R4 now Tuesday 7.51 am

I strongly suspect she ended the debate because she simply had not thought about and could not address the points I made. Its a way of getting out of a debate you are losing without having to concede any of your arguments.

Yes, it's getting you on a technicality. Like Serena Williams serving a ferocious, powerful, perfectly-aimed shot that her opponent doesn't have a hope in hell of returning, but not winning the point because her toe was half a centimetre over the line.

Benjamin Cohen went straight to this technique when he evaded JW's question and invoked the technicality of 'no trans voices'. It's the old tactic of gamesmanship, used by sports people and teams when they can't win on skill alone.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesmanship

I remember Venice Allan getting the same complaint, at her first We Need To Talk meeting. She had invited something like 24 separate trans people or organisations, all of whom refused.

It was useful that The Lawyer mentioned that Naomi Cunningham had asked for a lawyer to engage in a discussion about the issues with her and, several months later, nobody has agreed to do this.

The Curious Incident of the Lawyers Who Didn't Argue: legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/11/26/the-curious-incident-of-the-lawyers-who-didnt-argue/

www.thelawyer.com/law-firms-should-ask-hard-questions-about-stonewall/?f

Some discussion here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4264522-Law-firms-should-ask-hard-questions-of-Stonewall-article-in-The-Lawyer

This was a popular comment under the Daily Mail article:

So if the word 'mother' is to be replaced by 'parent who has given birth' what does that make a grandmother? A parent who has given birth to a parent who has given birth or contributed to a parent giving birth.

It's a bit chicken and egg, he can't reason because he hasn't tested his arguments because of #nodebate.

Possibly, but I believe that at some level they are aware that what they are pushing for sounds insane to most people and there are no arguments that will change that, no matter how skillfully made. That's why it's all backroom gladhanding, reinterpreting the law for employers and going at people I WILL FIGHT YOU WITH KNIVES style to anyone who dares question them.
He did a bad job but it was a short interview. He should have been more in control for those two minutes but they're so hyped up on forcing compliance rather than actually trying to discuss what their aims are...

I had a discussion with a TWAW friend who said, ' you have made some good points but I can't talk with you any further because you misgendered (male sex offenders)' Again, I strongly suspect she ended the debate because she simply had not thought about and could not address the points I made. Its a way of getting out of a debate you are losing without having to concede any of your arguments.

I never had any respect for the NO DEBATE way of going about things until I heard this interview.
If that's the way these guys reason and present their thoughts or beliefs, they are absolutely right to insist on no debate.

Well that was brilliant! Simon 1 Ben 0 loved the presenter. More sunlight pours in...

I remember Venice Allan getting the same complaint, at her first We Need To Talk meeting. She had invited something like 24 separate trans people or organisations, all of whom refused.

No debate was never going to work long-term.

My secondhand embarrassment just went off the scale and now I'm rocking under the kitchen table until it abates.

(I wonder if he'll unfollow now she's deleted the original tweet)

Just listened to it. Oh dear !
It's a shame the Stonewall single sex exemption campaign wasn't proven but otherwise a great set of interviews.

Glad she's deleted it.

Radio isn't the medium a transwoman would accept to debate this with a woman.

So Kathy Burke tweeted something about Ben was just pointing out there should have been a trans person on the interview, but has now deleted it. Maybe she realised that a discussion about women's rights and safety should have actually had a woman involved.

The clip's available here on YouTube, for easy access.

Justin Webb voice of reason and sense!!

Will read the rest of the thread now

@Chrysanthemum5 thanks for the explanation - that makes sense! I suppose I was coming from the 'trans range' which isn't understood by the public, where if we're talking transsexual it's why are women being mean to Hayley from Corrie.

Chrysanthemum5 thanks for the explanation - that makes sense! I suppose I was coming from the 'trans range' which isn't understood by the public, where if we're talking transsexual it's why are women being mean to Hayley from Corrie.

[quote FindTheTruth]Article
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9663325/You-dont-know-BBC-Radio-4-host-Justin-Webb-clash-Pink-News-CEO.html

The interview segment

And they got in the big fat lie.

Article
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9663325/You-dont-know-BBC-Radio-4-host-Justin-Webb-clash-Pink-News-CEO.html

The interview segment

OMFG!

I’m listening to it now and it is an absolute car crash. Well, BC’s part in it anyway.

‘Misinformation spread by a homophobic and transphobic media’.
Is he lying? Or is he, ahem, uninformed?

Oh, now we have top trumps!

Great ending - ‘Stonewall could have come on, but didn’t’.

Alex Sharpe is a bit of a worry Erish.

It has struck me that many people with professorships in the field of gender studies appear to be, well, a bit lacking in intellectual rigour.