The Baroness on R4 Today after 8am

How is the public ever going to understand what is happening to women's rights when this is the coverage?

I think that's how the TRAs have got away with it thus far.

This Baroness was rubbish. I think she said “trans people have the right not to be offended”? Surely no one has that right? The right surely is “not to be harassed and bullied.”
I think she missed a “don’t” out?

How is the public ever going to understand what is happening to women's rights when this is the coverage?

And as for the loo scenario that someone mentioned here, if a TW enters and looks fairly mannish, presumably his 'right' to be there now trumps my 'right' to feel uncomfortable in what should be a women-only space? Great.

The BBC are being very disingenuous here, aren't they? Of course, Baroness Falkner holds an equalities remit so probably can't take a full-on women's-rights view — so she needs to be kept out of the media and someone like Baroness Nicholson can take her place.

What a woeful interview. It succeeded in giving the impression that Maya and all GC people hold unreasonable, unkind views and will now feel free to go round picking on poor, vulnerable transpeople. And of course most people listening will have no idea of Helen Belcher's involvement with Stonewall or that HB has made the Lib Dems the TWAW party it is today. And no idea of the distinction between gender dysphoria and autogynephilia.

My adult DC tell me I'm a transphobe because of my GC views. They still spout TWAW at me.

More to that happydappy2 but imagine you walk in to the toilets*, see a transwoman there, and turn on your heel and walk out. Is that harassment meaning you have to suppress your unease in order to validate their feelings?

• yes, toilets are only a small part of a much bigger whole

Baroness Nicholson may have been a much more suitable interviewee, to be honest, rather than a trans activist and a neutral party.

In the context of a workplace toilet, that is exactly where the right to say 'a transwoman is male' is necessary. In order to maintain the single sex spaces which are granted women through the equality act. Unless I have misunderstood everything

Not quite Notradespeopleareavailable. It's science, and it's fact that just about everyone knows, but as far as being protected under Equalities law in the UK, it is treated as a belief.

What I don’t understand is, if I work with a trans person (born male) but they are identifying as female and wish to use the ladies loos. If I as a woman object and raise my concerns to my boss, what is the correct protocol? Am I meant to feel uncomfortable & deal with it or is the employer supposed to provide a gender neutral loo for the trans person?

Another thing - every time someone talks about Maya's right to her beliefs, then in the next breath says only extreme views like Nazism can be proscribed against, it seems to create a link between GC and extreme views. In the same way as "Don't think about a cat" makes you think about a cat. Although that might just be me.

Anyone hear the Baroness Falkner section? They played Helen Belcher talking about the horrors of being a transwoman working in an organisation where they knew that people didn't like them/ didn't approve, the discomfort of using women's loos knowing they might be challenged by a colleague. So victims.

Mishal Hussein then got very firm with Baroness Falkner about how unpleasant and unfair this is, and instead of saying 'What about all the women in the organisation who are extremely uncomfortable at having to share facilities with a male-sex person, so they count for nothing?' Falkner took a 'we all have to be able to deal with discomfort' approach and sounded very defensive.

Michal Hussein also said something along the lines of it seeming very harsh that TWs might feel uncomfortable at work when they'd gone through such a long and stressful process in order to change their sex', which had me wanting to throw the radio across the room. Clearly doesn't understand that people like Karen White and Alex Drummond have done nothing more than don nail varnish, lippy and a skirt.

The overall impression (sorry, getting ready to go to work) is that GC people are now going to use the protection confirmed yesterday to harass trans colleagues.

Grrrrrr.

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?

Yes. The focus was almost completely on the feelings of trans people, well, let's be honest, transwomen. As an indication of Baroness Falkner not having enough of a grip of this, she said that we all have the right not to be offended.

Anyone else very disappointed?

Btw - thread title says “The Baroness” - we usually refer to Baroness Nicholson this way, who has been a staunch supporter of gender critical feminists in the HoL. This interview was with Baroness Faulkner, the EHRC chair.

Shame that this is all focused on trans people. The judgement was that it is a protected belief that humans cannot change sex. Why are we focusing on the hurty feelings of trans people, and not the defence of free speech on matters of material biological reality.

Starting now 08:37 with Baroness Faulkner

This is the summary of the Belcher interview I posted on the other thread:

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.

Belcher did score one hit, which was talking about Maya then giving example of unpleasant behaviour in the workplace, and leaving in the air that that's what Maya had said and done. Unfortunately Mishal Husain didn't take the basic step of asking whether that's what Maya had actually said and done.

Baroness Falkner coming up now. She'll have more relevant things to say.

I'm now maintaining the view from Simon Fanshawe that safeguarding for children doesn't mean we believe all adults are predators, but the safeguards must be put in place. Same for self ID in my arguments from now on.

This is the crux of the issue and I'm so glad it was said on the radio the other day.

Most men aren't predators but we still have single sex spaces. The vast vast majority of people applying for jobs working with vulnerable people aren't predators but we still do DBS checks.

Is it too soon to set up TRA bingo for these sorts of interviews.
Gendered souls
Be kind
Very limited
Rights already exist
Evangelical right
No problem in Ireland [coughs name of doll and reality TV star]
Just wanna pee
Suicide risk
Most oppressed