@Letsgetreadytocrumble
I'm also thinking of that James O'brien LBC radio interview from a couple of years ago, where he treated a female caller with such contempt because she dared to say that she didn't think that transwomen should be in female changing rooms, and then brought on a transwoman caller and basically metaphorically stroked their hair and said 'there there, we won't let those nasty women bully you'.....
Today it feels like we have come an awfully long way from that 
The woman he belittled was Posie Parker. Little did James "Right Side of History My Arse" O'Brien know that she would become an internationally known spokeswoman for the defence of women's spaces (love her or loathe her, she has single handedly had more impact with her poster campaigns than a hundred polite debates have).
I am waiting for Little JOB to change his tune now the tide is turning. He doesn't like being in he wrong, but is usually unable to articulate why he is right either. That's why his phone in callers are either low hanging fruit type males who can't argue their corner either, or women he can patronise and talk over with straw men arguments, using personal attacks or turning himself into the issue ( e.g. "Are you saying you'd be frightened if I was in the changing room next to you?) .
Re the JW interview this morning, I am feeling a bit more wary about it (even though it was delicious). Shoving this complex discussion, and one of incredible importance given Stonewall's reputation and reach, into the few minutes between Thought for the Day and the 8 o'clock notices seemed a deliberate attempt to sew more confusion than light. Not on JW's part, but I assume it's the producers who set the timetable, not him. And of course, the producers line up the interviewees, and I do find it hard to believe there was absolutely nobody else available to comment, not even the ususal rentagob types that are usually all over breakfast TV on this issue. Obviously, they didn't know what Ben Cohen would say, but part of me thinks it wouldn't matter, because predictably, he's the one getting the headlines, and TRAs will hear what they want to hear. Simon Fanshawe's reasonable and fact based words end up a footnote, when they are the most important parts of the "debate" - the simple fact that safeguarding exists because you have to think of the worst case scenario. BC can argue he was never speaking for the trans community anyway, and that this interview proves the BBC is a hostile place for them anyway, given his "treatment".
The bright side is that more and more hitherto quietly GC people are vocally pushing back; and people who didn't realise they were GC, but felt resistant to the compulsory "education" and "celebration" , can see they are not alone. The Emperor's willy is in clear view now.