R4 now Tuesday 7.51 am

I just listened to the whole thing.

Well that was excellent.

It's an old tactic I first saw used in the 80s. The interviewee starts out with attacking and accusations so the interviewer is diverted by trying to defend themselves. Less time to discuss the actual issues.

You'll see this happens a lot on certain threads (not just on MN but everywhere on the internet).
Derailing in such a way used to be what we meant by 'trolling' back in those days. (Or asking pointless, irrelevant disingenuous questions, a bit like 'which is worse?') or deliberately misinterpreting what has been said.

"I think Ranty Ben had gibbered away for so long that they just didn't have the time.
The idiot even started with a long propaganda statement when it was obvious that there were time constraints."

It's an old tactic I first saw used in the 80s. The interviewee starts out with attacking and accusations so the interviewer is diverted by trying to defend themselves. Less time to discuss the actual issues.

What Ben doesn't seem to have considered is that:

1. You have to be good at it, and he's not.
2. Most interviewers these days know exactly what's going on and can easily counter it.

Like the attempt at "No Debate" by not showing up, hoping to wreck the discussion, it's an out of date tactic that no longer works.

So, David Paisley has just tweeted his outrage that 'gay cis men' spoke over trans people. He recommended Katy Montgomery to the BBC, but the BBC wanted people connected to Stonewall. But I find this anger very telling. He really doesn't seem to care, or realise, that it's just men speaking about a woman's issue.

Freddie McConnell is also mad that journalists are discussing trans people's basic rights and humanity without talking to them. And to be honest the cognitive dissonance is making my head spin. Sorry, Freddy but for years your side has refused to engage in debate and has even made 'no debate' a slogan because your 'existence' is not something that should ever be discussed. There are multiple trans people who have sworn they will NEVER debate this issue. So if trans people refuse to speak about it, you can't very well complain If trans people are left out and their side is left looking like fools.

Nice piece by Sarah Phillimore in The Critic

thecritic.co.uk/trans-activists-car-crash-r4-interview/

Here's an easy link if anyone missed it

Yes, @HopeClearwater, I liked that bit too...
Like i said earlier, usually i would have been at work at that time. Obviously the stars were aligned allowing me to listen to the best radio I've heard in years!

purpleboy
I have just tweeted how really offensive that remark was to Hillsborough and all who died. I have had many "likes" for that tweet

James Kirkup has pointed out on Twitter:

Listeners to @BBCr4today might have heard claims about Stonewall’s position on the single sex exemptions to Equality Act 2010. The fact is that Stonewall made repeated calls for those exemptions - which allow for female-only services - to be abolished
With a link to his thread from a few years ago.

Been retweeted by Adam boulton who has 212k followers.

“Self ID is simply about paperwork"

So is marriage. Both examples change a person’s legal status, which is why we can’t merely self-identify into it.

I can’t split with my partner then demand half of his assets unless I have a legal entitlement to it.

BC: I’m Jewish I’m gay I’ve got a disability SO YOU CAN’T ARGUE WITH ME

Justin Webb:

I hope JKR was listening. It might help her with all the death threats etc she received for saying the same. And Maya and Allison and all of the brave women and some men speaking truth and upholding transwomen’s and women’s rights.

Actually writing my post has just crystallised something for me. Up to now identity politics has been fought on the territory of those wanting to rewrite reality and to gain power and control and one reason why the latest battles are proving to be especially helpful to the GC cause is that as this stuff becomes mainstream people making up the mass of the UK feel they're being told "your identity is offensive and will now be rewritten". They are finding this just as unpalatable as the social justice identity warriors and are starting to say "right then, if you want an identity war we'll give you one".

Someone said they were glib and to email JW to thank him - I'd like to do the same, and for SW - does anyone have the addresses?

I actually felt quite touched by SW putting forward the point re spaces and sports as it's so unusual to have a male voice represent what worries me so much about all this. And he was allowed to say it clearly, calmly and without interruption.

That's why the comment was popular Avocadowoman, it was someone hazarding a guess at "what will this look like when it's implemented" and finding that the answer to be "ugly and alienating".

For grandmother, we use maternal or paternal if we want to be specific.

So if my father now identifies as a woman, and my paternal grandmother identifies as a man, I suppose the concept is 'grandparent who identifies as male who gave birth to the parent who contributed sperm to make me'??

However, this shows how complicated the whole thing is, because we are debating this using English, where for example the word 'aunt' could be used to mean 'my mother's sister' or 'my father's sister' or 'my mother's brother's wife' or 'my father's brother's wife', or 'my mother's sister's wife' or 'my father's sister's wife'.

I believe that other languages would have a different word for a number of those relationships, if not all. So if my sister identified as a man, that would change the word my nephew would use to describe me, even though I might disagree with the concept of gender and hence still think of my sister as my sister and not by brother.

Can anyone confirm this?

If so, has this led to new words now same sex marriage exists?

Does he (or whatever applicable self chosen moniker) think if he re-tells it how he wanted it to be, that people will accept his edited version over the real version?

But this is the crux of his entire position, and that of the entire political position he represents.

The position's version of everything, is what all people are required to accept over and above their own views, feelings, needs, observations and interests, while obediently discarding the unwanted facts and bits of reality that throw doubt upon that version. And that some people get to impose their version, but others don't and must obey the version they're given.

It requires a society consisting of the served and the serving, and the serving do not get to choose their role or say no. It requires accepting that rights are not equal, universal things but that some have more and are of higher importance than others. It would also require a society of madly self sacrificing sheeple, and I think that's where it all falls down.

Around £3 on eBay. Very old school but sometimes I look at our Brave New World and think that not everything in the past was bad.

Does he (or whatever applicable self chosen moniker) think if he re-tells it how he wanted it to be, that people will accept his edited version over the real version?

Well, apparently it's what stonewall have been doing for cash so, you know...

It is remarkable how BC is trying now to say that JW was 'angry'. JW was perfectly calm and gracious throughout the whole interview. It was BC who kept getting his knickers in a twist and barking out his spiel.

It is truly remarkable how BC keeps denying the reality of everything. Does he (or whatever applicable self chosen moniker) think if he re-tells it how he wanted it to be, that people will accept his edited version over the real version?

I thought kb's short series on being a woman a year or two ago was really very good. I have huge respect for her. She obviously took Justin webb as getting the hump because he was criticised for not having a trans guest. It's likely that she does know about what's going on here and disagrees with us on it. She must have noticed the stuff that James dreyfus has been saying for the last few years.

Have you read The Theory and Practice of Gamesmanship by Stephen Potter WinterTrees? It's actually rather amusing.