Maya's judgement Thursday 10th June 10.30am

Sounds very apartheid. Not a long leap from: "She did define it later as people who believe skin colour is immutable and that white people should have white based services and spaces."

1. • how long a leap is it? Exactly? Can you quantify it please?
2. • the equivalent disadvantaged group in your example would be 'people of colour', not white people. Unless you're racist enough to think that POC have more privilege than white people.

A reminder to people who insist this is about Maya 'misgendering' people by using the wrong pronouns - she's misgendered exactly the same number of people that Mermaids have
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4246223-here-s-a-mermaids-fuck-up-to-brighten-your-sunday-morning

But women should have sex-based services and spaces. Why not?

I think they've scuppered their chance of an interview with her.

I hope they're now bitterly regretting their cowardice, and meetings are being held behind the scenes to talk about their remit and purpose going forward.

I don't think that's the gotcha people seem to think it is. Men can be bisexual and who he would personally choose as a sexual partner really isn't the point. I know men's sexual entitlement is a priority for most men but it doesn't need to become the centre of every single argument!

But it's not their sense of sexual entitlement you're trying to get at with that 'gotcha'. It's getting them to realise the cognitive dissonance of the fact that they almost certainly have been happy pootling along thinking TWAW because it's kind to say so and what harm does it do anyway. But that actually having sex with a TW... eek, no... turns out I don't think TWAW for those purposes. Of course men can be bisexual, but that certainly doesn't mean that the majority of TWAW-spouting husbands of GC MNers are.

Keeping everything crossed for Maya.

I can't believe that at the time of the first judgement / JKR backlash I believed that this was about Maya refusing to use a colleague's preferred pronouns.

Good lord, Woman's Hour are actually mentioning Maya's case.

Too little, too late. But about fucking time.

I think they've scuppered their chance of an interview with her.

"She did define it later as people who believe skin colour is immutable and that white people should have white based services and spaces."

It's too exclusionary and divisive, versus inclusive. We should be supporting gender diverse people, with of course proper safeguards that already exist within the Equality act where there is a legitimate purpose - but those need to be legitimate and not just to exclude and denigrate others.

If the judgement supports Maya, then all other sorts of beliefs that people may not agree with can be expressed as well without consequence. Scary actually. Be careful what you wish for.

Good lord, Woman's Hour are actually mentioning Maya's case.

Too little, too late. But about fucking time.

Name check on the Forstater case on Woman's Hour by Emma Barnett as part of "today's question is about free speech".

Just love when Hancock is being interviewed. It always makes me laugh. He's a loveable scamp even if I disagree with most of what he says. 26 minutes to go ..........

Yes Midsomer that's it. It took me a very long time to understand all of this myself. But we most certainly need a better phrase than - gender critical - in my opinion. I like your - definition - I might use it elsewhere.

To distract myself I am watching Matt Hancock being grilled on the Covid response I find it almost impossible to believe he's only 42

Jedi my DH is great totally on my side in this. He just finds some of it confusing, because it is confusing to most people. So he wouldn't understand the phrase - gender critical - but he most certainly does not think a trans women is a woman. I'm not going to sweat the small stuff like explaining GC to him. I just tell him about women's safe spaces and he totally gets that.

Yes, it's dawning on them that there is a bandwagon to jump on. A little late in the day, like their sex&gender programmes that happened after the GRA consultation closed.

I think it's because - gender critical - sounds negative. That you are -critical- and therefore - against something. And most people have no clue what being gender critical actually means

Yes this has been discussed in another thread. The reason GC thinking has been vilified is that people don’t know what “gender” means and also don’t know what “critical” means. The uninformed interpretation is that it’s about not liking trans people, hence the constant “transphobic” accusations. The truth that this is about questioning a highly controversial view about gender being an internal essence (like a soul) is more tricky for people to grasp.

I think it would be too unpredictable for Woman's Hour to cover this today but have a look at this:

twitter.com/BBCWomansHour/status/1402899494019244033

"DH, if we split up would you be equally open about your next sexual partner being a woman with a penis, or a woman who used to have a penis, or would you prefer to sleep with a woman who was born female and never changed?"

I don't think that's the gotcha people seem to think it is. Men can be bisexual and who he would personally choose as a sexual partner really isn't the point.
I know men's sexual entitlement is a priority for most men but it doesn't need to become the centre of every single argument!

Blunt but effective.

go to about 2.46

Just listened to Joanna Cherry. The interviewer was trying to create the usual Fox News fake alarm about "hate speech " and Joanna Cherry was very firmly having none of it.
Brava that woman.