshell skull comments. Strongly minded to complain to the BBC on that basis. Fae has got no place commenting on women prisoners' safety after that.

threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3374614-John-Ozimek-now-Jane-Fae-on-women-feminists-and-victims-of-pornographers

Report by TheHarpySings of the September 2018 TRA conference organised by Jane Fae:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398737-We-re-Still-Here-Conference-8th-September-A-report-from-the-inside

It's interesting that Jane Fae and the non-binary TRA bloke were much more eloquent and careful than usual.

There was lots of care about debate not being transphobic. Lots of joking and stressing that they are interested in protections for women from Fae and even the TRA was less totalitarian than usual.

Poor Graham obviously hates public speaking. He had a really good crack at making the arguments. I really wish we'd had the likes of Dr Stock on there.

The 1st person just didn't sound very rational at all, and illustrated exactly why they cling to #nodebate because when challenged, their arguments are built on sand.

The first person was Torr Robinson, chair of the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights whose 'pledge' has been signed by a number of Labour MPs including those running for leadership.

Robinson has written a long piece about the 'roadmap to trans liberation'
tribunemag.co.uk/2020/02/the-labour-campaign-for-trans-rights

& been interviewed at length Episode 40 'What the Trans!?' from 5 mins
www.stitcher.com/podcast/whynoteatcats/what-the-trans