R4 now Tuesday 7.51 am

Just finished listening.

In a nutshell Fanshawe makes a well considered, reasonable statement to express his opinion that Stonewall has lost its way by taking a position that's divisive and furthermore refusing to acknowledge and engage on the subject of women's rights in order to find a way forward.

Cohen them beautifully illustrates what Fanshawe has said by going on an aggressive ranty diatribe, refusing to answer questions and when pushed mis-represents the truth.

Lesson to Stonewall: we know you're probably "in hiding" at the moment hoping the bad press will blow over, but if you're invited on Radio 4 it's wise to turn up because otherwise you'll get contributors like Cohen who'll make matters worse and provide additional bad PR (not that we mind of course....always happy to see Cohen do his bit for women's rights).

Stonewall have realised that at the moment every time they or their behaviours are examined in the media they end up looking like a toxic organisation. However, even when they hide, if someone tries to speak on their behalf they end up looking even worse.

Now would be a good time to reformulate their media strategy. Oh.

Just listening again. "Benjamin Cohan, thanks for your time, Stonewall could have come on but didn't' sounds so neutral but the contempt in his voice! Delicious.

lovetomato

Not a meme, but was it this interview with Ruth Hunt?
The clip isn't long but the 'it's admin' bit is at 2.28

www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10156799051311323

Yes - Simon Fanshawe was there as founding member criticising the organisation. BC was there because Stonewall refused to take part.

It's interesting that the Today Programme piece is being framed as a trans rights discussion. It's like they're now admitting the bit no one is supposed to say out loud - that the T has very little in common with LGB and was only ever using it as a trojan horse.

Bunbury has extensive detail on those (and other) tactics:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3438714-Bunbury-s-Public-Service-Announcement-2

Why didn’t stonewall want to take part? Running scared, and realizing what they’re fighting for is bullshit.

[quote BoreOfWhabylon]@Tanith
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.

Also a tactic beloved of politicians. Stupid stupid man trying it against an interviewer of Justin Webb's calibre.[/quote]
It's also a tactic we see on these boards all the time:
'Tell me about ....' thereby derailing the conversation away from the thread (often on to toilets - funnily enough I've never seen a derail into, let's say women's sports or prisons).
Or sometimes we're presented with a list of questions.

And we run around (me included) to answer them and the discussion is lost.

Not Justin Webb: 'Your statement is noted,' he said (or something very similar). 'Now are you going to answer the question?'

I think we can all learn from that.

Just a reminder to everyone here that the LGB Alliance welcomes everyone who supports the rights of LGB people. You don't have to be LGB to sign up to newsletters etc.

lgballiance.org.uk

It would be interesting to see the Venn diagram of those commenters and their reaction to India W's Good Morning appearance with Posie Parker and the performance of the interviewers

Ahh but the interviewers on that occasion were prepared to throw away logic with a singular focus on being kind. That's what is required. To shut up, ignore the reality and just be kind. This is the approved activist position. Hence those interviewers would get the equivalent of a 5 star stonewall rating. 👍

JW was a bloody marvel!! How right he is - on SW/PrickNews logic he, of course, could identify as a woman on a Tuesday.

It would be interesting to see the Venn diagram of those commenters and their reaction to India W's Good Morning appearance with Posie Parker and the performance of the interviewers.

Benjamin should have been much better prepared than this. I couldn’t believe he trotted out the ‘it’s just paperwork’ line regarding Self-ID. I remember an irritating meme with Owen Jones, (possibly interviewing Shon F?) where he incredulously laughs in a ‘why you getting your knickers in a twist’ way about self-ID and says ‘it’s just admin’. I wish I could find it!

BC must have known he was going to have to hit back with some substance - quite telling that he was unable to muster up anything half-way credible. I bet Ruth Hunt is glad she’s reclining in the oak-panelled House of Lords, probably thinking ‘thank fuck I got out when I did’ What a legacy she left for Nancy.

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.

Well that didn't work out too well for Benjamin did it. He looked like an utter tool. Maybe he should take a crash course in the importance of coherent debates, logic and facts.

@WinterTrees didn't you get the memo?
Stonewall is a trans organisation now because all the gay stuff has been sorted.
Everywhere.

simonfanshawe.com/

@Tanith
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.

Also a tactic beloved of politicians. Stupid stupid man trying it against an interviewer of Justin Webb's calibre.

I would LOVE to hear Katy Montgomerie on the Today programme. Ask her about the suffragettes, and why she would have had a vote before any of them did

I find Katy utterly insufferable. But I probably would listen for entertainment purposes. This morning's car crash made my day.

Wait a minute, wasn't the slot on the Today Programme to discuss Stonewall and why it, as an organisation, has lost so much support lately? (sorry, can't remember how the segment was introduced.)

Why then the tantrum over having two gay men discussing it, and no trans people? Stonewall is still supposed to be an LGBT organisation, is it not? Why is it being put forward as an outrage that one letter from that acronym wasn't elevated above the others?

I would LOVE to hear Katy Montgomerie on the Today programme. Ask her about the suffragettes, and why she would have had a vote before any of them did.

Why would they want to interview Katy Montgomery. They're just some random trans rights activist. Much better to have Benjamin Cohen. A slightly more identifiable angry activist. Who interviews very badly.

Anyway, seeing as this isn't about trans rights, but the impact on women's rights, then if they were going to add anyone else to the mix then it should be an actual woman. Not a biological male. However they present.

He really doesn't seem to care, or realise, that it's just men speaking about a woman's issue.

It’s also about the right of people who are same sex attracted to clearly define their sexuality.

So all the trans activists are begging to get onto programmes to debate this stuff now?

Er... good? Let's go!

Sorry, other posters have done this already.