Sunday 1st March The Big Questions BBC1; Women's Rights

This silly series is on again. Today’s topic is fat shaming. Everyone is sitting two metres apart for cv signaling reasons. Same set so fewer fit in, and it is so much more civilised. Three weeks ago it was too many voices so none of the arguments made coherent sense.

I found the link to this programme and watched it.

But have to say I hate programmes like this.

Giving participants silly little sound bites (unless your a christian of course and then you think you can talk across everyone!).

It just dumbs down everything, and all the programme makers are hoping for is gotcha moment that can be used as clickbait.

Most people would just turn off, or think its just women arguing amongst themselves.

When did someone decide that we all had the attention spans of a fish and we never need to talk about anything in depth.

No wonder Boris got elected. The big buffoon of silly one liners.

Totally depressed.

If you want an evening chuckle, Miranda Yardley has collated all the tantruming on Facebook, including litigation now being considered against Hayton too.

It's quite spectacular.

Spiked is funded by the Koch Foundation.

I don't think this means we should ignore it I just think it's worth taking into account.

Sorry, misread 14:15!

One, I think you've mixed me up with someone else, I've not made any points about Rosa and Harry.

FloralBunting I realise it was inappropriate to compare Harry and Rosa. Just that it was adjacent programmes on the same channel for a similar audience. It seemed that Rosa was debating the wombats in the studio, and winning but there were people in their kitchens around the country half watching. Right now there are people around the country left with the impression that Rosa is ungrateful for a free 7% pay rise. I know that’s not what she said, but people are watching snippets of the programme in that time slot.

They decided to avoid the transwomen issue so Hayden was no longer required. That’s my perspective.

It's more likely because they are a 'woman with a criminal past'. Allegedly.

I doubt very much if BBC Big Questions excludes guests who have a criminal past, regardless of their sex.

It’s pretty poor behaviour to invite someone to appear in a programme and then axe them an hour before the show is recorded. I’m no fan of this person but I do think they should have done their research prior to inviting her, not afterwards.

Oh, and look, after a debate about women's rights on national telly, we're discussing males sticking themselves centre stage again.

I think Hayton complained about Hayden's appearance, and offered Haytonself instead.

I do not think this is a helpful intervention, and frankly, quite in keeping with other such interventions in the past couple of weeks.

It's more likely because they are a 'woman with a criminal past'. Allegedly

Not allegedly. Their criminal past is in the public domain.

Ms Wilson told the court the claimant had a previous conviction relating to an affray with a golf club in 1999.

She said Ms Hayden had been before criminal courts on 11 occasions for 21 offences and had spent six months in prison for obtaining property deception.

But Ms Hayden noted all her convictions were spent and her last court appearance was 10 years ago.

She said she had been convicted of petty crimes like handing in a bad cheque at a petrol station and railway fraud.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7978797/Mother-two-called-transgender-woman-man-racist-series-offensive-tweets.html

Preventing Steph Hayden speaking only protects other males who identify as women.

That's why I don't think complaints came from women's groups. Why would women's groups prioritise the image of male transpeople?

It's more likely because they are a 'woman with a criminal past'. Allegedly.

The GRA review is dead, it's a relief to not hear about it
We should still be debating it - we have de facto self-id through institutional and organisational capture and until this is rolled back the conversation is still valid.

Preventing Steph Hayden speaking only protects other males who identify as women.

Hmm - that sound about right.

I am disappointed at the cancellation - it would have been the making of that show.

Hope SH wasn't deplatformed at the behest of anyone GC though. Partly cos I think it's much better to point to deplatforming only being on one side - and because SH getting publicity is VG for women's rights IMO.

Why are some people described as GC/ GC 'allies' calling for censorship & no-platforming?
These controlling behaviours don't do women standing up for sex-based rights any favours.

Preventing Steph Hayden speaking only protects other males who identify as women.

Have the BBC indicated why SH was no longer invited to the show? I don't see the point in deplatforming. People's views and opinions should be aired so the general public can assess them against other people's informed arguments.

The Rosa comment that stuck with me was that there are only 25 black female professors in the UK.
Yes, but out of context - I’ve no idea how that compares to the number of professors overall, proportion of black women in the population etc - I assumed it is a gross underrepresentation but it’s not clear just from that soundbite unfortunately.

For people living in my area 25 black women professors would seem like a lot. I don’t know any professors. Male, female, BAME or not. I think Rosa’s point was that it was really low compared to the overall number of professors. And the number of black Women in the UK.
But I don’t think Rosa’s point would hit home with the Sunday brunch audience

The Rosa comment that stuck with me was that there are only 25 black female professors in the UK.

I love Rosa & her hat. Her appearances in front of parliamentary committees are astonishing. But Sunday morning tv needs a Posie arguing for women, or a Stephanie for sunlight.

II think Rosa was wasted here it’s not the right format for her skills.
The time slot before had Harry Miller on Politics North (Lincs and Yorks version). That was pitched much better at the Sunday morning tv viewer. Harry spoke to camera in front of a display of British values and talked about the Tesco car park. He clearly doesn’t have Rosa’s skills and missed the Jane Fae lies about Ian Huntley, but every sound bite was on message. Whereas individual sentences from Rosa didn’t stand alone. For instance the point about females academics getting a 7% pay rise might not go down well in the supermarket car park.
The feminist point might have been better served by Hayden.

If SH was unbooked for reasons of SH's past convictions etc, fair enough.

Hope SH wasn't deplatformed at the behest of anyone GC though. Partly cos I think it's much better to point to deplatforming only being on one side - and because SH getting publicity is VG for women's rights IMO.

Since when an expert on housing, though?

God, that was awful. I can't imagine that anyone watching that without a settled view would have learned anything,. I hate these massive issue free for all 'debates'.