The Baroness on R4 Today after 8am

Nor*

I was struggling to find the right words too. Because I don't actually want people to see trans women as the enemy and all a danger. But not do I want them mislead

And that sounds really flippant, which is not what I meant to do. I'm finding it hard to say what I want to say

Not forgetting the assumption that trans women have had hormones, surgery. Not just popped on a dress.

I have said before, and will doubtless say again, that there needs to be a glossary before every segment, interview, article etc. How many people hear trans woman and think it means a woman who wishes to be seen as a man? They think that we are saying women who dress differently should not be in women's prisons etc and quite rightly support the trans person (couldn't think of a better phrase). Prople tend to face an entirely difficult reaction when they know what the terms really mean.

I think pp are right, the BBC thought they were being balanced, but this baroness is NOT on one side of the debate. She was trying very hard to remain neutral, and comment only on the legality. Which is why Michal's questioning of her was ridiculous. Although it comes to something when stating biological fact is no longer regarded as neutral. The BBC need to do much much better.

If we can change sex, that would extend my fertility as I could produce sperm later in life. Why isn't this suggested in fertility clinics? Women's fertility needn't be so fraught. Just do the sex change to being a man and your fertile life will be hugely extended.

Isn't it wonderful they just discovered this ability for humans to change sex after millions of years?

I got the impression she was trying to not get drawn into the substance of the GC/trans argument but just say that GC views are not a reason for losing your job.

It came out as trans people have a right not to be offended and of course they can use loos of their choice.

Hmm.

[quote GiantKitten]twitter.com/ehrc/status/1403269165599932417?s=21[/quote]
Bit bloody late isn't it.

Who's written into Any Questions tonight?

I actually thought the beeb tried to do fair today. They had someone on from 'either side' of the debate. The issue was the Baroness was so hopeless. She was there to say that gender critical views are enshrined in law and the BBC were to ask her how that balanced against the rights of trans people, who are also protected in the EHRC.

There was presumably a tone and line of questioning and it was difficult to switch course knowing this was the balance to the pushing on HB earlier in the show. Again, the Baroness should really have been clearer how it protects against GC views and how this is distinct from transphobia.

It's pretty clear now that the current policy makers, Stonewall are not fit for purpose. Someone needs to be making decisions on toilets and changing rooms for people without a GRC.

I was walking when this was on and could not help but stomp a lot. Worra loads bollocks. Definitely the wrong Baroness! Is there a transcript? Because my take away was if you swapped out "trans people" with "women and girls" every time it was said, then more people would understand what this entire argument is about. Why does the possibility of offending one small group mean the removal of the right to discuss the effects on 51% of the population? Why aren't women and girls worthy of the same respect transwomen are expecting?

And then to follow it with a segment about education of girls in the developing world Those girls don't get to identify out of their lack of education, do they?

I've always been a huge supporter of the BBC but I don't see how I can support it now. It's clearly partisan on this issue and much as I hate playing into Tory hands, we really need to challenge what's going on. The BBC has clearly taken a side and is holding the rights of a tiny minority of transpeople above the fundamental rights of women. It's clearly betraying its remit.

To what extent are broadcasters who are Stonewall Champions facing a conflict of interest I wonder - too much critical debate on the issue could see their position in the ranking slip?

twitter.com/ehrc/status/1403269165599932417?s=21

Hmmm … so Belcher, who is on the Stonewall Trans Advisory panel, was happy to do an interview with the BBC about GC views (albeit under the Transactual banner), but not to do an interview about the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme?

I wonder why?

^So, if you believe that you are born with an inherent sex that can't be changed, eg XY or XX chromosomes, this is now not science but akin to a religious or philosophical belief?
^

Science is a philosophical belief, it seems absurd that the right to believe in it goes to court but this where we are.

The good news is that the judgement did point out that the belief in biological sex is the default position of English law.

Of course not. Imagine the outrage if female people started identifying as trans women and took board positions reserved for LGBT people or started being featured on lists like "Top trans people in business". Quite rightly, that would be seen as appropriative and hugely unfair.

‘Trans women are male’ was made out to be some awfully offensive thing to believe.

Isn’t it the very definition of trans woman? Can you be a trans woman if you are not male?

Maya was on TalkRadio here:

talkradio.co.uk/news/watch-talkradio-live-21010633569

I think she was on about 8.30 am

Helen Belcher's main message was that the win yesterday has changed nothing. The law before was that gender critical people can't harass trans people in the workplace and that remains the law. As indicated by Belcher, so long as GC people feel they have to be on guard and are aware that they can still be reported by colleagues and sanctioned by employers, then things can go on exactly as before.

Despite the positive spin, Belcher knows that something is now at risk of being lost, and that's the climate of fear in the workplace and that's what trans activists are desperately trying to shore up. That would be a real loss of power.

Belcher knows that the decision does free things up considerably for GC people and they can express their concerns where something is going on to cause those concerns whereas until yesterday they knew that doing that would put them at an unpredictable risk and open them up to abuse that they wouldn't be able to counter.

That the law hasn't changed is true but misses the point. What has changed is that employers and others were misunderstanding and/or misapplying the law and its now clear that if that continues GC people can challenge this.

YY. It's all spin. They are very rattled.